Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 041917 AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board April 19, 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 6:45 1. 2. 3. 4. 4.a. 5. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum Approval of Minutes from February 15, 2017 and March 1, 2017 Consideration of Additions to the Agenda Special Presentations Update on March 2017 Mountain-to-Sea Trail Open House Meeting (Marabeth Carr) Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items) 7:10 7:40 8:15 5.a. 6. 6.a. 7.0 7.a. 7.b. 7.c. Draft Orange County Transportation Project Priority List – Using adopted plans, Orange County has created a list of projects for submission to the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO), Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) MPO, and the Triangle Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) for consideration of inclusion in the 2020-2029 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This is the first step in the Prioritization 5.0 process. (Max Bushell) OUTBoard Action: Staff recommends that the Board consider and recommend to the BOCC the list of priority transportation projects for each MPO/RPO to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2020-2029 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Informational Items Carrboro to Hillsborough Multi-Use Path Update (Max Bushell) Staff Updates Orange County & NCDOT Meeting Notes (Abigaile Pittman) Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) March 21, 2017 Meeting Update (Abigaile Pittman) Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Updates (Abigaile Pittman, Max Bushell)  Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Next Steps Resolution  Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report OUTBoard Action on all informational items: Receive information and provide any comments that the Board might have. 1 8:25 8:30 8.0 9.0 Board Comments Adjournment – The next regularly scheduled meeting date is May 17, 2017. 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 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD FEBRUARY 15, 2017 REGULAR MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Alex Castro (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative; Alyson West, At-Large; Jenn Sykes, At-Large MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Jeff Charles, At-Large Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Justin Miller, At- Large STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; Peter Murphy, Transit Administrator; Theo Letman, Transit Director; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant. OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Janice Tyler, Aging Director; Janet Sparks, Child Support Director; Lisa Berley, Office Assistant II; Serena McPherson, Administrative Assistant III AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Heidi Perry, Chair called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM 2: INTRODUCTION OF NEW OUTBOARD MEMBERS Abigaile Pittman introduced new member Jenn Sykes and introduced Theo Letman. AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2016 MEETING No quorum so Board could not vote. AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA No additions. AGENDA ITEM 5: TRANSIT SERVICES/ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) AGENDA ITEM 5A. OPT QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL UPDATES – (PETER MURPHY) Peter Murphy Presented Peter Murphy stated that there aren’t a lot of riders coming out of Cedar Grove, but there are a few regulars that really need the service who are using it. Alex Castro mentioned a new community center in Cedar Grove that is under utilized and that they are trying to organize more activities there, which may help to increase ridership. Lisa Berley added that she’s leading a bus trip in March from that bus stop to the Hillsborough Hospital that is the first of more outings, which might also help to increase ridership in that area. Heidi Perry inquired about having a bus for second shift employees at the hospital so it would be available to them when they got off work as a way to expand the services. Peter Murphy agreed that it was something they could look into and ask some questions about. 3 DRAFT Peter Murphy continued presentation. Lisa Berley asked if funding was lost in the first pie (the funding breakdown for OPT services) if it could be made up with the transit tax. Peter Murphy answered that with the way it’s written right now that it could not be done that way because the transit tax was intended to put new services out there, not to pay for existing services. He also added that the County is in negotiations right now because the Bus and Rail Investment Plan is five years old and it’s subject to the next step in negotiations and there’s a lot of discussion on that. Lisa replied that she thinks that it should be looked at because of the demands on services and if there’s another funding source for transportation it would be very good for aging services. Janice Tyler added that she’d like the OUTBoard group to look at other funding for this and mentioned that if they didn’t have to spend the $60,000 from the Block Grant on transportation that it could redirected to other services if there was another funding source for getting the seniors to the senior center. Heidi Perry said that that would require a lot of discussion because that would involve taking it from some other part of the pie. Peter Murphy confirmed that would be the case and added that they still expect to see the funds from the block grant next year. He also explained that over the past several years they’ve vetted what growth plans they want to do and voted on the services they’d like to put out there. And based on the amount of funding available they had a list of priority order of what they’re putting out there, so if the lost funding was used for old services they’d have to take away from new services. Peter Murphy continued presentation. Alex Castro asked Peter if they were going to be able to handle the additional vehicles coming in March with regards to drivers. Peter replied that it was something they’re working on; the lack of drivers has been a regional struggle. Heidi Perry asked which routes the new buses would be serving. Peter Murphy said there are restrictions with where they can put them because they got them through urban funding so they’d have to be used in urban areas. He added that one bus was an expansion and the other two are replacements and they’ll be able to be used for the Hill-to-Hill Shuttle and the Hillsborough Circulator. Heidi Perry also inquired about why this was happening well beyond the proposed expansion schedule and Peter replied that it was due to driver shortages. He added that with Theo’s help they’re looking into alternative options to get people licensed instead of fighting for the few that are already licensed. Alex Castro then inquired if they were going to have additional staff to be able to handle the expansions. Peter answered that that’s something that he, Malcum, and Theo have been discussing a lot and would like to add that into an item when there’s a quorum. Lisa Berley inquired about the steps on the new buses being so steep and challenging. Malcum Massenburg acknowledged that it’s a known problem and it’s likely that the new buses that are coming are going to be similar. He added that drivers have the option of offering the lift to anyone that may have difficulty with it and that some people use it and some people don’t. Heidi Perry inquired about the expansion for the senior center. Peter Murphy confirmed that that this had been done and that there’s an additional pick-up at 3:30 instead of only at 1:00 o’ clock. Lisa Berley spoke about it and said that there were some that used it and really enjoyed it, but the majority still leave at 1:00 o’ clock. Peter Murphy concluded that he expects that they’ll be seeing more and more ridership with all the new housing developments that are popping up and with all the calls that they’ve been getting. AGENDA ITEM 5B. NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION (NEMT) – (PETER MURPHY) Peter Murphy Presented Alex Castro asked Peter if they were taking into account the general and administrative expenses for dispatch and scheduling, and the costs if somebody is a no-show and how they’d compensate for that. Peter Murphy answered 4 DRAFT that they don’t get paid if someone is a no-show, unless the person pays for it themselves. He added that this kind of thing is an actual expense associated with providing the service and that NCDOT has been helping with calculating out the proper price. Janet Sparks asked if there could be this kind of calculation for other departments and services with indirect costs such as Human Resources, the parking deck, the county attorney’s office, etcetera. Peter Murphy answered that they’ll be putting that in there so it will capture all costs so there are no hidden costs. Jenn Sykes suggested allocating extra time for errors and delays. Heidi Perry voiced concerns regarding how much it would cost to pay someone to track down the $22 reimbursement. The Board had a unanimous general consensus of support for the recommendation for a half time FTE position to assist with Medicaid filling and other transit sources. Peter Murphy spoke about consideration to help support the Class Fridays event and have some transportation running in the evening in the west Hillsborough and Fairview neighborhoods, which happens through the spring and summer months. Heidi Perry requested getting more information regarding costs and available drivers before supporting that. Donna Musson added that it could be a good opportunity to advertise the service. Heidi Perry then asked how they were doing with advertising more with the routes they have available to Hillsborough. Peter Murphy answered that with having the new Director they’re going to be able to focus on that effort a lot more. He also added that now that they’ve added the Go Pass, UNC will start advertising for them and the County will be making additional contact with them. There was discussion with regards to having a special event to make people more aware of the services and the Expo was brought up. Abigaile Pittman had said that with the Expo being in an urban mall in Chapel Hill a lot of people from the County aren’t there. Heidi Perry suggested have two Expos or finding a better venue. Heidi also mentioned the transportation fair at UNC. Alex Castro added to that by suggesting OPT have a vehicle there so that people can see it. This would give them the opportunity to circulate around Hillsborough. 5C. TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES (TAS) COMMENTS/QUESTIONS – (PETER MURPHY) AGENDA ITEM 6: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) 6A. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) Item deferred to March OUTBoard meeting due to lack of quorum. 6A. DURHAM CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (DCHC MPO) COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP) COMMENTS AND ENDORSEMENT – (MAX BUSHELL) Max presented item. There was a discussion about a Hillsborough Bypass route that Art Menius had proposed with regard to the last discussion. There was a concern about tractor-trailers being able to navigate this route. Max continued presentation Heidi Perry had a concern, namely that having four lanes on Churton Street will only make the congestion problem worse (as proposed in the TIP project). Alex Castro seconded this concern. Max Bushell replied that the four lanes 5 DRAFT and the Orange Grove Road extension would at least relieve some traffic that would turn right onto US-70 A, but reiterated that there’s no perfect solution. He also added that he included some basic history of the congestion on Churton Street, along with numerous proposals for bypasses that were shot down in the Board’s packets to give a better idea of what solutions have been suggested and why they were unsuccessful. Alex Castro had concerns with all the new developments that are only going to make traffic worse. Heidi Perry stated that she thinks the Orange Grove Road extension will help but doesn’t think the added lanes are needed. Max Bushell also informed the Board that the interchange improvement and the Orange Grove Road extension will happen first and that the widening of Churton Street has fallen off the process and will not be funded. He added that that’s a decision that will come back before the Board again if they want to add that to the DCHC MPO projects. Jenn Sykes also had concerns with regard to doing work on both ends and nothing in between. Alex Castro added the concern of the road not being compatible with BRT operation with the way it is. Alex Castro also spoke about the lack of incentive for people to carpool, and thinks there should be more local incentive and have it advertised appropriately so that people are away aware of those incentives. Max Bushell informed the Board that Duke, UNC, and Go Triangle offer similar incentives, but that many people are unaware of these benefits. Heidi Perry suggested having a separated bike path instead of widening the road for a bike path because it’s not an ideal road for a bike path due to it being narrow and winding. She also added that with the school and parks along that area, a separated bike path would be a great economic development tool for tourism. Her second suggestion was that adding capacity with the four lanes is only going to make the congestion worse. She decided to send a private letter to the BOCC in regard to that concern. Max Bushell stated that he would add it to the CTP comments as well. Alex Castro asked if the authors of the CTP had calculated the anticipated traffic density as part of the document, if they took into account all the new developments that were coming, and if the traffic projections were accurate. Max Bushell answer that yes; they go through a very vigorous and detailed process to get those calculations and he believes they are more accurate than projections that were done in the past, as they are using newer tools starting in 2012. Heidi Perry asked if they looked at the decrease in the number of the amount of car ownership among millennials. Max Bushell confirmed that they do try to include some element of that in the scenario planning. Jenn Sykes asked about minimizing traffic through the middle of downtown by going to the south and around; i.e. getting off 40 and going down Oakdale, hitting Orange Grove and using that to get to other parts of downtown. She added that that’s the area to look into building out and looking for paths through those residential areas. Max Bushell replied that he thinks there was a western bypass considered in that region, but that proposal was shot down because of the critical watershed and possibly neighborhood opposition. Jenn also added that the neighborhoods dead end but they could build a connector through someone’s property. Max Bushell concluded his presentation with a few more information items, and asked everybody to send him their comments and feedback. He also informed everybody about the public open house at the Orange Public Library on February 16 from 5:30-7:30. AGENDA ITEM 7: BOARD COMMENTS There was discussion about moving the meeting date in March. No date was set. The Chair requested that Abigaile Pittman send out a Doodle poll to the entire OUTBoard. AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus. ____________________________________ Heidi Perry, Chair 6 DRAFT MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2 MARCH 1, 2017 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; David 7 Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Alex Castro 8 (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River 9 Township Representative; Alyson West, At-Large; Justin Miller, At- Large; Jenn Sykes, At-Large; 10 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, At-Large Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Donna 12 Musson, Eno Township Representative; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant. 15 16 OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Nancy Baker, Walkable Hillsborough Coalition; Seu Wang, UNC 17 Graduate Student; 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 20 21 Heidi Perry called the meeting to order. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24 JANUARY 18, 2017 MEETING 25 26 MOTION by Alyson West to approve the January 18, 2017 OUTBoard Minutes. Seconded by Justin Miller. 27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 30 31 No additions. 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) 34 35 36 AGENDA ITEM 4A. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) PLAN IMPLEMENTATION NEXT STEPS (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 37 38 Abigaile Pittman Presented 39 40 Heidi Perry asked about how the bridge was classified then and now. Abigaile Pittman replied that it was originally 41 classified as rural without foot traffic. Abigaile added that she wasn’t certain as to whether or not it had been 42 officially reclassified since then. 43 44 There was discussion with regard to concern about the lack of urgency with such a safety hazard, possible 45 immediate temporary action. Abigaile Pittman replied that NCDOT is considering temporary fencing and preparing 46 cost estimates. 47 48 Heidi Perry proposed an addition to the changes to the SRTS implementation next steps resolution as follows: “The 49 OUTBoard believes that one of the most important things a transportation plan must do is to protect community 50 children on their way to and from school, we feel this is an urgent issue that needs immediate attention. The 51 OUTBoard requests that the BOCC prioritize the safety improvements along the bridge and the routes on either 52 side of it as indicated in this resolution.” She also suggested adding flashing lights under the first bullet under cross 53 7 DRAFT walks. On the second page, the second open bullet, instead of pursue future maintenance, to “work with the Town 54 of Hillsborough to prepare future maintenance agreements for sidewalks.” For the second filled in bullet she 55 suggested requesting that “Orange County Planning staff and the staff of Orange County School Board include 56 sidewalks in the Cedar Ridge High School project construction plans”. For the third dark bullet she requested that is 57 be reworded to say “Request NCDOT evaluate areas along Orange Grove Road and adjacent roads in the vicinity 58 of the schools to identify possible immediate (within the next year) temporary and long term safety improvements, 59 including flashing lights, signage, striping, and the reduction of speed limits”. The rest of that bullet would read the 60 same. And finally she suggested adding a bullet that says, “Request NCDOT immediately address current safety 61 issues on the bridge resulting from noncompliant rail heights.” 62 63 Motion by Alex Castro to endorse the Safe Routes to School Implementation Plan, with edits suggested by the 64 Chair and agreed to by all the OUTBoard members. Seconded by Art Menius. 65 Vote: Unanimous 66 67 AGENDA ITEM 4B. BICYCLE SAFETY TASK FORCE (BSTF) FINAL DRAFT REPORT – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 68 69 Abigaile Pittman Presented 70 71 Abigaile Pittman suggested adding the Report’s recommendation of a future implementation infrastructure committee 72 to the section recommending the implementation task force on page 25. Ted Triebel suggested adding use of the 73 median on page 25. Jenn Sykes suggested adding locations, such as at Weaver Street Market in Hillsborough, for 74 community outreach where large bicycling groups meet on Saturdays and Sundays. Heidi Perry suggested just 75 adding cycling events on page 57. Art Menius suggested adding education. 76 77 Motion by Alex Castro to endorse Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) final draft report, with suggested edits. 78 Seconded by Alyson West. 79 Vote: Unanimous 80 81 Motion by Art Menius to forward the report to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by 82 Alex Castro. 83 Vote: Unanimous 84 85 86 AGENDA ITEM 5: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 87 88 5A. NCDOT DIVISION 7 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE DCHC MPO PLANNING AREA – (MAX BUSHELL) 89 90 The list of projects was handed out to the Board. No discussion. 91 92 AGENDA ITEM 6: BOARD COMMENTS 93 94 Bonnie Houser spoke briefly about a meeting on Monday March 6th regarding the Mountain-to-Sea bike trail and 95 invited any members of the OUTBoard to come and get involved. 96 97 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT 98 99 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus. 100 101 102 ____________________________________ Heidi Perry, Chair 8 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 5.a. SUBJECT: Draft Orange County MPO and RPO Transportation Project Lists DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Funded P4.0 Projects Map 2.Table of P4.0 Projects 3.DCHC MPO Project List and Map 4.TARPO MPO Project List and Map 5.B-G MPO Project List and Map 6.P4.0 Carryover Projects INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Bushell, Transportation Planner, 919-245-2582 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 919-245-2579 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-245-2592 PURPOSE: To consider and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) transportation projects for the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO), Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO, and the Triangle Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2020-2029 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). BACKGROUND: Biennially, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a multi- year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) containing funding and scheduling information for transportation projects throughout the state including those for highways, aviation facilities, public transportation, ferry travel, freight rail, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The STIP is the major tool the State uses for the implementation of locally and regionally adopted transportation plans from which projects are conceived for programming consideration. In 2015 and 2016, the State, in conjunction with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and rural planning organizations (RPOs) throughout the state, progressed through the prioritization process for the 2018-2027 STIP, which is scheduled to be finalized and adopted by the North Carolina Board of Transportation in July 2017. 2020-2029 STIP The State is once again beginning the process of developing the 2020-2029 STIP, which is scheduled to be finalized and adopted in July 2019, and will be requesting local input for transportation project lists to be submitted through each local government’s respective MPO or RPO. Strategic Mobility Formula Implicit in this process is the application of the Strategic Mobility Formula (SMF), developed as part of the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) legislation adopted in 2013. The SMF uses an updated scoring methodology that institutes some changes to the inputs and weights used to rank projects for consideration and inclusion in the STIP. Although the development of this slightly modified methodology has not yet been finalized by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) Working Group, 9 it is important to note that these changes may have some implications for many of the projects Orange County has previously submitted and will likely be submitting in this next iteration of priorities. Further information on the SMF is accessible using the following weblink: https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/ SPOT P4.0 (May 2015 – January 2017) Orange County was successful in obtaining funding for five projects through the 2018-2027 STIP P4.0 prioritization process. Attachment 1 indicates the geographic location of all of the funded and unfunded projects across Orange County, while Attachment 2 lists the projects funded as part of the P4.0 process and provides a brief description. More information on the STIP development as it was implemented in the P4.0 process is accessible using the following weblink: https://www.ncdot.gov/download/strategictransportationinvestments/P4_Fact_Sheet.pdf An interactive map providing all of the projects included in the draft 2018-2027 STIP can be found at this weblink: http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=f311e4eaea4b4a8eabd6d5d 9cbe3d648 SPOT P5.0 Schedule In preparation for the P5.0 process, Orange County is again asked to submit its priority list of projects to the BGMPO, DCHC MPO, and TARPO for proposed projects contained within each organization’s respective planning area. Based on the State’s timeline for the adoption of its final 2020-2029 STIP, any new projects must be entered between July 5, 2017 and September 15, 2017. As such, the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) is scheduled to consider and recommend to the BOCC project lists for BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO at its April 19th meeting to be forwarded to the BOCC for consideration at its May 2nd meeting. The lists will then be assessed and prioritized at each MPO and RPO with input from the local jurisdictions. Local elected officials will have an opportunity to review the list as well. At the DCHC MPO, its Technical Committee will review and approve the priority project list at its meeting on May 24th; the MPO Board will be asked to approve at its meeting on June 14 th. With this timeline in mind, the deadline to submit a project list is April 17 th. At TARPO, a public comment period on the proposed lists is scheduled to open on May 1 st. The public comment period will close in July and final lists will be approved by the TARPO Technical Coordinating and Transportation Advisory Committees. The B-G MPO schedule is yet to be determined. SPOT P5.0 Project List Over the past few years, substantial effort has been dedicated to scoping projects to ensure that the maximum scores are obtained through the NCDOT prioritization process. As a reflection of these efforts, the updated project maps and lists for the DCHC MPO, TARPO, and B-G MPO in Orange County are provided in Attachment 3, Attachment 4, and Attachment 5, respectively. Attachment 6 provides a list of projects carried over from the last NCDOT SPOT prioritization process (P4.0). Planning efforts, e.g. the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the DCHC MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan, among others, provide the basis for all projects included on these draft project lists for submission to the P5.0 process. 10 FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item except that projects specifically categorized as bicycle and pedestrian projects will require a 20 percent local match from the County and will require the County to expend any costs related to right-of- way acquisition, engineering and design, and project management and administration if those projects are to be included in the STIP. RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard: 1. Consider the list of transportation projects for each MPO/RPO to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2020-2029 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and 2. Recommend the list to the BOCC. 11 ?o See Inset I 85 U S 7 0 CON N E C T O R ?k ?ª ?ª ?r Aæ I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o Ir KÊ AË ?ª Caswell Co. Person Co. Chatham Co. Durham Co.Alamance Co. Carrboro ChapelHill Mebane Cary Hillsborough Durham !22 !7 !18 !16 !17 !10!2 !13 !15 !11 !6 !21 !19 !23 !3 !20 All Orange County P4.0 Projects 2018-2027 STIP Project Status Unfunded Funded TARPO Boundary DCHC MPO Boundary B-G MPO Boundary Municipal Boundaries ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsMax Bushell (02/22/2017) 0 1Miles 1 in = 3 miles O R A N G E G R O V E R D O L D N C 8 6 W E S T H I L L A V E N W TRYO N ST E TRYON ST D I M M O C K S M I L L R D OAKDALEDR SCHURTONST E N OMOUNTAINR D !"c$ !"_$ K© ?ª !24 !8 !14 !5 !4 !3 !1 !12 Attachment 1 12 Attachment 2 Project Table – SPOT P4.0 Projects Number Submitted Project Project Description ALL MPO/RPO PROJECTS 1 South Churton Street (Old NC 86) from I-40 to Eno River Improvements Widen South Churton Street (SR 1009) from I-40 to Eno River to multiple lanes with congestion management, limited access, bicycle and pedestrian, and aesthetic improvements. 2 U.S. 70 East/I-85/I-40 Connector Modify the I-85/I-40 Connector (SR 1239) interchange at U.S. 70 to provide access from all directions. 3 I-40 Widening from I-40/I-85 interchange to NC 86 Widen I-40 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from the I-40/I-85 interchange to NC 86. 4 Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road Realign the intersection of Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148) and Mayo Street (SR 1192) with Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and make safety improvements. 5 I-85/NC 86 Interchange Improvements Reconstruct interchange at I-85 and NC 86 to accommodate increased traffic. 6 I-40 Widening from NC 86 to U.S. 15-501 Widen I-40 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from NC 86 to U.S. 15- 501/Durham County line. 7 I-40 and NC 86 Interchange Improvements Improve interchange at I-40 and NC 86. 8 Extend SR-1006 (Orange Grove Road) from SR- 1006 (Orange Grove Road) to US 70A Orange Grove Road Extension (Orange Grove Road to US 70) with Sidewalks and Bicycle Lanes. Construct grade separation at intersection of Orange Grove Road Extension and NCRR. 9 NC 54 and Neville Road Intersection Improvements Improve the intersection of NC 54 and Neville Road. 10 NC 86 Improvements North of Hillsborough Widen NC 86 from U.S. 70 Bypass to north of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at U.S. 70 Bypass and NC 57. 11 I-85 from Mt. Herman Church to Durham County Line Widening Widen one lane in each direction 12 I-85 from I-85/I-40 Split to east of the NC 86 Interchange Widening Widen one lane in each direction and improve interchanges 13 Homestead Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalks Improve Homestead Road (SR 1777) from Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86 to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks in sections of the corridor where they do not exist. 14 Dimmocks Mill Road Rail Crossing Improvement and Bellevue Street Closure Improve current Dimmocks Mill Rd (#735154S) grade separation and close Bellevue St (#735152D)Cost information does not exist at this time and a placeholder value of $1 was used in the cost estimating screen 15 Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening Widen Buckhorn Road from U.S. 70 to West Ten Road (SR1144) to multiple lanes with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 16 Mattress Factory Road Interchange Construct a new interchange at the existing grade-separated crossing of Mattress Factory Road and I-85/I-40. 17 Mattress Factory Road Extension to U.S. 70 Extend Mattress Factory Road northward across East Washington Street and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way to intersect U.S. 70 and close the existing railroad crossover road connecting East Washington Street and U.S. 70 approximately 240 feet to the east of the intersection of Mattress Factory Road and East Washington Street. 18 NC 54 Operational Improvements (Orange Grove Road - originally Dodsons Crossroads -to Old Fayetteville Road) Operational improvements along the corridor with bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. 13 Attachment 2 Number Submitted Project Project Description 19 Efland-Cedar Grove Road Improvements: Widen Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to the northern property line of the U.S. Post Office north of Carr Store Road (SR 1352) from a two (2)-lane, 20-foot cross section to a 24-foot cross section with straightening of the roadway where needed, improvements to turn lanes, and the incorporation of bicycle facilities. 20 Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders Widen Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) from Carrboro’s extra- territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the Orange/Alamance County line to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. 21 NC 54 Widening (NC 119 in Alamance County to Orange Grove Road) Widen roadway from a two-lane undivided cross-section to a four- lane divided boulevard to mitigate anticipated congestion issues. 22 NC 54 and Orange Grove Road Intersection Improvements Improve intersection at NC 54 and Orange Grove Road 23 Orange Grove Road/Buckhorn Road Paved Shoulders Widen Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to West Ten Road (SR 1144) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. 24 I-85/Old NC 86 (SR-1009 - South Churton Street) Interchange Improvements Reconstruct interchange at I-85 and Old NC 86. = Funded Project 14 Attachment 3: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO Project List Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score HIGHWAY PROJECTS 1 I-85/NC 86 Interchange Improvements Description: Reconstruct interchange at I-85 and NC 86 to better accommodate current traffic. This project would increase capacity on the interchange bridge and provide pedestrian and bicycle amenities across I-85. Completion of this project would support economic development opportunities along new NC 86. Need: This project would relieve existing and/or future expected congestion on the under-capacity existing interchange to accommodate future capacity improvements to I-85 and increase operational efficiency at the on-ramp/off-ramp intersections with NC 86. The new interchange would also be an opportunity to provide pedestrian and biking facilities across I-85; these facilities do not currently exist along the corridor. N/A (New Project) 62.57 Statewide 42.72 Regional 32.29 Division 2 NC 86 Improvements north of Hillsborough Description: Widen NC 86 from U.S. 70 bypass to north of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at U.S. 70 bypass and NC 57. Improvements at the NC 86/U.S. 70 intersection should include extending the queuing lane for traffic turning east onto U.S. 70 bypass from northbound Churton Street/NC 86. Improvements at the NC 86/NC 57 intersection should include sidewalks on both sides of the road as well as a crosswalk and pedestrian crossing signal to provide a safe crossing for pedestrians. This project is not currently listed or recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP but is recommended in the DCHC MPO CTP. Need: The segment of NC 86 between NC 57 and U.S. 70 is highly congested. Traffic counts indicate that this segment of NC 86 is over capacity for average annual daily counts. Capacity improvements would ease congestion and improve travel time along this primary north-south corridor connecting the Town of Hillsborough to NC 57 and northern Orange County. Additionally, this area is identified in the Orange County Safe Routes to School Plan and the Town of Hillsborough Connectivity Plan as an area in need of improvements for pedestrians, particularly for school age residents of the Fairview neighborhood that walk to Orange High School and Stanford Middle School. The Town of Hillsborough Connectivity Plan also calls for bike lanes in this area as well. 24.16 Regional 19.46 Division 35.07 Regional 28.31 Division 3 Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road intersection realignment and safety improvements Description: Realign the intersection of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street with Orange Grove Road and make safety improvements. This project is not provided/recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP but is recommended in the DCHC MPO CTP. Need: The project would improve safety, reduce travel time, and improve traffic flow between residential and commercial areas in the Town of Hillsborough. 5.10 Division 17.56 Division 4 U.S. 70 East/I-85 Connector Description: Modify the I-85 Connector interchange at U.S. 70 to provide access from all directions. The existing Connector just east of Efland is not accessible to traffic on eastbound U.S. 70 and there is no access to westbound U.S. 70 from the Connector. This project is recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Need: The project would enable traffic from northwestern Orange County to access I-85 more easily without risking the many points of traffic conflict through Efland. Traffic has increased on Efland-Cedar Grove Road as an alternative to NC 86. Much of that traffic currently “dog-legs” through Efland via Forrest Avenue to Mt. Willing Road to access I-85/I-40. Traffic counts reveal that traffic has increased approximately 40% over the past 10 years on Mt. Willing Road just south of Forrest Avenue, while traffic on U.S. 70 east of Efland-Cedar Grove Road has increased only 2%. The project would dramatically improve travel time for traffic from northwestern Orange County to I-85/I-40 and would dramatically ease congestion during peak periods in Efland. 7.34 Regional 4.90 Division 14.63 Regional 11.73 Division 5 Orange Grove Road Widening with Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements Description: This project would be to construct one additional lane between Patriot's Pointe Drive and New Grady Brown School Road (SR 1221). This project would include both pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the roadway. The I-40 bridge would be widened to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle amenities and one additional travel lane. Need: There are significant safety issues along this stretch of roadway for motorists, but also for pedestrians and bicyclists. Increased traffic along Orange Grove Road has led to a significant safety risks for all users of the roadway. Especially with the improvement of the N/A N/A 15 Attachment 3: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO Project List Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 6 Orange County Public Transportation Circulator II Description: This project is for the expansion of a new route for Orange Public Transportation. It will serve Urbanized areas of the county, particularly Hillsborough (bringing regular North- South service to Churton St), connecting to major trip generators such as: Food Lion (Hwy 70), downtown Hillsborough, Orange County Court and Municipal offices, UNC Hospital @ Waterstone, and Durham Technical College and Walmart. One bus is needed to cover this service for Orange County. This Circulator II route will operate at 60 minute headways all day. Need: This project would provide a fixed route for underserved areas of Orange County (not being covered by the Hillsborough Circulator) to major points of interest such as medical, employment, retail, municipal and social services. The project is currently in the unfunded category of the Orange County Light Rail Investment plan, yet remains a priority for our County Board of commissioners. It is only eligible for funding at the Division Needs tier. New Project New Project RAIL PROJECTS 7 Dimmocks Mill Trestle Improvements Description: Improve current Dimmocks Mill Rd (#735154S) grade separation and close Bellvue St (#735152D) rail crossing. Cost information does not exist at this time and a placeholder value of $1 was used in the cost estimating screen. Need: The NCRR trestle on Dimmock’s Mill currently does not allow trucks or pedestrians to safely cross underneath the railroad. By restructuring this trestle and reconfiguring the intersection, this area will provide a safe crossing between Hillsborough and destinations south for all users. Additionally, improving this trestle will allow large trucks to avoid using Churton Street and will help create a back entrance to West Hillsborough. N/A 30.47 Statewide 21.74 Regional 15.87 Division 8 Exchange Park Lane Rail Trestle Improvements Description: Improve the current trestle at Exchange Park Lane to accommodate Pedestrian traffic to support a pedestrian link from the proposed train station to downtown Hillsborough. Need: Currently, the NCRR trestle on Exchange Park Lane only accommodates one vehicle at a time and provides no safe accommodations for pedestrians. Once the Hillsborough Train Station is constructed, Exchange Park Lane will be the only safe pedestrian route from the Train Station to Downtown Hillsborough. With substantial pedestrian demand forecast between the Train Station and Downtown Hillsborough, creating a safe pedestrian environment is a crucial need in this area. N/A N/A BIKE/PED PROJECTS** 9 Old NC 86 Bike Lanes Description: Construct bicycle facilities on Old NC 86 from Farm House Road in Carrboro to Homestead Road (SR 1777). Need: Cyclists routinely use Old NC 86 as a key conduit for major rides in rural Orange County. Recent bicycle counts conducted by NCDOT and NC State’s ITRE indicate that 160 cyclists use the stretch of Old NC 86 between Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) and Homestead Road (SR 1777) each day with more on the weekends. This section is also particularly narrow and includes a narrow gravel shoulder, which can present a hazard for cyclists. Widening this section to include bicycle lanes will provide a safe space for bicyclists in this heavily trafficked bicycle corridor. N/A 19.20 Division 10 Homestead Road Bike Lane and Sidewalk Installation Description: Improve Homestead Road from Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86 to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks in sections of the corridor where those facilities do not exist. This project is provided/recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Need: There are three (3) schools in the vicinity of Homestead Road: Chapel Hill High School, Smith Middle School, and Seawell Elementary School. Many students live within walking and biking distance of Chapel Hill High School and must walk or cycle along or across Homestead Road on a daily basis. Provision of bikeway and pedestrian facilities is necessary to give students a comfortable and safe place to travel separate from that of motorized vehicular traffic. Homestead Road is also a commuting route for adult utilitarian bicyclists connecting residential areas to other arteries serving employment centers. 10.37 Division 9.38 Division 11 Eubanks Road Bike Lane Installation Description: Construct bicycle lanes on Eubanks Road from Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86. This project is provided/recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Need: This project would provide a separate facility for both recreational and commuter bicyclists to reduce/eliminate the bike/automobile modal conflict along this corridor. The project would also provide access to the Morris Grove Elementary School on Eubanks Road. 11.75 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 16 Attachment 3: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO Project List Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score 12 Mt. Carmel Church Road Bike/Pedestrian Improvements Description: Construct bike lanes and sidewalks from US 15/501 to Bennett Road and bike lanes from Bennett Road to the Chatham County line. This project is provided/recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Need: This project would provide a continuous paved bikeway facility from Chapel Hill through southeastern Orange County into Chatham County. The project connects to another project submitted by Chatham County to construct bike lanes along Mt. Carmel Church Road from the Orange County line to Old Farrington Point Road. This segment is listed as a Statewide bicycle facility in the DCHC MPO MTP and is a continuation of the state’s Mountain to Sea bicycle route through Orange County. 23.06 Division (U.S. 15-501 to Bennett Road 18.57 Division (Bennett Road to Chatham County line) Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 13 Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk Improvements Description: a) Construct sidewalk along west side of Orange High School Road from Harold Latta Road to U.S. 70; b) Construct sidewalk along south side of Harold Latta Road from Cloverfield Drive to Orange High School Road; c) Install high-visibility crosswalks and in-road signage at school entrances and exits on Orange High School Road; and d) Construct sidewalk along entrance roads to CW Stanford Middle School. Need: Orange High School Road serves two schools north of U.S. 70, Orange High School and CW Stanford Middle School. There are currently no dedicated pedestrian facilities along Orange High School Road to accommodate students accessing the schools from residential areas to the north and east. The project would provide safe and comfortable pedestrian connections from these areas to the schools. The Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan identifies these sidewalk and crosswalk improvements as central elements in the plan for both Orange High School and CW Stanford Middle School. 18.06 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 14 Orange Grove Road/I-40 Pedestrian Bridge and Supporting Sidewalk Improvements Description: a) Construct a pedestrian bridge over I-40 alongside Orange Grove Road and construct a sidewalk along the north side of Orange Grove Road from the bridge to Timbers Drive; b) Construct sidewalks along both sides of New Grady Brown School Road with midblock crossing; and c) Construct sidewalk along one side of Oakdale Drive from Cheshire Drive to Orange Grove Road. Need: I-40 separates two schools, Grady Brown Elementary and Cedar Ridge High School, from residential areas north of I- 40. The schools are within walking distance of residential areas, but bicyclists and pedestrians must share the roadway with motor vehicles crossing the existing narrow two (2)-lane bridge that carries Orange Grove Road over I-40. The bridge is too narrow to accommodate a pedestrian walkway. Lack of an adequate pedestrian crossing presents an unsafe environment for students to walk to the schools. The Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan identifies the pedestrian bridge and supporting sidewalk improvements as central elements in the plan for Grady Brown Elementary School. 17.44 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 15 I-85 Pedestrian Bridge Description: Construct a pedestrian bridge across I-85 to connect southern Hillsborough neighborhoods with Collins Ridge, Daniel Boone Village, and Downtown Hillsborough. Need: Neighborhoods to the south of I-85, such as those along Cates Creek Parkway and Beckett’s Ridge Drive, lack pedestrian and bicycle connections to commercial amenities and neighborhoods north of the highway. Constructing a bridge across I-85 would create a safe access point for pedestrians and bicyclists and link areas of Hillsborough south of I-85 to Downtown Hillsborough and commercial amenities along Churton Street. Receiving sidewalks will be present on both sides of the proposed pedestrian bridge. New Project New Project 17 Attachment 3: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO Project List Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score 16 Dairyland Road paved shoulders Description: Widen Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177) from Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. Part of this project is located within the TARPO planning area. The portion of this project within the TARPO planning area is being recommended for inclusion in that project list. This project is scheduled in the STIP for a feasibility study (STIP # EB-5108). This project is provided/recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Need: This project would provide one segment of a bikeway connection through western Orange County from Carrboro to the Buckhorn Road and Mebane area and improve the safety of the subject thoroughfare for both bicyclists and motorized vehicular travel. The project is not likely to score very high using the State’s congestion and benefit-cost scoring factors and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. 17.40 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 17 Trail Connection from English Hill Lane to Buttonwood Drive Description: Construct a multi-use path connecting English Hill Lane to Buttonwood Drive to provide pedestrian connectivity from residential areas east of English Hill Lane to both Orange High School and CW Stanford Middle School. Need: Project is recommended as an improvement in the Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan. An existing barrier to pedestrians toward Orange High School and CW Stanford Middle School exists between residential areas along and east of Buttonwood Drive and residential areas along and west of English Hill Lane. The improvement would provide a direct pedestrian connection from highly populated residential areas further west from the schools and make walking distances safer and more manageable. 23.05 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level 18 Trail Connection from Patriots Pointe to Timbers Drive Description: Construct a multi-use path connecting the southwest corner of Patriots Pointe to Timbers Drive to shorten walking distances for pedestrians. Need: Project is recommended as an improvement in the Orange County Safe Routes to School Action Plan. An existing barrier to pedestrians exists between Patriots Point Apartments and Timbers Drive such that long walking distances are required for pedestrians from Patriots Pointe to access the New Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School along Orange Grove Road with no designated pedestrian facilities. The improvement would provide a direct pedestrian connection from Patriots Point to Timbers Drive and Orange Grove Road in the direction of the schools that make walking distances more manageable. 20.57 Division Not Carried Forward @ MPO Level *Map ID Number corresponds to the general location of each project on Attachment 3: DCHC MPO Project Map. **Bike/Pedestrian projects require a 20% local match and must be locally administered. Right-of-way acquisition is also not a permissible cost to be funded by NCDOT for these projects. Bicycle projects may be eliminated from the MPO process to submit projects for prioritization in the absence of a letter of commitment from the Board of County Commissioners providing funding for the local match, right-of-way costs, and local administration. 18 Attachment 3: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO Project List Projects Deleted From Draft Priority List Project Project Description Reason For Deletion South Churton Street (Old NC 86) Improvements Develop congestion management, limited access, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and aesthetic and capacity improvements along South Churton Street (Old NC 86/SR 1009) from I-40 to U.S. 70 Business. More specifically, the project would widen South Churton Street along this segment to multiple lanes with a landscaped median and would widen the railroad bridge. Included in the Carryover Project List for the DCHC MPO I-40 Widening from I-40/I-85 interchange to NC 86 Widen I-40 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from the I-40/I-85 interchange to the interchange at NC 86. The project is recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Included in the Carryover Project List for the DCHC MPO I-40 Widening from NC 86 to U.S. 15-501 Widen I-40 from four (4) lanes to six (6) lanes from NC 86 to the Durham County line (U.S. 15-501). This is a subset of the full I-40 widening project recommended in the DCHC MPO MTP. Included in the Carryover Project List for the DCHC MPO I-85/Old NC 86 Interchange Improvements Reconstruct interchange at I-85 and Old NC 86 to relieve existing and/or future expected congestion on the under-capacity existing interchange, to accommodate future capacity improvements to both Churton Street and I-85, and to increase operational efficiency at the on-ramp/off-ramp intersections with Churton Street. The new interchange would also be an opportunity to provide pedestrian and biking facilities across I-85 that do not currently exist along the corridor. Funded under SPOT P4.0 Orange Grove Road Extension Extend Orange Grove Road from the east side of South Churton Street (SR 1009) to U.S. 70 Business Funded under SPOT P4.0 I-40 and NC 86 Interchange Improvements Improve interchange at I-40 and NC 86. Funded under SPOT P4.0 NC 54 Operational Improvements (Orange Grove Road - originally Dodsons Crossroads - to Old Fayetteville Road) Implement operational improvements along NC 54 from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937/1107) to address congestion, safety, intersecting street turning movement delays, and the lack of usable gaps in traffic for side street access to the facility as an alternative to widening the facility to four (4) lanes. Improvements may involve signalization at problem intersections, additional dedicated left and right turn storage at side streets, and other possible treatments. Combined into One Project and Funded under SPOT P4.0 NC 54 and Orange Grove Road Intersection Improvements Improve NC 54 and Orange Grove Road Intersection with operational improvements, including the possibility of a signal, to ease traffic congestion and long wait times for left turns from Orange Grove Road onto NC 54. 19 ?o See Inset I 85 U S 7 0 CON N E C T O R ?k ?ª ?ª ?r Aæ I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o Ir KÊ AË ?ª Caswell Co. Person Co. Chatham Co. Durham Co.Alamance Co. Carrboro ChapelHill Mebane Cary Hillsborough DurhamBRADSHAWQUARRYRD O R A N GE G ROVERD S T M A R Y S R D ER W IN RD M T S I N A I RD LYN C HSTORE RD B U C K H O R N RD TMRIDGETRAIL ESTES D R BU T L E R R D D A I R Y L A ND R D H ENS L EY R D WALKERRD OAKDA L E D R DAM A SCUS CH U R C H R D MILLCREEK R D T R I P P FARM R D WESTHILLAVEN DI X I E DR WMAINST TE RRY RD KILDAIRE R D GRAY RD PA R K E R R D H A L L S MI L L R D PEARSONRD UM S T EAD D R LANCASTERDR S OU T H R D WEST TEN R D W E A V E R D A I R Y R D COOK ST SCHLEY R D RIC H M O ND R D J O N E S F E R R Y R D UNIVERSITY STATIONRD MA N N I N G DR M C D A D E STORER D FE R G USON RD C A R R STO RER D E C A M E R O N A V E HEB R O N CH U R CHR D DIMM O CKSMILLRD DOD SONSXRDS BO W M A N R D E U B A N KS RD B O RLAN D RD HARM O N Y C H URC H R D BPW CLUB RD HOGAN HILLS RD HAT C H R D CAR L DUR HAM RD A R BORETUM DR RALEIGH RD ARTHUR M INNISRD LAWS STORERD FARRI N G T O N RD B O R L A N D R D F RA Z I ERRD W H I T F IELD RD M A T T R E S S F A C T O R Y R D PA R T I N ST KENION RD B AMA RD C R A I G R D DAVI S RD BA L D W I N R D S A W M IL L R D HI GHLAND FA R M R D BACO NRD CRAIGRD CAVINE S S JORDANRD SA W Y E R R D IRA R D CLELAND DR MCB R O O M RD PHELPS RD M T ZI O N C H U R C H R D O R M O N D R D HOLLYRIDGER D G OVERNOR S C OTT RD BACON R D TE E R R D OLINRD K E R L E Y R D PEN E COST RD KIGER RD Y A RBO R O U G H R D HEST E R RD B U S H Y CO O KRD N I C K SRD WILD CATCREEKRD V E R N O N R D M A N G UM C T B U R T O N R D ST A N F O R D RD SMITH L E V E L RD W I LKERSON R D OLD NC 8 6 PLEASANTGREENRD HIGHROCKRD HURDLE M I L L S R D HU NTRD MORR O W M IL L R D WALNUTGROVECHURCHRD C R A W F O RD D A I R Y RD M T W ILLI N G R D LAWRENCERD N N A S H S T N E W S H A R O N C H U R C HRD EFLAN D C E D A R GROVE RD OLD LYSTRA R D P E R R Y C R E E K D R BE R R Y R D S A D D LECLUB R D NE V I L L E R D U N I O N GROVEC H U R C H R D C HESTNUTRID G E C HURCH R D B A R B E E CHAPELRD TURKEY FARM RD WEAVER D A I R Y R D E X T BIV I N S RD M E B A N E O A K S RD BOW DENRD C O L E M A NLOO P MT M O RIA H R D WHITECROSSRD TA R H I L L D R KERLEYRD BR O O KHOLLOWRD H A W K I N S RD MARY HALL RD M E B A N E O A K S R D A L L I SON RD C O R B E T T RID GE R D B R O W N R D A RTRD MT MORIAH R D W ADE LOOP COLLI N SMO U N TAIN RD C O M P T O N R D ATKIN S R D !4 !12 !9 !13 !11 !10 !16 !6 !2 !17 Orange County P5.0 Projects - DCHC MPO DCHC MPO Boundary TARPO Boundary B-G MPO Boundary Municipal Boundaries ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsMax Bushell (04/11/2017) 0 1Miles 1 in = 3 miles O R A N G E G R O V E R D O L D N C 8 6 W E S T H I L L A V E N W TRYO N ST E TRYON ST D I M M O C K S M I L L R D OAKDALEDR SCHURTONST E N OMOUNTAINR D !"c$ !"_$ K© ?ª !14!5 !7 !1 !15 !8 !6 !18 !3 Attachment 3 20 Attachment 4: Draft Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Project List Rank/ Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score HIGHWAY PROJECTS 1 Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders Description: Widen Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) from Carrboro’s extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to the Orange/Alamance County line to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. This project would be a segment of the North Carolina Mountains to Sea Bicycle Route (designated as North Carolina Bike Route 2). Part of this project is located within the DCHC MPO planning area. This project is recommended as a bikeway improvement in the OCCTP. Need: This project would provide a continuous paved bikeway segment from Carrboro through the southwestern portion of Orange County to connect with other bikeway segments that comprise the state’s Mountain to Sea bicycle route. The project is not likely to score very high using either the State’s highway or bike/pedestrian scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. 8.44 Division 20.63 Division 2 Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) Improvements Description: Widen Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to the northern property line of the U.S. Post Office north of Carr Store Road SR 1352) from a two (2)-lane, 20-foot cross section to a 24-foot cross section with straightening of the roadway where needed, improvements to turn lanes, and the incorporation of bicycle facilities. This project is recommended in the OCCTP. This project proposal overlaps with STIP project W-5143 to improve the horizontal alignment of the curve on Efland-Cedar Grove Road north of its intersection with Highland Farm Road. This project is scheduled for construction completion in 2016. Need: The project would improve travel time with an increase in design speed and would improve safety with travel lane straightening and an increase in pavement width. This segment of Efland-Cedar Grove Road is a travel alternative to NC 86 for traffic from northwestern Orange County to access I-40/85, and as such, traffic is projected to continue to increase in future years. This project is not likely to score very high using the State’s congestion scoring factor and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. However, the project may s core well against the State’s safety scoring factor. 7.49 Division 18.17 Division PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 3 Deviated Fixed Route Service Implementation Vehicles Description: This project is for the expansion of a new route for Orange County Public Transportation. It will serve rural areas of the county connecting to major trip generators such as downtown Hillsborough, Orange County Court and Municipal offices, UNC Hospital @ Waterstone, and Durham Technical College. 2 buses are needed to cover the north and west corridors of rural Orange County. These "flexible" (deviated fixed / demand response service) routes, run at 60 minute midday headways. Need: This project would provide Flexible fixed route or enhanced demand response service from the rural, underserved areas of Orange County to major points of interest such as medical, employment, retail, municipal and social services. The project is currently in the unfunded category of the Orange County Light Rail Investment plan, yet remains a priority for our County Board of commissioners. It sh ould score high using the State’s scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. New Project New Project BICYCLE PROJECTS** 4 Orange Grove Road Paved Shoulders (From NC 54 to Arthur Minnis Road) Description: Widen Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from NC 54 to Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. This project is recommended as a set of bikeway projects in the OCCTP. Need: This project would provide one segment of a bikeway connection through western Orange County from Carrboro to the Buckhorn Road and Mebane area and improve the safety of the subject thoroughfare for both bicyclists and motorized vehicular travel. The pr oject is not likely to score very high using the State’s bike/pedestrian scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding in the division tier. 17.57 Division Not Carried Forward @ RPO Level 5 Dairyland Road Paved Shoulders Description: Widen Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177) from Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. Part of this project is located within the DCHC MPO planning area. The portion of this project within the DCHC MPO planning area is being recommended for inclusion in that project list. This project is scheduled in the STIP for a feasibility study (STIP # EB- 5108). The project is recommended as a bikeway improvement in the OCCTP. Need: This project would provide one segment of a bikeway connection through western Orange County from Carrboro to the Buckhorn Road and Mebane area and improve the safety of the subject thoroughfare for motorized vehicular travel. The project is not likely to score very high using the State’s bile/pedestrian scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. 17.40 Division Not Carried Forward @ RPO Level 21 Attachment 4: Draft Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Project List Rank/ Map ID #* Project Project Description/Need SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score 6 Orange Grove Road/Dodsons Crossroads Paved Shoulders Description: Widen Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from I-40 to Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102) and Dodsons Crossroads (SR 1102) from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. This project is recommended as a set of bikeway improvements in the OCCTP. Need: This project would provide bicycle facilities to the Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School from the area south of the schools and connect to a proposed bikeway facility on Orange Grove Road northward into Hillsborough. The project would also improve safety for motorized vehicular travel on this segment of Orange Grove Road. The project is not likely to score very high using the State’s bike/pedestrian scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding in the division tier. 15.09 Division Not Carried Forward @ RPO Level *Map ID Number corresponds to the general location of each project on Attachment 4: TARPO Project List Map. ** Bicycle (and pedestrian) projects require a 20% local match and must be locally administered. Right-of-way acquisition is also not a permissible cost to be funded by NCDOT for these projects. Bicycle projects may be eliminated from the RPO process to submit projects for prioritization in the absence of a letter of commitment from the Board of County Commissioners providing funding for the local match, right-of-way costs, and local administration. Projects Deleted From Draft Priority List Project Project Description Reason For Deletion NC 54 Operational Improvements (Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road) Description: Implement operational improvements along NC 54 from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937/1107) to address congestion, safety, intersecting street turning movement delays, and the lack of usable gaps in traffic for side street access to the facility as an alternative to widening the facility to four (4) lanes. Improvements may involve signalization at problem intersections, additional dedicated left and right turn storage at side streets, and other possible treatments. This facility and the subject corridor are recommended in the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (OCCTP) as in need of widening from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, which is the form the project took when last submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2025 STIP. These proposed operational improvements to the facility are an alternative to the initially conceived widening project and come in response to opposition by Town of Carrboro planning staff regarding the facility’s widening. The OUTBoard was presented with both options and voted to recommend pursuit of the option to implement these alternative operational improvements. Need: NCDOT projections reveal that traffic on NC 54 from Orange Grove Road to Fayetteville Road will substantially exceed the existing roadway capacity by 2035, warranting an increase in capacity through widening. NCDOT traffic figures already indicate that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Butler Road/Dodsons Cross Road to Neville Road is at capacity and will only continue to substantially exceed capacity in future years. Given these figures, it is also likely that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Neville Road to Old Fayetteville Road is also at or over capacity. Specific user input on the subject corridor reveals the lack of usable gaps in traffic streams at intersecting streets during peak periods that otherwise might be created by signali zation. User input also reveals the presence of extensive travel lane delay on the NC 54 facility as a result of the lack of adequate storage for left and right turns at some intersecting streets and entrances to businesses along the corridor. Among all projects recommended in the OCCTP, this project would likely score the highest relative to other projects given the improvements the project would provide for both congestion and benefit-cost factors. This project is also eligible for funding at both the regional and divisional tiers, providing it a greater opportunity to be funded than projects that are only eligible for funding at the division tier. This project will also be submitted as part of the DCHC MPO project list because it overlaps the MPO’s planning area boundary. Funded under SPOT P4.0 NC 54 Operational Improvements (Dodsons Crossroads/Butler Road to Old Fayetteville Road) Description: Implement operational improvements along NC 54 from Dodsons Crossroads/Butler Road (SR 1102/1951) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937/1107) to address congestion, safety, intersecting street turning movement delays, and the lack of usable gaps in traffic for side street access to the facility as an alternative to widening the facility to four (4) lanes. Improvements may involve signalization at problem intersections, additional dedicated left and right turn storage at side streets, and other possible treatments. This facility and the subject corridor are recommended in the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (OCCTP) as in need of widening from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, which is the form the project took when last submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2025 STIP. These proposed operational improvements to the facility are an alternative to the initially conceived widening project and come in response to opposition by Town of Carrboro planning staff regarding the facility’s widening. The OUTBoard was presented with both options and voted to recommend pursuit of the option to implement these alternative operational improvements. Need: NCDOT projections reveal that traffic on NC 54 from Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road will substantially exceed the existing roadway capacity by 2035, warranting an increase in capacity through widening. NCDOT traffic figures already indicate that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Butler Project Extents Modified to Previous Project 22 Attachment 4: Draft Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Project List Road/Dodsons Cross Road to Neville Road is at capacity and will only continue to substantially exceed capacity in future years. Given these figures, it is also likely that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Neville Road to Old Fayetteville Road is also at or over capacity. Specific user input on the subject corridor reveals the lack of usable gaps in traffic streams at intersecting streets during peak periods that otherwise might be created by signali zation. User input also reveals the presence of extensive travel lane delay on the NC 54 facility as a result of the lack of adequate storage for left and right turns at some intersecting streets and entrances to businesses along the corridor. Among all projects recommended in the OCCTP, this project would likely score the highest relative to other projects given the improvements the project would provide for both congestion and benefit-cost factors. This project is also eligible for funding at both the regional and divisional tiers, providing it a greater opportunity to be funded than projects that are only eligible for funding at the division tier. This particular project is a subset of the project involving operational improvements to NC 54 from Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road and is being considered for submission separately because of its ability to score higher by targeting a more congested segment of the corridor. This project will also be submitted as part of the DCHC MPO project list because it overlaps the MPO’s planning area boundary. NC 54 Widening Project (Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road) Description: Widen NC 54 from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937/1107) to a four (4) lane boulevard to address congestion, safety, and intersecting street turning movement delays. This project would include access management, some new signalization, and would increase the footprint of NC 54 substantially. This facility and the subject corridor are recommended in the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (OCCTP) as in need of widening from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, which is the form the project took when submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2016-2025 STIP. This project was also submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 STIP, but was not funded. Need: NCDOT projections reveal that traffic on NC 54 from Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road will substantially exceed the existing roadway capacity by 2035, warranting an increase in capacity through widening. NCDOT traffic figures already indicate that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Butler Road/Dodsons Cross Road to Neville Road is at capacity and will only continue to substantially exceed capacity in future years. Given these figures, it is also likely that traffic along the segment of NC 54 from Neville Road to Old Fayetteville Road is also at or over capacity. Specific user input on the subject corridor reveals the lack of usable gaps in traffic streams at intersecting streets during peak periods that otherwise might be created by signalization. User input also reveals the presence of extensive travel lane delay on the NC 54 facility as a result of the lack of adequate storage for left and right turns at some intersecting streets and entrances to businesses along the corridor. Among all projects recommended in the OCCTP, this project would likely score the highest relative to other projects given the improvements the project would provide for both congestion and benefit-cost factors. This project is also eligible for funding at both the regional and divisional tiers, providing it a greater opportunity to be funded than projects that are only eligible for funding at the division tier. Removed from Consideration due to the NC 54 Operations Project and Ongoing NC 54 Corridor Study Orange Grove Road/Buckhorn Road Paved Shoulders Description: Widen Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to West Ten Road (SR 1144) to include four (4)-foot paved shoulders. This project is recommended as a set of bikeway improvements in the OCCTP. Need: This project would provide one segment of a bikeway connection through western Orange County from Carrboro to the Buckhorn Road and Mebane area and improve the safety of the subject thoroughfare for both bicyclists and motorized vehicular travel. The project is not likely to score very high using the State’s bike/pedestrian scoring factors because of its rural context and is only eligible for funding at the division tier. Removed from Consideration Due to Public Desire to Retain Corridor As Is 23 ?o I 85 U S 7 0 CON N E C T O R ?k ?ª ?ª ?r Aæ I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o Ir KÊ AË ?ª Caswell Co. Person Co. Chatham Co. Durham Co.Alamance Co. B R A DSHA W Q UA R RYR D O R A N G E GROVE RD S T M A R Y S R D LYN C HSTORE RD B U C K H O R N RD D A I R Y LANDRD H A L L S MI L L R D WEST T E N R D SCHLEYRD J O N E S F E R R Y R D HEB R O N CH U R CHR D C A R R STO RER D DI M MOCKS MILLRD DODSONSXRDS B O RLAN D RD ARTHUR M INNIS RD LAWS STORERD B O R L A N D R D BU T L E R R D KENION RD S A W M I L L R D H I GHLAND FA R M R D HOLLYRIDGER D G OVERNOR S C OTT R D T E E R R D SMIT H L E VEL RD OLDNC 86 PLEASANTGREENRD HIGHROCKRD SGREENSBORO ST MORR O W M IL L R D WALNUTGROVECHURCHRD C R A W F O RD D A I R Y RD M T W ILLI N G R D N E W S H A R O N C H U R C HRD NE V I L L E R D U N I O N GROVECH U R C H R D CHESTNUTRI D G E CHURC H R DM E B A N E O A K S RD WHITECROSSRD M E B A N E O A K S R D E F L A N D CEDAR GRO V E R D OR A N G EGROVER D OLD G R E E N S B O R O R D E U B A N KS RD H O M ESTEADRD Carrboro ChapelHill Mebane Cary Hillsborough Durham !6 !5 !4 !3 !3 !2 !1 Orange County P5.0 Projects - TARPO TARPO Boundary DCHC MPO Boundary B-G MPO Boundary Municipal Boundaries ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsMax Bushell (04/05/2017) 0 1Miles 1 in = 3 miles Attachment 4 24 Attachment 5: Draft Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) Project List Map ID #* Project Project Description SPOT 3.0 Score SPOT 4.0 Score 1 Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening Widen Buckhorn Road from U.S. 70 to West Ten Road (SR 1144) to multi-lanes with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This segment of roadway is over 95% within the BGMPO planning area and borders the western boundary of the I-40/I-85-Buckhorn Road EDD. This area is the focus of a growing problem of traffic backing up on the northbound exit ramps of I-40/I-85 onto southbound Buckhorn Road and at a left turn into a nonconforming business use just south of the interchange. Orange County has extended water and sewer to this area to serve public facilities and to increase the attractiveness of the EDD for development. The project was previously submitted through the DCHC MPO as a bike project requesting four (4)-foot paved bike lanes when Buckhorn Road was located within that MPO’s planning area. 11.38 Division 14.10 Division 2 Mattress Factory Road extension to U.S. 70 Extend Mattress Factory Road northward a distance of approximately 240 feet across East Washington Street and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way to intersect U.S. 70 at a 90 degree angle. The project would also call for the closure of the existing railroad crossover road connecting East Washington Street and U.S. 70 approximately 240 feet to the east that currently provides access across the railroad right-of-way to U.S. 70. The project would decrease travel time from points along Mattress Factory Road to access U.S. 70, would provide more direct north-south access across the existing railroad right-of-way, and eliminate inconvenient turning movements for motorists and trucks serving existing and future industrial uses south of U.S. 70 and along Mattress Factory Road. 1.64 Division 6.44 Division 3 Mattress Factory Road Interchange Construct new interchange at existing grade-separated crossing of Mattress Factory Road and I-40/I-85 to relieve existing and/or future expected congestion on projected under-capacity existing interchanges at I-40/I-85 and Mebane Oaks Road and I-40/I-85 and Buckhorn Road and to serve existing and future growth in the specific area around the proposed interchange. The proposed interchange would address both traffic capacity deficiencies and reduce crashes related to congestion on parallel thoroughfares. The new interchange would also be an opportunity to provide pedestrian and biking facilities across I-40/I-85 that do not currently exist in the Mebane area. Specific improvements associated with the interchange include:  Modified diamond interchange with a loop ramp in the southeast quadrant for I-40 eastbound exiting vehicles;  Five (5)-lane roadway section on Mattress Factory Road at the proposed interchange;  One bridge structure with a five (5)-lane section and bike/ped accommodations;  Traffic signals installed on Mattress Factory Road at the ramp intersection and Oakwood Street with coordinated signals; and  Industrial Drive realignment to intersect Mattress factory Road either across from Oakwood Street or further north. 6.06 Division 6.10 Division *Map ID Number corresponds to the general location of each project on the map associated with Attachment 5: BGMPO Project List and Map. 25 I§ !"c$!"_$ Alamance Co. Mebane !3 !2 B U C K H O R N R D MILLCREEKRD LEBANON RD HIGH ROCKRD WEST TE N R D H E B R O NCHURCH R D B O W M A N R D F R A Z I E R RD B U S H Y C O O KRD IRA RD M E B A N E O A K S R D SADDL E C L U B RD !3 !2 !1 Draft Orange County P5.0 Projects - B-G MPO TARPO Boundary DCHC MPO Boundary B-G MPO Boundary Municipal Boundaries ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsMax Bushell (02/22/2017) 0 0.35Miles 1 in = 0.62244 miles Attachment 5 26 SP O T  4. 0  Ca r r y o v e r  Pr o j e c t s TI P # M o d e Pr o j e c t   Ca t e g o r y Fu n d e d  St a t u s R o u t e  / Fa c i l i t y  Na m e F r o m  / Cr o s s  St r e e t T o  / Cr o s s  St r e e t De s c r i p t i o n  Co s t  To   NC D O T   Co u n t y ( i e s ) Ty p e  of   Ca r r y o v e r  Programmed Amount (2018‐2027) Draft Right‐of‐Way DateDraft Construction Date I‐57 0 2 A H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  St a t e w i d e  Mo b i l i t y   I‐40   NC  14 7 US  15 / 5 0 1 Co n s t r u c t  1 Ma n a g e d  La n e  Pe r   Di r e c t i o n .  $ 31 0 , 2 1 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $ 162,106,000 FY 2026FY 2026 U‐59 3 7 H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  St a t e w i d e  Mo b i l i t y   NC  14 7   Du k e  St r e e t  (E x i t  12 C ) B r i g g s  Av e n u e  (E x i t  10 ) Op e r a t i o n a l  im p r o v e m e n t s  fr o m  Du k e   St r e e t  to  Br i g g s  Av e n u e  $     58 , 0 8 8 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   42,422,000 FY 2024FY 2026 U‐53 0 4 E H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  St a t e w i d e  Mo b i l i t y   US  15  , US  50 1   Ma n n i n g  Dr i v e Co n s t r u c t  In t e r c h a n g e  $     15 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   15,700,000 FY 2024FY 2026 U‐53 0 4 F H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  St a t e w i d e  Mo b i l i t y   US  15  , US  50 1   SR  17 4 2  (E p h e s u s   Ch u r c h  Ro a d ) I‐40 Co n s t r u c t  ca p a c i t y  im p r o v e m e n t s  an d   ad d  si d e w a l k s ,  wi d e ‐ou t s i d e  la n e s ,  an d   tr a n s i t  ac c o m m o d a t i o n s .  $     19 , 3 5 3 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e ,   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   19,353,000 FY 2024FY 2026 U‐57 7 4 C H i g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   NC  54   SR  11 1 0  (B a r b e e   Ch a p e l  Ro a d ) I‐40 Wi d e n  Ro a d w a y  to  6 La n e s  wi t h   Bi c y c l e ,  Pe d e s t r i a n ,  an d  Tr a n s i t   Fa c i l i t i e s  (A d j a c e n t  Mu l t i u s e  Pa t h )  $     26 , 7 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   20,775,000 FY 2023FY 2025 U‐57 7 4 H H i g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   NC  54   NC  75 1 SR  11 1 8  (F a y e t t e v i l l e   Ro a d ) Wi d e n  to  Mu l t i ‐La n e s  wi t h  Bi c y c l e ,   Pe d e s t r i a n ,  an d  Tr a n s i t   Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  $     21 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   18,300,000 FY 2023FY 2025 P‐57 1 6 R a i l St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   NS  H li n e Gr a d e  se p a r a t i o n  at  El l i s  Ro a d  ‐   no r t h   en d  cr o s s i n g  (7 3 5 2 3 6 Y )  in  Du r h a m .  $         4, 5 1 5 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $     4,515,000 FY 2023FY 2026 P‐57 0 6 R a i l St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   NS  H li n e Co n s t r u c t  ex t e n s i o n  of  Ea s t  Du r h a m   Si d i n g .  In c l u d e s  a co m b i n a t i o n  of  gr a d e   se p a r a t i o n s  an d  cl o s u r e  at  th r e e    $     49 , 2 8 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   37,850,000 FY 2023FY 2026 U‐53 0 4 B H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   US  15  , US  50 1   US  15 ‐50 1  / NC  86   in t e r c h a n g e US  15 ‐50 1  / NC  54   in t e r c h a n g e  (R a l e i g h   Ro a d ) Co n s t r u c t  ca p a c i t y  im p r o v e m e n t s  an d   ad d  si d e w a l k s ,  wi d e ‐ou t s i d e  la n e s ,  an d   tr a n s i t  ac c o m m o d a t i o n s .  $     28 , 7 1 4 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   28,714,000 FY 2024FY 2026 U‐53 0 4 D H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   US  15  , US  50 1   US  15 ‐50 1  / NC  54   in t e r c h a n g e  (R a l e i g h   SR  17 4 2  (E p h e s u s   Ch u r c h  Ro a d ) Co n s t r u c t  ca p a c i t y  im p r o v e m e n t s  an d   ad d  si d e w a l k s ,  wi d e ‐ou t s i d e  la n e s ,  an d    $     32 , 4 9 9 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   32,499,000 FY 2024FY 2026 U‐57 7 4 B H i g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t  Re g i o n a l  Im p a c t   NC  54  (R a l e i g h  Ro a d ) U S  15 ‐50 1 SR  11 1 0  (B a r b e e   Ch a p e l  Ro a d ) Up g r a d e  Ro a d w a y  to  Su p e r s t r e e t  wi t h   bi k e / p e d  ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  an d   co n s t r u c t  in t e r c h a n g e  at  Ba r b e e  Ch a p e l   Ro a d  $     41 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e ,   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $   41,900,000 FY 2023FY 2025  EB ‐58 3 7   Bi k e P e d Di v i s i o n   Ne e d s  Di v i s i o n  Ne e d s   Th i r d  Fo r k  Cr e e k  Tr a i l So u t h e r n  Bo u n d a r i e s   Pa r k Am e r i c a n  To b a c c o   Tr a i l Co n s t r u c t  sh a r e d  us e  pa t h  fr o m   So u t h e r n  Bo u n d a r i e s  Pa r k  to  Co r n w a l l i s   Rd .  $         2, 5 7 3 , 9 1 8   Du r h a m Pr o g r a m m e d   Af t e r  FY 2 0 2 2  $     2,573,918 FY 2023FY 2024 U‐57 2 0 C H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   US  70   SR  19 5 9  (S o u t h  Mi a m i   Bl v d )  / SR  18 1 1   (S h e r r o n  Ro a d ) Pa g e  Ro a d  Ex t e n s i o n  /  Ne w  Le e s v i l l e  Ro a d Up g r a d e  Ro a d w a y  to  Fr e e w a y .  $ 15 1 , 2 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Si b i l i n g    U‐57 7 4 F Hi g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   I‐40   NC  54 / F a r r i n g t o n   Ro a d / F a l c o n b r i d g e   Ro a d Im p r o v e  In t e r c h a n g e  at  I‐40  an d  NC  54 ,   co n s t r u c t  gr a d e  se p a r a t i o n  an d  sl i p   ra m p  at  Fa r r i n g t o n  Ro a d ,  co n s t r u c t   in t e r c h a n g e  at  Fa l c o n b r i d g e  Ro a d ,  an d   pr o v i d e  a co n n e c t o r  be t w e e n   Fa r r i n g t o n  an d  Fa l c o n b r i d g e  Ro a d s  $     94 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Si b i l i n g    U‐57 7 4 G Hi g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   I‐40 NC  75 1 Wi d e n  to  Mu l t i ‐La n e s  wi t h  Bi c y c l e ,   Pe d e s t r i a n ,  an d  Tr a n s i t   Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  $     32 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Si b i l i n g    At t a c h m e n t 6 - D C H C M P O C a r r y o v e r P r o j e c t s 27 U‐57 7 4 I H i g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   SR  11 1 8  (F a y e t t e v i l l e   Ro a d ) SR  11 0 6  (B a r b e e  Ro a d ) Wi d e n  to  Mu l t i ‐La n e s  wi t h  Bi c y c l e ,   Pe d e s t r i a n ,  an d  Tr a n s i t   Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  $     33 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m S i b i l i n g    U‐57 7 4 J H i g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   SR  11 0 6  (B a r b e e  Ro a d ) N C  55 Wi d e n  to  Mu l t i ‐La n e s  wi t h  Bi c y c l e ,   Pe d e s t r i a n ,  an d  Tr a n s i t   Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s  $     30 , 6 0 0 , 0 0 0   Du r h a m Si b i l i n g    I‐33 0 6 A A Hi g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   I‐40   I‐85 NC  86 Ad d  Ad d i t i o n a l  La n e s .  $     97 , 3 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g    I‐33 0 6 A B H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   I‐40   NC  86 US  15 / 5 0 1 Ad d  Ad d i t i o n a l  La n e s .  $     47 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g    U‐58 4 5 H i g h w a y Di v i s i o n   Ne e d s    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   SR  10 0 9  (S o u t h   Ch u r t o n  St r e e t ) I‐40 En o  Ri v e r I‐40  to  En o  Ri v e r .  Wi d e n  to  Mu l t i ‐La n e s   wi t h  La n d s c a p e d  Me d i a n ,  Bi c y c l e   La n e s ,  an d  Si d e w a l k s ,  Wi d e n  Br i d g e   No .  24 0  Ov e r  So u t h e r n  Ra i l r o a d ,  an d   re c o n s t r u c t  I‐85  in t e r c h a n g e .  $     49 , 7 5 1 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e Si b i l i n g       Hi g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   SR  10 0 6  (O r a n g e   Gr o v e  Rd ) SR  19 3 7 / 1 1 0 7  (O l d   Fa y e t t e v i l l e  Rd ) Wi d e n  to  a fo u r ‐la n e  bo u l e v a r d  $     70 , 4 5 5 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g       Hi g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   Ne v i l l e  Ro a d Im p r o v e  in t e r s e c t i o n  $                 93 7 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e Si b i l i n g       Hi g h w a y Re g i o n a l   Im p a c t    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54   SR  19 3 7 / S R  11 0 7  Ol d   Fa y e t t e v i l l e  Ro a d Im p r o v e  in t e r s e c t i o n  $         1, 2 1 6 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g    U‐57 7 4 A H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   NC  54  (R a l e i g h  Ro a d ) U S  15 ‐50 1 Im p r o v e  In t e r c h a n g e  $     14 , 3 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g    U‐53 0 4 A Hi g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   US  15  , US  50 1   NC  54 ,  NC  86  (S o u t h   Co l u m b i a  St ) Im p r o v e  in t e r c h a n g e  $     35 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0   Or a n g e S i b i l i n g    U‐57 2 0 D H i g h w a y St a t e w i d e   Mo b i l i t y    Di d  No t  Sc o r e  Hi g h   En o u g h  to  Re c e i v e   Fu n d i n g   US  70   Pa g e  Ro a d  Ex t e n s i o n  /  Ne w  Le e s v i l l e  Ro a d  in   Du r h a m  Co u n t y Al e x a n d e r  Dr i v e  in   Wa k e  Co u n t y Up g r a d e  Ro a d w a y  to  Fr e e w a y  $     81 , 8 0 0 , 0 0 0   Wa k e ,   Du r h a m Si b i l i n g    At t a c h m e n t 6 - D C H C M P O C a r r y o v e r P r o j e c t s 28 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board FROM: Max Bushell, Transportation Planner DATE: April 19, 2017 SUBJECT: Information Item – Carrboro to Hillsborough Multi-Use Path Update ATTACHMENT 1: Conceptual Old NC 86 Multi-Use Path Project Limits ATTACHMENT 2: OUTBoard Minutes – 02.20.2013 ATTACHMENT 3: Excerpt from the BOCC Minutes (Pertinent Section Only) – 03.07.2013 __________ This memorandum provides the history of the OUTBoard and Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) discussions of adding bicycle facilities along Old NC 86.The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Chair has expressed some interest in discussing pedestrian and bicycle projects between Carrboro and Hillsborough along Old NC 86. Background Old NC 86 provides a direct connection between the western limit of Carrboro’s jurisdiction and Hillsborough to the north. As a two-lane rural road between Dairyland Road and I-40, Old NC 86 has lanes of approximately 10-11 feet with a 1’ shoulder or no shoulder. Bicyclists and pedestrians are not accommodated with any specific dedicated infrastructure along Old NC 86 except in areas that fall under the Town of Hillsborough and the Town of Carrboro’s jurisdictional boundaries. In the Town of Carrboro’s jurisdiction, bicycle lanes are provided from Farm House Road south toward NC 54 along Old Fayetteville Road (Old NC 86 becomes Old Fayetteville Road south of the Dairyland Road/Homestead Road intersection). In the Town of Hillsborough, sidewalks are provided north of I-40 to Waterstone Drive and slightly beyond along Old NC 86. DCHC MPO CTP The OUTBoard recently recommended that a multi-use path be included in the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Following consultation between Orange County Transportation Planning staff and DCHC MPO Transportation Planners, a multi-use path was not added to the Bicycle and Multiuse path map as a separate project from the Item 5.c. 29 on-road bicycle improvement project, but rather a note was added to the existing bicycle lane project along this section of Old NC 86 indicating that a multi-use path could be another option in the unconstrained CTP to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians along Old NC 86 (see Attachment 1). 2013 OUTBoard Discussion As part of the process to create the Orange County CTP, the plan that addresses transportation needs in the rural areas of Orange County, the OUTBoard was asked to make a comprehensive review of the recommendations for bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile transportation. Only a small portion of Old NC 86 between Arthur Minnis Road and Davis Road is addressed through the Orange County CTP (the TARPO area of Orange County); the bulk of the roadway is situated in the DCHC MPO area. At their January 16, 2013 meeting, Orange County Transportation Planning staff recommended that the segment of Old NC 86 between Arthur Minnis Road and Davis Road include 4’ paved shoulders, a suggestion that met with general consensus from the group. At the February 20, 2013 meeting (see Attachment 2), however, an OUTBoard member stated that Old NC 86 would never be a good commuter bike route due to sight line issues and high vehicle speeds, which make Old NC 86 particularly dangerous for bicyclists. The OUTBoard member continued by stating that other routes, such as new 86, serve commuting and recreational bicyclists much better. Ultimately, the OUTBoard recommended that the investment in wide shoulders on Old NC 86 be removed from the Orange County CTP, unless the project is needed for vehicle safety, and that the primary bicycle commuting route in Orange County should fall on new NC 86. The OUTBoard agreed that if a bike route is included on Old NC 86, it should be an off-road facility. These comments were forwarded to the BOCC for consideration. BOCC Discussion The BOCC received a presentation on the Orange County CTP at its January 24, 2013 meeting, which provided background and information on the development of the CTP. On March 7, 2013, the BOCC received the OUTBoard’s comments, which prompted questions about the proposed off-road path along Old NC 86 (See Attachment 3). At the meeting, Orange County Transportation Planning staff indicated that staff had not discussed the Old NC 86 off-road multi-use path proposal and that, if the project did move forward, it would be the first trail in the state to be constructed outside of NCDOT’s right-of-way. Commissioner McKee mentioned that constructing the multi-use path would require access to and purchase of rights-of-way from landowners and NCDOT, which might not be favorably received along the corridor. Commissioner Jacobs asked about accommodations for bicyclists on other roads that are already used by bicyclists and stated his preference for providing bicycle accommodations on those facilities. Other commissioners petitioned to see additional bicycle facilities on roads with less traffic, particularly in the absence of funding for bikes from the Orange County government. Commissioner Rich indicated that she wanted to start a conversation about safety and would like to explore this option. The County Commission elected to not include the Old NC 86 off-road multi-use trail in the Orange CTP by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Rich dissenting. 30 !"c$ ?ª !"_$ N ELLIOTTRD STATESIDEDR ESTE S DR HOMESTEAD RD PATHW A YDR ORANGEGROVE R D EWINMORE AVE TRIP P FARM R D MT SINAI RD WEAVER D A I RY RD N ESTESDR UMS T E A D D R LAKEELLEN DR DAIRYLAND R D W E S T M IN S T E R D R ALBERTRD O D E T U R N E RRD OLD NC 10 HAT C H RD N E W H O P ECHURCHRD D I M MOCKS MILL RD EUBANKS R D BORL A ND R D HOGANHILLS RD UNIVERSITY S T ATION RD W HIT FI E L D RD O L D F A Y E T T E V I L L E R D ARTHUR MINNISRD DIXIELN PA R T I N ST DAVIS R D DODSONS X R D S TMB OLINCREEKTRAIL S T R A TFORD DR WEAV E R DA IRYRDEXT F ARM H O USEDR DIXIEDR P I N EY M O U N T AINRD OL D N C 8 6 OL D N C 86 LAKE H O GAN FARM R D C ASW E LLRD U N I O N G R O V E C H U R C H R D NLAKESHORE DR TURKEY FARM RD CATESFARM RD S E AW E L L S C H OO L R D R O GER S R D Carrboro ChapelHill Hillsborough Conceptual Old NC 86 Multi-Use Path Project Limits Old NC 86 Proposed Multi-Use Trail Collectors/Arterials Interstates/Highways Municipal Boundaries County Boundaries ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsMax Bushell (4/10/2016) 0 0.4Miles 1 in = 0.8753 miles 31 Approved 4/17/13 MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 20, 2013 3 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Alex Castro, Bingham 5 Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Access & 6 Safety Advocate; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Amy Cole, 7 Transit Advocate 8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Enoch, Cheeks Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township; Economic Development 11 Commission - Vacant; CfE Representative-Vacant; 12 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning 15 Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 16 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning 19 Branch 20 21 AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM II: INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS: Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, 25 PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch 26 27 Abigaile Pittman introduced Matthew Day and Scott Walston. 28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM III: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 16, 2013 31 32 The January 16, 2013 minutes were approved with correction by consensus. 33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM IV: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 36 37 38 AGENDA ITEM V: REGULAR AGENDA 39 January 24, 2013 Public hearing Draft of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) 40 http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning/ orangecounty.html 41  Copy of Draft CTP sent to OUTBoard on 02/06/2013 (please bring this copy to the 42 OUTBoard meeting on 02/20/2013) 43  Abstract providing history, background, and intro to CTP 44  Highway Map and Projects (Attachment 1) 45  Public Transportation and Rail Map and Projects (Attachment 2) 46  Bicycle Map and Projects (Attachment 3) 47  Pedestrian Map and Projects (Attachment 4) 48  Draft CTP Adoption Map (Attachment 5) 49  OUTBoard and Staff Draft CTP Comments (Attachment 6) 50 Attachment 2 32 Approved 4/17/13  BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7) 51 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE: 52  Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8) 53  Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP 54 Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9) 55 OUTBoard Action: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners 56 for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting 57 58 Paul Guthrie noted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and 59 the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC 60 retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard’s comments. 61 62 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the CTP background and maps. 63 64 Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities, as it is not 65 fiscally constrained, to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. 66 67 Matthew Day, TARPO explained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see 68 funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets 69 to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a project scores goes into the decision on 70 what gets funded. 71 72 Scott Walston, NCDOT explained the difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps, 73 illustrating with a drawing on the white board for the group. 74 75 Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO 76 jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a 77 different stage and/or uses a different format so coordination is difficult, but the planning itself is simpler than what 78 many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of 79 other planning jurisdictions and that becomes significant as they need some background from the OUTBoard. 80 81 Paul Guthrie commented that he thinks the projections for the rural numbers for the Durham – Chapel Hill population 82 is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need more improvements all the way to Orange Grove Road than what the 83 CTP calls for. 84 85 Scott Walston, NCDOT noted that the CTP Plan gets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information. 86 87 Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you 88 assess the population using NC 54 to commute, it does not all originate within Orange County, but a large 89 percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is 90 concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed that Chapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how 91 to factor the commuting pattern into the calculations of traffic growth on NC 54. 92 93 Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional 94 Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict 95 their traffic patterns. 96 97 Matthew Day, TARPO added that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than 98 it is now. 99 100 Attachment 2 33 Approved 4/17/13 Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in 101 Chapel Hill, noting that this puts some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. 102 103 Highway Map Comments: 104 Jeff Charles commented on the improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four-foot 105 wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated that Old NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because 106 of the line of sight deficiency. He noted that no one is going to ride on a road that is as dangerous as Old NC 86 is to 107 bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the 108 investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no 109 monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes 110 no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and 111 commuter cyclists in that area, such as new 86. The exception to that is the one project that is a pet project of the 112 cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the 113 Homestead/Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard 114 to accommodating bicycles/pedestrians is at the Dairyland/Homestead intersection. 115 116 Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have some traffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted 117 speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland-Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the 118 Post Office. 119 120 Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that traffic calming measures is something that needs to be discussed with the 121 Division 7 office. 122 123 Paul Guthrie commented that what goes on regarding the Rail Map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain 124 times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul 125 suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public 126 transportation rail in Orange County’s territory, there will be. 127 128 Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments: 129 130 Paul Guthrie referred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regarding the need of a footnote. 131 132 Bicycle Map Comments: 133 134 Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway 135 Map about the widening project on Old NC 86 that proposes four-foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in 136 actuality the Bicycle Map shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you 137 go the Composite Map (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham/Chapel Hill has the route on either side of it and 138 then DOT comes in and says now we are going to link it. Then it becomes part of the CTP and it is wrong thinking 139 and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some input on the DCHC part of 140 these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money 141 for bicycles on Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks 142 Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four-foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at 143 least on new NC 86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposed to Old NC 86 144 which is too dangerous. 145 146 Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeff’s comments on Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and 147 stated that she clearly sees the safety issue. But she is looking at it from a connectivity point of view and leaving that 148 out bothers her but the safety of having a four-foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP 149 designate this bike path as an off-road facility? 150 151 Attachment 2 34 Approved 4/17/13 Jeff Charles responded that it would require doing all of Old NC 86 and not just the rural section. He questions the 152 financial input of that versus just going to new NC 86 and going up that way. Jeff noted he could see that it would 153 benefit pedestrians. 154 155 Paul Guthrie commented again on the problems of assessing projects without full information on connectivity with 156 other jurisdictions. For example, referencing that on the little segment of Jones Ferry Road which is marked up, he 157 understands what it connects to because of what is down in Chatham County, but to someone in Orange County 158 looking at this map, without reference to Chatham County’s map, may not have any idea why that piece is there. 159 160 Abigaile Pittman asked for a summary of the Board’s final comment on the Old NC 86 project. It was summarized 161 that the investment in the wide shoulders should be dropped unless needed for vehicle safety, that the commuting 162 bike route would be best on new NC 86, and that the only way that a bike route should be included along Old NC 86 163 was if it was an off-road facility. 164 165 Pedestrian Map Comments: 166 Sam Lasris commented that he would like to see better identification of the MPO boundary lines and road names on 167 the map. He said that he kept getting confused on what was a boundary line and what was a proposed pedestrian 168 trail. Multiple other members of the OUTBoard agreed, saying that the boundary lines should be labeled on all of the 169 CTP maps. 170 171 Motion by Alex Castro that the OUTBoard recommend the comments discussed in the presentation and the 172 additional comments discussed here tonight. Seconded by Jeff Charles 173 Vote: Unanimous 174 175 176 AGENDA ITEM VI: STAFF UPDATES 177 a. Update on Orange County Master Aging Plan 2012-2017 transportation strategies 178 (Alex Castro) 179 b. Update on BOCC review of a second County comment letter to NCDOT Rail Division 180 regarding the three proposed railroad private crossing closures in Orange County. 181 Related documents: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/RRCrossingClosure.asp 182 c. Update on NCDOT Annual Statement for 2012 secondary road construction 183 (Attachment 10). 184 d. Update on proposed Mebane and Gibsonville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans 185 e. 2013 BG MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Barry Jacobs 186 and Earl McKee) 187 f. 2013 DCHC MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Alice 188 Gordon and Bernadette Pelissier) 189 g. 2013 TARPO RTAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Renee Price 190 and Bernadette Pelissier) 191 h. NCDOT new appointments to the Board of Transportation 192 i. TARPO updates from Matt Day 193 j. Specifics on roundabout project from DCHC list provided at January 16th meeting (to 194 answer questions raised by Board members) 195 k. BOCC’s 2013 Boards and Commissions Work Session held on January 29, 2013 and 196 was attended by Paul Guthrie, Jeff Charles, and Ted Triebel. 197 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates 198 199 Alex Castro updated the OUTBoard on the Master Aging Plan that pertains to transportation and navigation including 200 2 handouts. He noted that Craig Benedict is a member of the steering committee, so the Planning Department is 201 represented in those efforts and Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier is also on the steering committee. In reviewing 202 Attachment 2 35 Approved 4/17/13 one of the handouts, he noted that it contains objectives, strategies, and indicators. He advised that in year two fiscal 203 needs will be addressed. He referred the members to review the handouts and to email him with any inquiries. 204 He would love to have anyone interested get involved in workgroups as they are developed to work with 205 transportation issues. He added that the focus in this area is the rural areas. 206 207 Abigaile Pittman suggested that when Craig Benedict presents the BRIP to the OUTBoard in March that perhaps he 208 could give some thought to those issues aired in the course of the OPT analysis with the input of the OUTBoard. 209 210 Alex Castro advised the members that the Department on Aging has applied for a grant to staff a Mobility Manager 211 that would be working from the Department on Aging but coordinating with the Planning Department. 212 213 Abigaile Pittman updated the Board on the status of the proposed railroad closures. She advised that the BOCC 214 approved a second comment letter on 2/21/13 which will be posted to the website by 2/23/13. The next step is for 215 Orange County to provide comments to NCDOT. NCDOT will be meeting with Planning staff in the next month to try 216 to clear up some issues for the public and the BOCC. Abigaile noted that there is a proposed interchange design at 217 70 and 85 that needs to be redone and it hasn’t been slated as a project yet but she has a draft drawing. 218 219 Abigaile Pittman referred the members to the information regarding the annual statement for 2012 from NCDOT on 220 secondary road construction. She noted some of the completed roads are Buckhorn Rd. and Dairyland Rd. 221 222 Jeff Charles commented that the 2-foot extensions to the shoulders are not 2 feet in many areas. They go from 3 223 feet extensions down to 6 inches in places. Jeff Charles would like NCDOT to be asked why the signed off on the 224 project and would like Chuck Edwards to visit the OUTBoard. Jeff would like staff to get information about new 225 construction this year. It is his understanding that they are going to do repair on New Hope Church Rd. replacing a 226 bridge and he would like to know when that construction is going to begin as it will require shutting down New Hope 227 Church Rd between Old 86 and Union Grove Church Rd. It is going to have a dramatic impact on the bicycling 228 community and he would like to get the word out. 229 230 Abigaile Pittman informed the Board of the updates in the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization 231 (BGMPO) including appointments to that group and to DCHC MPO and TARPO. She also advised that Dwight Stone 232 of Greensboro has been appointed as the Orange County representative on the NC Board of Transportation. 233 234 Ted Triebel noted that while 50% of the drivers using the highway are female and that 10 men were appointed by the 235 Governor which seems to be a lack of gender diversity on his part. 236 237 Matt Day gave the Board some updates on items being discussed at the next TARPO meeting including reviewing a 238 map of the whole TARPO region showing all of the current plans. It puts about 15 plans into one map. He noted that 239 a project coming up is the locally coordinated Transit Tlan that they will be working with the transit agencies in the 240 four counties and this is a federal requirement. Matt informed the group that a 15-501 Corridor Study by DOT is 241 getting ready to start it will be on 15-501 from 54 in Chapel Hill down to 64 in Pittsboro and they will be looking at how 242 the roadways function in terms of traffic operations, placement of traffic lights, and improvement that can be done to 243 make that function better from an operational perspective. 244 245 Paul Guthrie asked Matt Day to provide a summary of the 15-501 Corridor Study to Abigaile. He noted it is fairly 246 crucial to southern Orange County. 247 248 .Abigaile Pittman referred the group to the handout regarding the roundabout project on Erwin Road requested by 249 Jeff Charles at the January OUTBoard meeting. 250 251 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the outcome of the BOCC retreat with regard to the OUTBoard goals for 2013. 252 253 Attachment 2 36 Approved 4/17/13 254 AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD MEMBERS’ DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 255 OUTBoard Action: Finalization of list of members’ areas of special interest and 256 assignments for monitoring other boards’ websites and/or agendas for transportation 257 related information and activities 258 259 The OUTBoard had some general discussion. 260 261 262 AGENDA ITEM VIII: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 263 BOARD AGENDAS: 264 OUTBoard Action: Receive information 265 266 267 AGENDA ITEM IX: LISTING OF ITEMS FOR MARCH 20, 2013 MEETING 268 a. Next steps for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Craig Benedict) 269 b. Update on BOCC consideration of Comprehensive Transportation Plan 270 c. Next steps for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan adoption and implementation 271 d. Update on BG MPO activities 272 e. Update on DCHC MPO activities 273 f. Update on TARPO activities 274 OUTBoard Action: Receive information 275 276 277 AGENDA ITEM X: BOARD COMMENTS 278 279 280 AGENDA ITEM XI: ADJOURNMENT 281 282 The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 283 284 285 Items for future meetings: 286 287  Discuss with Craig Benedict the possibility of touching on the transportation portion of the Master Aging Plan and 288 potential mobility manager along with OPT’s plans to address needs in the rural portions of the county. 289  Arrange for Chuck Edwards to attend a meeting in the May/June timeframe. 290  Find out when construction on New Hope Church Rd is scheduled to begin. 291  Summary from Matt Day regarding 15-501 study 292 293 294 ___________________________________________ Paul Guthrie, Chair Attachment 2 37 APPROVED 4/23/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING March 7, 2013 7:00 p.m. The OrangeCounty Board ofCommissioners met in regular session on Thursday, March 7, 2103 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERSPRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mark Dorosin COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTYSTAFFPRESENT: CountyManager Frank Clifton, Assistant CountyManagers Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board DonnaBaker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additionsor Changes to theAgenda ChairJacobs went through the items at the CountyCommissioners' places. Blue sheet - Revised Item 5-e - Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for2013 White — Item 6-b PPT for Draft OrangeCounty ComprehensiveTransportation Plan White -7b- map attachment forSchedule a Public Hearing Regarding the Establishment of Three (3) New Fire Service Districts White - 7-c - PPT - Jordan Lake Allocation Process and EngineeringStudy ChairJacobs said thatCommissioner Dorosin is out of town and Commissioner McKee will be late this evening. PUBLICCHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2.Public Comments a. Matters not on the PrintedAgenda BuzzKoenig read a prepared statement. A request to the Orange County Board of Commissioners Special Request: We requestthat you convene a group ofpertinent parties to investigate issues and options regarding current water management practices, under the current Voluntary Capacity Use Agreement, that severelyimpact the operationsof Lake Orange, Inc. and the interests of residents and "Friends of Lake Orange." Attachment 3 38 from the late 19th century until the 1960s. The farm complexconsists of the originaltwo-story farmhouse, built 1870-74 for Captain John S. Pope, and twentyoutbuildings dating fromthe 1870s to the 1960s. The farm has remained in continuous operation by the Pope family and retainsthe original propertyacreage as well as the historic pattern offields and forests. This is a routine public hearing required by state enabling legislation and the County's Historic PreservationOrdinance. Following this joint public hearing, the BOCC and the HPC will take into consideration any public comments in preparing the final ordinance. The HPC will then return the final version of the proposed ordinance for the Board's consideration and adoption at their April 9th meeting. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Rich said this wasvery informative and thanked the staff and HPC for their work. She asked howmany properties in Orange County have this status. Pete Sandbeck said there are five properties in OrangeCounty at this time and the process takes about six months. ChairJacobs said the County Commissioners did bring forththe HPC comments to the joint meeting withthe Town of Hillsborough. A motion wasmade by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to refer the designation ordinance back to the Historic PreservationCommission for its final review and recommendation, withthe HPC returning a final version of the proposed ordinance for the Board's consideration and adoption at their April 9th meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Draft Orange CountyComprehensive Transportation Plan The Board receivedthe Orange Unified Transportation Board's recommendation, considered closing the public hearing, and making a decision on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for OrangeCounty's rural areas. Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:22 PM. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri made a PowerPointpresentation. Draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan Rural Area* March 7, 2013 BOCC Meeting Item 6b Purpose 1. Receive the Orange Unified Transportation Board's recommendation. 2. Close the public hearing whichwas held January 24th and adjourned to tonight. 3. Consider adoption of the ComprehensiveTransportation Plan maps. 4. Provide any additionalcomments on the technicalreport to NCDOT for its consideration in the final report. Attachment 3 39 What is a CTP? ComprehensiveTransportation Plan) 4 maps and cover sheet with supporting documentation Long-range (2035), multi-modal, fiscally unconstrained (no funding or priorities) o Highway, Public Transportation, Bicycle, Pedestrian Replacesprevious thoroughfare plans Designed to be easilyupdated in order to remain relevant Reminder: this plan is for RPO area and encompasses no municipalities. OUTBoard Recommendations th At its February 20 meeting, the OUTBoard unanimously recommended approval of the CTP with minorrevisions to themaps; and Provided comments on the technicalreport. Maps Highway Map: Line style and color used to show Minor Thoroughfares should be changed to be more visible. ExtendMinor Thoroughfare "Needs Improvement" line on Efland-Cedar Grove Rd from Carr Store Rd to the U.S. Post Office. Public Transportation Map: No change. Bicycle Map: No changerecommended unless an off-road bicycle path would be a desirable option along Old NC 86 between Arthur Minnis Rd and Ode Turner Davis Rd. Pedestrian Map: Correct labeling of Rural Community Nodes. General Comment: Clearly label the MPO boundaries on all maps. Highway Map Excerpt: Extend the Minor Thoroughfare `Needs Improvement' line on Efland-Cedar Grove Road north from CarrboroStore Roadto the northern property line of the U. S. Post Office. The Post Office is one of the larger trip generators in thearea. Bicycle Map Excerpt: To establish consistency between CTPs: Option 1: No change. (Staff's recommendation) Option 2: Add off-road bicycle pathtomap. Report Comments Comments to be forwarded to NCDOT for consideration in final report. In general, comments involverequests to: Clarify the description of the Pedestrian map; Add descriptions of highway shoulder widths and paving details; Revise bicycle project description for Efland Cedar Grove Rd to be consistent with proposed map addition; Add a statement at the end of the Old NC 86 description relating to bicycle safety and dangers posed by hilly and curvy nature of the road; and Attachment 3 40 Add statementthat expansion of commuter rail in MPO areas may have traffic impact on "feeder" routes. Manager Recommendation 1. Receive the OUTBoard recommendation of approval; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt CTPMaps (Attachment 5) to include revisions recommended by the OUTBoard; and 4. Provide any additionalcomments the Board may have on the CTP technical report Attachment 4). NO PUBLIC COMMENT ChairJacobs asked about the off road bike route and where this would occur. Tom Altieri said if he is referring to one of the alternatives the OUTBoardsuggested and if there was a desire to have a bikepath on thisroute- betweenHillsborough and Carrboro then it would be outside of the DOT right-of-way and it would be the first bicycle path of this type in Orange County. Staff has not discussed this. If the CountyCommissionerswould like to pursue this, they would like to involve the MPO and their partners. ChairJacobs asked howthe bikeplan regards the alternative routes that people already use. He said that it would make more sense to have bike lanes on these routes other than NC 86. Tom Altieri said he did believe that was the OUTBoard's preference and staffs' too. There are other routes that would be preferable and those would be on-road as opposed to off-road. ChairJacobs asked what the County Commissionerswere being asked to do. Tom Altieri said that the Board is being asked to approve themapswith the OUTBoard recommendation, choosingeither Option 1 (no change) or Option 2 (showing the off-road bicycle map). In either case, staff needs to coordinate with the MPO. Commissioner Gordon said the RPO is the ahead of the MPO in their discussion of the CTP and if they decide to remove this section, therewould be a discussion atthe MPO. A motion wasmade by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Priceto closethe public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion wasmade by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to Adopt Part 1 (Attachment 5) of the ComprehensiveTransportation Plan to include map revisions recommended by the OUTBoard (Attachment 2), andto includeoption 1 on the Old 86 Bike route, which is to make no changes in the map. Commissioner Rich said she liked option 2 to be sent to the MPO for discussion. Commissioner McKee said option 2 would require access of and purchase of rights-of- way from DOTand he is notsure if homeownerswould want todo this. He said they are only talking about a short section for an off-road travel way on Old 86. He said it would not be justified to have a short segment. Attachment 3 41 Commissioner Rich said she really wants to have a conversation aboutsafety and gather sufficient information about this. Chair Jacobs said Orange County has no funding for bikes and it is up to DOT. He wouldrather see bike lanes on less traveled roads. Commissioner Pelissier said she supports option 1 thatCommissioner Gordonmade in hermotion because shesees more bikers on the safer, straighter roads. Commissioner Price agreed with option 1 as well. VOTE: Ayes, 5; No, 1 (Commissioner Rich) 7.Regular Agenda a.License Agreement for FarmersMarket Pavilion — Eno River Farmers' Market, Inc. The Board considered the approval of a new license agreement for the Eno River Farmers' Market, Inc. (ERFM) for use of the Farmers' Market PavilionfromApril 1, 2013 through March 31, 2016 (existing agreement expires March 31, 2013) and authorizing the Chair tosign. Departmentof Environment, Agriculture, Parksand RecreationDirector Dave Stancil said on May 5, 2009Orange Countyentered into a license agreement with the Eno River Farmers' Market, Inc. (ERFM), for use of the Farmers' Market Pavilion. The Pavilion is located within the County's River Park and is just south of East Margaret Lane behind the Orange County District Attorney's office. On March 13, 2012 OrangeCounty and the ERFM agreed to a one year amendment of this agreement. The amendment included some changes, most notably a clause stipulating payment by the ERFMto OrangeCounty for use of the Paviliontwodays each week during theterm of the agreement. The agreed upon rate was $500 for the year. He said that a new draft license agreement (in their agendapacket) continues the $500 annual rate for an additional threeyears. The agreement also stipulates (at the Market's suggestion) that the ERFM will use the Pavilion only once per week (on Saturdays from 6:OOam to 1:00 pm). The Agreement excludes Hog Day weekend, but addsthree additional Saturday periods for special events. In total, the numberof eventsdoesnotexceed 54 in a given year. Otherwise, there is no substantive change from the amendment. David Stancil said the County willbe responsiblefor utilities, restroom cleanup, and routine site maintenance. ERFM will be responsible for removing solid waste and recyclable content from the on-site containers after each event, as well as a general sweeping of the pavilion floor and a general litter policing of thearea. The proposed agreement has been reviewed by the ERFM Board. While in agreement with most of the provisions, the ERFM proposes to instead pay an annual fee of$300 for use of the Pavilion. The ERFM Board plans to use the Pavilion on Saturdays only in the upcoming lease, and has inquired as to a reduction in the annualfee on this basis. Commissioner Rich asked what the feeactually covers. Dave Stancil said it isin lieu of a usagefee such as cleaning, etc. Frank Clifton said the $500 rate allows the ERFMto use the facility every Saturday. Commissioner Pricesaid this isa pavilion for all to use but it was actually built for a farmersmarket and ChairJacobs said yesand that the County received federal funds. PUBLIC COMMENT: Attachment 3 42 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center Lower Level Meeting Room, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough I. INTRODUCTIONS Present: Mark Dorosin, Orange County Commissioner, Chair; Commissioner Penny Rich, Vice-Chair; Commissioner Barry Jacobs; Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District Engineer; Mike Mills, NCDOT Division Engineer; John Howell, NCDOT Highway Maintenance Engineer; Dawn McPherson, NCDOT Traffic Engineer; Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager; Travis Myren, Orange County Deputy Manager; Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Land Use/Transportation Planner; Max Bushell, Orange County Transportation Planner; Rich Shaw, Orange County DEAPR; Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough Planning Director; Tom Stevens, Town of Hillsborough Mayor. Commissioner Mark Dorosin, Chair welcomed all and introductions were made. II. DISCUSSIONS a) NCDOT Requirements for Non-Utility Communications or Data Transmission Infrastructure (Chuck Edwards) Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT has had requests for Wi-Fi or cell nodes equipment to repeat cell signals, to be installed on top of poles in the right-of- way. To date, these requests have been in the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area, and pole heights have ranged from 35-50 feet. The Raleigh NCDOT office has developed policy guidelines for granting the required encroachment agreements. The equipment is being requested for both existing poles and new poles. Some local jurisdictions have had some concerns however due to pole locations and heights, and possible conflicts with local zoning regulations. NCDOT is seeking to understand and consider local concerns, including any from Orange County, and to facilitate discussions regarding any actions that might be needed to taken locally (e.g., zoning ordinance revisions or policy revisions). Craig Benedict stated that the County ordinance does not address telecommunication poles in the right-of-way and an amendment might be needed to the language in the County’s ordinance that states what can be located within the right-of-way. Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT would copy Planning on applications received. Margaret Hauth stated that Hillsborough has also received some applications. 43 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     b) Safety/Roadway Improvement Concerns i. Perry Hills Subdivision road maintenance and unpaved roads (Abigaile Pittman, Chuck Edwards) Following a Commissioner inquiry a couple of months ago, Planning staff requested NCDOT investigate maintenance concerns within the Perry Hills Subdivision (recorded in 1965), as well as an evaluation of the eligibility and the process for having the roads not maintained by the State accepted for maintenance. For reference, Abigaile Pittman distributed the Perry Hills Subdivision Road Maintenance Map. The following roads, or portions of the following roads, within the Perry Hills Subdivision have not been accepted into the State system for maintenance:  Paylor Street, Extension of SR 1393, between Shambley Road and Alpha Drive  Scarlett Drive, between Shambley Road and Lancaster Road  Alpha Drive, Extension of SR 1403, north of Scarlett Drive  Alpha Drive, an unpaved section extending northward from its intersection with Scarlet Drive There are numerous requirements for addition of subdivision roads into the State Maintained system, including a minimum housing density standard; the clearing of all trees, uncontrolled vegetation, and any encroachments from the right-of-way; and compliance with minimum design and construction standards. Abigaile Pittman referred to the NCDOT Subdivision Roads Minimum Construction Standards, January 2010, revised May 2016. NCDOT Division 7 staff investigated the streets within Perry Hills Subdivision that are not currently State maintained for eligibility for addition to the State system. Their findings are detailed; to summarize: The roads are eligible due to their age for the unpaved road program but none of the four roads or road portions meets current day standards for addition to the State Maintained system. Extensive, costly corrective actions would be required for them to be eligible for addition. NCDOT maintenance staff has recently performed pavement repairs and the State maintained streets in the subdivision are programmed for resurfacing in 2018. 44 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     Discussions among the group recommended the following next steps: 1) As there is not sufficient state funding to resolve all of the road issues for the subdivision residents, Paylor Street should be the most immediate focus since it would have the greatest impact for the least funds; 2) NCDOT will investigate a possible drainage issue on Paylor Street; 3) Support from the adjoining property owners would be required and outreach to them should be made; and 4) The process would be to first aim to get the road graveled as a two-land road under the unpaved road program, without acceptance into the State System at this time. Commissioner Dorosin agreed that Paylor Street should be the primary focus, and suggested that a section of Alpha Drive be a secondary focus. Chuck Edwards replied that there would not likely be funding to address Alpha Street. Tom Altieri noted that an Information Item is coming before the BOCC at its May 2nd meeting and more detailed information will be provided at that time. ii. Bicycle Warning Signs on Old NC 86 (Max Bushell, NCDOT) The OUTBoard Chair and active member of the Carrboro Bicycle Coalition, Heidi Perry, recently requested that Orange County and the Town of Carrboro coordinate with NCDOT on adding a “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” sign along Old NC 86 between Farm House Road and Homestead Road outside of Carrboro (original correspondence of request send to Chuck on July 22, 2016). There are heavy bicycle volumes along this stretch of Old NC 86 and relatively high automobile speeds, which, in conjunction with narrow lanes and no shoulders, can create issues with the safe passing of bicyclists by automobiles. One typical bicyclist movement is to cross the travel lane to enter into the left-turn lane to make a left turn onto Dairyland Road. NCDOT recently installed an additional roadway sign, stating “Watch for Bikes Turning Left”, as an interim solution until they received additional information on the acceptability of the “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs in North Carolina. NCDOT has not approved these signs for use in North Carolina. NCDOT has not received any feedback from the public yet on whether they like the “Watch for Bikes Turning Left” sign. iii. Requests to Pave Arthur Minnis Road (Max Bushell, Chuck Edwards) At the request of an Orange County citizen and Commissioner Price, Planning staff has been pursuing the paving of an unpaved section of Orange Grove Road between Dodson’s Crossroads and Tuscany Drive, an important east-west route. The existing unpaved portion of 45 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     Arthur Minnis Road had previously been programmed for modernization and paving under the Department of Transportation’s Secondary Road Construction Program based on relative priority ranking. Unfortunately, in spite of a number of attempts by NCDOT, four property owners along the roadway have been consistently unwilling to provide the right-of-way necessary for the project. As a result, NCDOT has been unable to pave this segment. Letters were recently sent to land owners to request the dedication of right-of-way to allow for the paving of this section, but NCDOT reports that no landowner responded to the letter. Discussions among NCDOT, Commissioners and staff suggested that the County reach out to two of the four property owners to help facilitate the dedication of right-of-way for the repaving of this road. The County would assume NCDOT administrative costs, etc. If this can be done, NCDOT would consider condemnation proceedings for the remaining two parcels. iv. Bridge Improvements on Dimmocks Mill Road to Accommodate Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) (Rich Shaw) The proposed MST alignment would cross over I-85 on the existing Dimmocks Mills Road bridge. Input is needed from NCDOT regarding safety improvements on the bridge, such as lighting and signage. Chuck Edwards noted that there is an I-85 widening project farther to the east (and 10 years out), and that this bridge is not slated for replacement. Commissioner Jacobs made some comparisons with the Orange Grove Road bridge over I-40 and asked if they could be treated similarly with regard to safety improvements. Mike Mills noted that the difference is that there is no planned connecting pedestrian network (sidewalks, trails) in the case of the Orange Grove Road bridge. Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT will need to coordinate with the County when the MST trail alignment is finalized. v. Intersection Danger on Buckhorn Road and Mt. Willing Road (Barry Jacobs) Barry Jacobs noted that a resident called to complain about dangers at Buckhorn Road and Bradshaw Quarry, and Buckhorn Road and West Ten Road. Craig Benedict noted that there are weekend traffic problems at Mt. Willing Road and West Ten Road related to the trip generation from the flea market in that area. Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT would look into safety issues at these intersections. Barry Jacobs said he would provide citizen contact information to NCDOT. 46 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     vi. Resident Requests for Review  Speed limit Posting and Striping on Tinnin Road in Efland (Abigaile Pittman) A resident complaint was reported to Commissioner Price. Tinnin Road is in Efland, Cheeks Township; and it intersects with US 70 to south and School House Road to north. It is a narrow road with no center striping. Abigaile Pittman stated that the road has approximately 15 feet of pavement in 50 feet of right-of-way. The resident also requested that speed limit sign(s) be installed. Dawn McPherson stated that NCDOT had also received a resident complaint and had already installed a speed limit sign on Tinnin Road at the intersecting street. They will review and evaluate if another should be installed from the other direction. NCDOT stated that the road was too narrow for striping. Commissioner Rich concurred. NCDOT stated that they would follow up with Abigaile.  Poor Visibility at I-85 and Mt Willing Road Interchange Exit (Abigaile Pittman) A resident complaint was reported to Commissioner Price regarding visibility problems exiting the east-bound ramp and turning north onto Mt. Willing Road. The problem is attributed to a hill on Mt. Willing Road to the south. Abigaile Pittman stated that she visited the site and did not note any other contributing factors such as landscaping that interfered with sight distance, or insufficient lighting. Craig Benedict stated that there is a lot of traffic coming from the four-way stop at the top of the hill at Mt. Willing Road and West Ten Road. NCDOT stated that they will look into the matter, and that perhaps additional signage would be appropriate. III. PENDING PROJECTS a) STIP, Small Construction and Spot Safety Project Updates (Chuck Edwards, NCDOT) STIP Under Construction - U-5550, Intersection Improvements U.S 15-501 at Ephesus Church Road- is scheduled for completion May 2017. STIP Future Projects - U-5847, Construct Roundabout at Mt. Carmel Church Road and Bennett Road is scheduled for construction June 2018. STIP Private Rail Crossing Closures: 47 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     Recently Completed - Gordon Thomas Drive (Pascal Drive) was completed March 2017; Greenbriar Drive is anticipated to be completed March 2017. Under Construction - Byrdsville Road, anticipated Completion Dec. 2017. Small Construction and Spot Safety: Recently Completed - Radius and sight line improvements Cole Mill Road at Pleasant Green Road were completed in October 2016; installation of a traffic signal at NC 54/Dodson X-Road was completed in late 2016 Under Construction - Drainage improvements to South Greensboro Street at NC 54 in Carrboro are scheduled for completion May 2017; and installation of traffic signal at US 70 and Buckhorn Road is scheduled for completion in June 2017. Future Projects - Improve curve alignment at Efland Cedar Grove Road north of Highland Farm Road, construction is scheduled to begin in March 2018 and anticipated completion is October 2018 (coordination with Town of Hillsborough Reservoir expansion). b) Resurfacing and Bridge Replacements (Chuck Edwards, NCDOT) Resurfacing: DG00299- Resurface 22 sections of secondary roads (incl. Erwin Road and various subdivision streets) - Scheduled for Completion in November 2017. DG00319- Widen and resurface St. Mary’s Road and Schley Road- scheduled for completion in November 2017. DG00331- Resurface 17 sections of secondary roads and widen and Resurface 4 sections of Secondary Roads (incl. Hurdle Mills Road, McDade Store Road, Orange Clover- Garden Road and Mattress Factory Road)- Scheduled for completion in November 2017. *Three year resurfacing program will be distributed to Orange County and other local stakeholders for comment in April 2017 Bridge Replacements: Recently Completed Hawkins Rd – Completed 6/24/16 Borland Rd – Completed 8/15/16 Compton Rd – Completed 5/7/16 Mebane-Oaks Rd – Completed 7/27/16 St. Mary’s Rd – Completed 4/15/16 New Hope Church Rd – Completed 9/1/16 Bridge Replacements Under Construction Gray Rd – Scheduled for completion May 2017 St. Mary’s Road- Scheduled for completion June 2017 48 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     Future Bridge Replacement Projects Bradshaw-Quarry Rd – Anticipated start 2017 TBD, Anticipated completion TBD 2017 Arthur Minnis Rd – Anticipated Start 2017 TBD, Anticipated completion TBD 2017 Edmund Latta Rd –Scheduled begin construction April 2017/ Anticipated complete June 2017 Lib Rd –Scheduled begin construction April 2017/Anticipated completion July 2017 Atkins Rd –Scheduled begin construction May 2017/Anticipated completion August 2017 IV. UPDATES a) Downtown Hillsborough Improvements (Margaret Hauth) All needed NCDOT approvals are finally in-hand for the downtown access project. Hillsborough has a contractor and signed contracts. Work is expected to begin mid-April. A public information session was held on March 20. A pre- construction meeting was held on March 28. The project provides accessible curb ramps and crosswalks at all downtown intersections, additional sidewalk connections to key destinations and widened sidewalks in congested areas. More detailed project description is available on the Town website. The east side work adjacent to the courthouse will be done first, and then work will move to Tryon Street and move south. There is also an email list for merchants and others to receive regular updates. Anyone wanting to be included on that list should contact Hillsborough Planner Stephanie Trueblood. Work will continue through the summer. Once the sidewalk work is completed, NCDOT will have to schedule the resurfacing of Churton Street. Once that is scheduled and complete, the stamped crosswalk improvements will be the final step. b) Too-brief signalization limiting traffic headed north/south on Nash Street at its intersection with West King in west Hillsborough (NCDOT) - Timing updates have been completed to extend the signal to 25 seconds. c) Schley Road Crash Analysis (Max Bushell) An Orange County resident recently informed Orange County Transportation Planning staff of a recent severe crash along Schley Road close to the intersection of Schley Road and New Sharon Church Road. In examining the 49 Item 7.a. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes Division 7 and District 1 March 29, 2017 12:00 p.m.     crashes along Schley Road and at the intersection of Schley Road and New Sharon Church Road, there have been 17 crashes in a five-year timeframe, including two crashes resulting in a Class A injury, indicating the presence of a possible safety issue at that intersection. Orange County Transportation Planning staff would like to bring this to the attention of NCDOT staff and request that NCDOT examine this intersection to better understand what, if any, intervention could be appropriate to improve safety. NCDOT stated they will look into this and determine if any improvement is needed at this location. d) Safety Improvements at Orange Grove Road Bridge over I-40 (Max Bushell, NCDOT) The bridge on Orange Grove Road over I-40 provides the only access between the Patriot’s Pointe apartment complex and a nearby mobile home park and two schools, the Grady Brown Elementary School and the Cedar Ridge High School. Originally designed only for automobile traffic, the bridge is consistently used by pedestrians to access the schools despite the dangerous conditions for walking along the roadway. Orange County submitted a project to the NCDOT SPOT P3.0 prioritization process to construct a pedestrian bridge at this location, though issues with local match, local project management, maintenance costs, liability, and a lack of receiving sidewalks rendered the project untenable. In the current SPOT process, P5.0, Orange County is submitting two projects at this location, one pedestrian bridge and one highway widening project with sidewalks and bike lanes. In the interim, however, Orange County Transportation Planning staff has requested that NCDOT install a fence along the I-40 bridge to prevent people from falling off the bridge as well as to prevent people from dropping items onto the highway. NCDOT indicated that they are struggling to come up with the funding to install a fence at this location. 50 Item 7.c. PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2017 TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner SUBJECT: BOCC Updates Safe Routes to School Next Steps Resolution The SRTS resolution that was approved by the OUTBoard on March 1 was delivered to the BOCC as an Information Item on March 21. Follow-up related to the resolution regarding SRTS next steps will come from the County Manager. The County Manager is generally very supportive of the SRTS next step actions that were conveyed in the OUTBoard’s resolution. Initial steps for staff are to include pursuit of a sidewalk maintenance agreement among OC, Hillsborough and NCDOT. NCDOT is also actively looking for funds for safety (fencing) improvements on the bridge and will continue coordination with OC staff. Transportation Planning staff is working with NCDOT on a bigger highway improvement concept that would involve 3-lane cross section on Orange Grove from Oakdale to New Grady Brown School Rd, new bridge and bike/ped elements. It would be subject to SPOT scoring and prioritization but a start on a long-term solution. The link for this BOCC item is: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/doc/45988/Page1.aspx Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report and Next Steps The Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report and Next Steps item is on the 5/2/2017 BOCC Agenda. The Commissioners are being asked to receive a presentation on the Bicycle Safety Task Force Report, provide any comments they might have, and provide 51 direction on next steps. The budget request of $15,000 for FY 17/18 has been submitted for consideration. The BOCC agenda materials are not yet posted online, but they should be around April 28th. At that time, you can view the materials at the following link: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/Browse.aspx?startid=1&dbid=0 52