Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 031616AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board March 16, 2016 7:00 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 7:00 7:05 1. 2. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum Introduction of Max Bushell, Transportation Planner 7:10 7:15 7:20 7:55 8:15 8:50 8:55 9:00 3. 4. 5. 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 6. 7. 8. Approval of Minutes from February 17 , 2016 Consideration of Additions to the Agenda Regular Agenda (Action Items) MPO and RPO Methodologies for Ranking Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project RequestV (Max Bushell) OUTBoard Action: Receive and review information. SPOT 4.0 MPO and RPO Project Lists (Abigaile Pittman) OUTBoard Action: Receive and review information Bicycle Safety (Abigaile Pittman) – Recommendation of Bicycle Task Force membership OUTBoard Action: Receive and reviewinformation, provide comments andrecommendations on Task Force membership, charge and term Staff Updates (Abigaile Pittman) – Handout included in packet a.Status of NCDOT Division 7 projects located in DCHC MPO OUTBoard Action: Receive information. Board Comments Adjournment 1 Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures) 1.The OUTBoard 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 OUTBoard may be directed to provide input on regulations on which the Planning Board has primary statutory and local ordinance advisory duties. In such instances, theOUTBoard 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 OUTBoard 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 7:00 p.m. at the Orange County West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The OUTBoard 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 D R A FT1 2 MINUTES3 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD4 FEBRUARY 17, 20165 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT:Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Heidi Perry, At-Large Representative; Gary 8 Saunders, At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, At-Large Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large 9 Representative, Tom Magnuson, At-Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; 10 Representative; Jeff Charles, At-Large Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT:Art Menius, At Large Representative; Eno Township Representative - Vacant; Ed Vaughn, 13 Cedar Grove Township Representative; John Rubin, At-Large Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough 14 Township 15 16 STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Peter Murphy, OPT Transportation 17 Administrator; Meredith Pucci, Administrative Assistant II; Malcum Massenburg, OPT Transportation Asst. 18 Administrator; Janet Sparks, Child Support Director; Lisa Berley, Aging Dept.; Anna Kenion, Health Dept.; Janice 19 Tyler; Aging 20 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call23 24 AGENDA ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes for November 18, 201525 26 Minutes were approved with corrections by consensus. 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 3: Consideration of Additions of the Agenda29 30 No additions were considered. 31 32 33 AGENDA ITEM 4: Transit Services, Orange Public Transportation (OPT) - This section of the agenda 34 is addressed jointly by the OUTBoard and supplemental staff from other County 35 departments (Aging; DSS; Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; 36 Health; Child Support Enforcement; and the Library) to address transit services. 37 38 AGENDA ITEM 4A: OPT Quarterly Operational Statistics Report (Peter Murphy) – Update on 39 Quarterly Operational Statistics relative to performance goals. 40 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide 41 comments. 42 43 Peter Murphy reviewed items.44 45 There was discussion regarding the decrease in Medicaid funded trips and it was concluded that it was 46 something to look into and discuss with DSS. 47 48 Peter Murphy reviewed the Hill to Hill Shuttle and explained there’s an interest in being a part of GO pass to gain 49 riders, which would have to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Heidi Perry suggested 50 advertising the bus route options because most people don’t know about it. Peter Murphy estimates the cost for 51 GO pass to the County, based on places that pay for it, would be about $9,000 a year. He also explained that 52 GO Triangle would be willing to pay the difference of the fare to start the GO passes in order to get it started until 53 they can get it in front of the Board of Commissioners. Peter Murphy then explained that the idea of providing the 54 idea of the GO pass came up at the request of a County Commissioner, so there should be support for it. 55 3 D R A FT56 57 MOTION made by Jeff Charles to recommend the OUTboard is in support of getting started on GO passes. 58 Seconded by Alex Castro. 59 VOTE:Unanimous 60 61 62 63 AGENDA ITEM 4B: OPT Five-Year Plan for Bus Replacement (Peter Murphy) – Review of Five-Year 64 Bus Replacement Plan, including financial assumptions. 65 66 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide 67 comments.68 69 Peter Murphy reviewed items.70 71 Jeff Charles inquired about going to electric vehicles or other technologies. Peter Murphy explained there 72 weren’t but the new buses they just got in are gasoline and are in the process of being transitioned to propane, 73 which will then give them the option to run on gasoline or propane. 74 75 AGENDA ITEM 4C: Review and Prioritization of OPT Bus Stop Improvements (Peter Murphy): 76 Review and prioritization of improvements proposed for new bus stops for OPT route 77 expansions; to be provided as funding is available. 78 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide 79 comments 80 81 82 Peter Murphy reviewed items.83 84 Alex Castro requested having better location details on the dots on the bus route map. He also suggested 85 getting private funding or sponsorship to pay for the new bus shelters to be built. 86 87 88 AGENDA ITEM 4D: OPT Transportation Barriers (Peter Murphy): Discussion of how information on 89 transportation barriers can best be collected, and development of strategies for 90 addressing. 91 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Discuss and provide comments. 92 93 Peter Murphy reviewed items94 95 JaniceTyler recommended talking to James Davis in regards to anything to do with accessibility of the shelters. 96 Jeff Charles suggested being aware of the visually impaired, and not just physically impaired, as far as safety 97 issues and ways to make it easier for them to be able to read to the maps and bus schedules. 98 99 100 AGENDA ITEM 4E: North Hillsborough Park-and-Ride Replacement (Peter Murphy): Review of 101 replacement proposal for the Maxway/North Hills Shopping Center Park-and-Ride in 102 north Hillsborough. 103 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide 104 comments. 105 106 Peter Murphy reviewed items107 108 Abigaile Pittman inquired about the walking distance. Peter Murphy informed that it’s a few miles, with no 109 sidewalks and advised there’s no expectation to walk from the park-and-ride to the transfer location, that the buses 110 would go to both locations. He informed it would add about 5 minutes of travel time but it’s the best they have to 111 work with. 112 4 D R A FT113 Ted Triebel mentioned a concern that the location is very high volume during school, with the high school. Peter 114 Murphy informed that the design will have that in mind so the park and ride users aren’t exiting onto Orange 115 High School Road, but onto Route 70 instead. 116 117 AGENDA ITEM 4F: Transit Advisory Services (TAS) Comments/Questions (Peter Murphy): 118 Opportunity for TSB members to offer transit related comments and ask questions. 119 OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Provide comments and questions, receive 120 feedback. 121 122 Peter Murphy reviewed items123 124 Heidi Perry recommended advertising. She suggested options such as, signage at the places where the buses 125 go, possible television or radio spots available, through social media, or the Orange County government sending 126 out the information. 127 128 129 5. REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS)130 Agenda Item 5a: Bicycle Safety131 Bicycle Safety (Abigaile Pittman) –132 Determination of Bicycle Task Force membership composition, charge and 133 initial term. 134 135 OUTBoard Action: Receive and review information, provide comments and 136 recommendations on Task Force membership, charge and initial term 137 138 Abigaile Pittman provided brief summary139 140 Heidi Perry explained that the Board of County Commissioners reviewed the last resolution and they 141 wanted to see some more intentional steps taken for bicycle safety and it seems they want this task 142 force to address it and then come back to them with the recommendation. She then presented her 143 outline to the OUTBoard. 144 145 The proposed charge, membership composition and term were reviewed by the OUTBoard. 146 Heidi Perry suggested the term be changed to one year. 147 Abigaile Pittman noted some concern about having an elected official (Commissioner) because the 148 recommendations of the proposed task force would be sent to the BOCC for approval. 149 150 Jeff Charles suggested that there be a Commissioner as a liaison rather than as a member of the task 151 force per se. 152 153 There was general agreement with Jeff Charles’ suggestion and revised language for the membership 154 composition was discussed. ‘Elected official’ would be deleted from the membership list in Item A.2., 155 and Item A.2. would be revised to say ‘Stakeholders from each of the groups below be included in the 156 membership, and a Board of County Commissioner liaison’. 157 158 The OUTBoard also agreed the membership list in Item A.2. should revise ‘County businesses’ to 159 ‘County business or Chamber of Commerce representative’. 160 5 D R A FT 161 Heidi Perry asked if there is a motion to recommend this to the Board of County Commissioners. 162 163 Motion: made by Alex Castro to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Jeff 164 Charles. 165 Vote: Unanimous 166 167 Agenda Item 6: Staff Updates (Abigaile Pittman) – Handouts included in packet168 169 a.Revision to OUTBoard Policies and Procedures170 b.Complete Streets for Seniors (Heidi Perry, verbal update)171 c.NCDOT Division 7 projects located in DCHC MPO172 d.NCDOT FY 2016-2017 and 2017-1018 Orange County Maintenance Resurfacing173 e.Feb. 9 BOCC Review of Boards/Commissions' Annual Work Plans/Reports174 f.Mebane Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)175 g.NC 54 Corridor Feasibility Study176 h.Collins Ridge development, Hillsborough177 178 OUTBoard Action: Receive information. 179 180 Abigaile Pittman gave a quick update on items.181 182 Jeff Charles inquired about replacing the wooden bridge on Borland, that was scheduled to be replaced 18 183 months ago, which has a drastic impact on cyclists. Abigaile Pittman informed him that she just got a notice about 184 a bridge closing which she will send out to them. 185 186 Heidi Perry said the OUTBoard should look over the list of upcoming widening projects for opportunities of 187 adding two-foot shoulders for bicyclists. 188 189 Abigaile Pittman reminded the OUTBoard that the funding is no longer available for adding two-foot shoulders. 190 191 Heidi Perry mentioned there’s going to be a meeting on March 3rd at the Seymour Center in Chapel Hill about 192 aging and community and planning for our future, and read a brief description. 193 194 Alex Castro mentioned his concern about the safety of seniors walking in Hillsborough along Route 70. He 195 explained it’s a problem with jurisdiction. Jeff Charles suggested that he forward this issue to David Bonk. 196 197 Jeff Charles suggested to Alex Castro that he give a presentation about senior topics related to Chapel Hill 198 Transportation and Connectivity to raise this issue. Alex Castro accepted. Other suggestions to raise this issue 199 to formal awareness were discussed. 200 201 Jeff Charles requested an update as where the legislature is on those NCDOT recommendations. Heidi Perry 202 advised that House Bill 232 has been sent to the Legislature and they will take it up in April. 203 204 Agenda Item 7: Board Comments205 206 No additional comments.207 208 Agenda Item 8: Adjournment209 210 The meeting was adjourned by consensus.211212 213 214 215 216 Heidi Perry, Chair 217 6 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MeetingDate:March 16, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. D SUBJECT: MPO and RPO Methodologies for Identifying and Ranking Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project RequestV DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Prioritization 4.0 Schedule 2.STIP Fact Sheet INFORMATIONCONTACT: Max Bushell, 245-2582 $ELJDLOH3LWWPDQ, 245-25 7RP$OWLHUL, 245-25 PURPOSE: To provide information to OUTBoard members regarding the methodology for identifying and ranking new Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project requests for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (B-G MPO), and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO). BACKGROUND:This section includes 1) a summary of the overall TIP process, 2) a summary of the DCHC MPO process, 3) a summary of the B-G MPO process, and 4) a summary of the TARPO process. Overall TIP Process Every two years, 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 highway improvements, aviation facilities, public transportation, ferry travel, freight rail, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The STIP is the primary tool that the State uses to implement the infrastructure projects in local and regional transportation plans. Further information about the prioritization process can be found at this link: http://www.ncdot.gov/download/strategictransportationinvestments/P4_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Current Timeline A list of projects was submitted by DCHC MPO, TARPO, and B-G MPO at the outset of this process in November 2015. It is important to note that projects initially submitted by the MPOs to NCDOT are currently being evaluated at the Statewide Mobility level, wherein projects are evaluated based 100 percent on a data-driven process. Once the Statewide Mobility projects are published in the Draft TIP (sometime in March 2016), the remaining 7 projects will be considered at the Regional Impact level, wherein data accounts for 70 percent of the project score and local input counts for 30 percent. The period for local input into prioritization is April to May. Following a period of evaluation, NCDOT will publish the results of the Regional Impact Project prioritization (end of July). The remaining projects will be evaluated at the Divisional Needs level, which evaluates projects based 50 percent on data and 50 percent on local input. The comment period for local input is from August to September. NCDOT will then finalize the Divisional Needs portion of the Draft STIP and publish a completed draft STIP in December of 2016, with final approval by the Board of Transportation sometime in Summer 2017. With this timeline in mind, the State is currently just short of midway through the 2018-2027 STIP process and is currently reviewing projects for funding at the Statewide Mobility level. More information about the P4.0 timeline can be found at this link: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/MPORPODocuments/P4.0%20Schedule%2010 -1-15.pdf. OUTBoard Role In previous years, the OUTBoard has been involved in establishing transportation priority lists as part of this process. Most recently, the OUTBoard reviewed the proposed Orange County projects at the meeting on May 20, 2015. The goal of this presentation is to help the OUTBoard understand how projects are prioritized within each MPO/RPO jurisdiction as part of the Prioritization 4.0 process (the fourth iteration of statewide project prioritization). More information specific to the development of the 2018-2027 TIP can be found at this link: http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html. DCHC MPO Process The DCHC MPO process is designed to address certain factors, including multi-modal transportation needs, a regional balance of projects, and projects needed based on technical criteria. Ultimately, the goal is to create a project ranking that satisfies MPO goals, is easily understandable particularly by the public, and is simple enough on a project level, i.e. does not require unnecessary data collection. More information about the MPO Goals can be found at this link: http://www.dchcmpo.org/programs/transport/2040mtp/goals.asp. The steps in the process are noted briefly below: 1.Submission of Local Priority Lists to the MPO by public/member jurisdictions. 2.DCHC MPO Screening for Projects – Meet regional goals? Are cost-effective? Timing of project crucial? 3.Top fourteen (14) new projects for each mode (highway, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian, rail) submitted to Strategic Transportation Investments Process/ SPOT P4.0. 8 4.Receive NCDOT’s raw scores and associated data for all projects. 5.Apply Local Input Points (qualitative component) to project scores in order of quantitative project ranking from highest to lowest, ensuring collaboration with NCDOT Division Engineers. A total of 1,800 points are assigned for each of the Regional Impact and Divisional Needs categories for the DCHC MPO. 6.Release Project Priority Rankings and application of Local Input Points for public comment. Hold public hearing at MPO Board meeting. 7.DCHC MPO Board approval after review and public comment. 8.DCHC MPO submits projects with Local Input Points for use in the remainder of the STI/SPOT P4.0 process. 9.NCDOT ranks projects for inclusion in the draft STIP. B-G MPO Process The B-G MPO process is a simplified version of the DCHC MPO process. Projects are submitted by local jurisdictions to the B-G MPO, which evaluates the projects and submits them to NCDOT. The B-G MPO will then rank each project using local input points (1,300 points for both Regional Impact and Divisional Needs levels), hold a public hearing to review the projects, and submit to NCDOT. One notable difference is that the B-G MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) reserves the right to select the top thirteen (13) projects with the highest SPOT score to receive the maximum local points (100 points each)LQ the Regional and Division level categories. TARPO Process The TARPO process is a much simplified version of the DCHC MPO process consisting of three parts. The steps include 1.a ranking of projects at the countywide level, 2.quantitative scoring of submitted projects, and 3.a ranking of scored projects and assignment of SPOT points. This process assumes that local governments within counties will work together to create a single ranked list of the top ten (10) projects in all modes for each county. All jurisdictions must be given the opportunity to participate, a quantitative method must be used, and public input must be solicited. TARPO will then perform a quantitative analysis to rank all of the projects, ultimately determining the final priority ranking for submission to the SPOT P4.0 process. Prioritization polices for the DCHC MPO, the B-G MPO, and TARPO are available upon request. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive and review. 9 10 Pr i o r i t i z a t i o n 4 . 0 S c h e d u l e Oc t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 Ju n J u l A u g S e p t O c t N o v D e c J a n F e b M a r A p r M a y J u n J u l A u g S e p t O c t N o v D e c TI P U n i t Pr o g r a m s St a t e w i d e Mo b i l i t y Pr o j e c t s NC D O T Re l e a s e s Dr a f t S T I P NC D O T Pr o v i d e s Re p o r t t o JL T O C MP O s , R P O S , Di v i s i o n s A s s i g n Di v i s i o n N e e d s L o c a l In p u t P o i n t s SP O T F i n a l i z e s Di v i s i o n N e e d s Sc o r e s a n d T I P U n i t Pr o g r a m s D i v i s i o n Ne e d s P r o j e c t s 20 1 6 MP O s , R P O S , Di v i s i o n s A s s i g n Re g i o n a l I m p a c t Lo c a l I n p u t P o i n t s (w i t h o p t i o n t o as s i g n D i v i s i o n Ne e d s L o c a l I n p u t Po i n t s ) MP O s , R P O S , D i v i s i o n s R e v i e w Ex i s t i n g P r o j e c t s , P r e p a r e N e w Su b m i t t a l s a n d E m a i l P r o j e c t Mo d i f i c a t i o n s a n d a n t i c i p a t e d In t e r s e c t i o n / I n t e r c h a n g e Pr o j e c t s t o S P O T ( d u e S e p t 1 s t ) 20 1 5 SP O T F i n a l i z e s Re g i o n a l I m p a c t Sc o r e s a n d T I P U n i t Pr o g r a m s R e g i o n a l Im p a c t P r o j e c t s MP O s , R P O S , Di v i s i o n s S u b m i t Ne w C a n d i d a t e Pr o j e c t s ( O c t 1 9 - No v 2 0 ) SP O T R e v i e w s a n d C a l c u l a t e s Q u a n t . Sc o r e s A l l P r o j e c t s ( E x i s t i n g + N e w ) . In c l u d e s r e v i e w o f a l l d a t a & c o s t s ( b y MP O s , R P O s , D i v i s i o n s , a n d D O T s t a f f ) BO T R e v i e w s a n d Ap p r o v e s P 4 . 0 Cr i t e r i a / W e i g h t s Ke y D a t e s : Se p t e m b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 – Pr o j e c t M o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d a n t i c i p a t e d I n t e r s e c t i o n / I n t e r c h a n g e p r o j e c t s d u e Oc t o b e r 1 , 2 0 1 5 – Al t e r n a t e C r i t e r i a f o r R e g i o n a l I m p a c t a n d D i v i s i o n N e e d s s c o r i n g d u e ; E x i s t i n g P r o j e c t De l e t i o n s d u e f o r r e c e i v i n g e x t r a n e w s u b m i t t a l s ( o n e o u t , o n e i n ) Oc t o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 5 – SP O T O n ! i n e a v a i l a b l e f o r E n t e r i n g P r o j e c t s f o r 1 m o n t h ( e n d s N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 1 5 ) En d o f M a r c h 2 0 1 6 – Q u a n t i t a t i v e S c o r e s a n d D r a f t l i s t o f P r o g r a m m e d S t a t e w i d e M o b i l i t y P r o j e c t s r e l e a s e d Ap r i l 1 , 2 0 1 6 – Re g i o n a l I m p a c t L o c a l I n p u t P o i n t w i n d o w o p e n s f o r 2 m o n t h s ; D e a d l i n e f o r A p p r o v a l o f L o c a l In p u t P o i n t A s s i g n m e n t M e t h o d o l o g i e s En d o f J u l y 2 0 1 6 – D r a f t l i s t o f P r o g r a m m e d R e g i o n a l I m p a c t P r o j e c t s r e l e a s e d Au g u s t 1 , 2 0 1 6 – Di v i s i o n N e e d s L o c a l I n p u t P o i n t w i n d o w o p e n s f o r 2 m o n t h s Oc t o b e r 2 0 1 6 – Fi n a l P 4 . 0 S c o r e s r e l e a s e d De c e m b e r 2 0 1 6 – 2 0 1 7 - 2 0 2 7 D r a f t S T I P r e l e a s e d No t e s : Bl u e Bo x = A p p r o v a l of P4 . 0 Sc o r i n g Ye l l o w Bo x = M P O / R P O / D i v i s i o n In p u t Gr e e n Bo x =NC D O T Wo r k Ta s k s $W W D F K P H Q W   11 12 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT) 10-year construction schedule for projects. The schedule is updated every two years based on a data- driven process called Prioritization, as well as the latest state and federal financial situation, and the status of preconstruction activities. Schedule development must adhere to the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law, which mandates ongoing evaluation and improvement to ensure the process continues to be responsive to North Carolina’s diverse needs. Developing a STIP is accomplished through ongoing collaboration with our regional planning partners—metropolitan and rural planning organizations—and public input is a key component. Pu b l i c I n p u t Pu b l i c I n p u t Pu b l i c I n p u t Public Input Process Begins Fall 2015 Winter 2016 Summer 2017 STIP Unit identifies and publishes Statewide Mobility projects for the draft STIP SPOT reviews and calculates Quantitative Scores for projects (new and existing) under the latest Prioritization criteria, formulas and weights. Includes review of all data, costs and input from MPOs, RPOs, NCDOT divisions and NCDOT staff. MPOs, RPOS, NCDOT divisions submit new projects for scoring MPOs, RPOs, NCDOT divisions rank projects on the Regional Impact level (which can include projects that were not funded at the Statewide Mobility level) STIP Unit identifies and publishes Regional Impact projects for the draft STIP SPOT finalizes Regional Impact project scores SPOT finalizes Division Needs project scores MPOs, RPOs, NCDOT divisions rank projects at the Division Needs level (which can include projects that were not funded at the Statewide or Regional level) STIP Unit identifies and publishes Division Needs projects for the draft STIP NCDOT releases entire draft STIP Cycle Starts A g a i n NC Board of Transportation approves Final 2018–2027 STIP Abbreviations MPOs—Metropolitan Planning Organizations RPOs—Rural Planning Organizations SPOT—NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation STIP—Statewide Transportation Improvement Program Public Local Planning Organizations Local NCDOT Divisions NCDOT Headquarters NC Board of Transportation Color Codes Wi n t e r 2 0 1 5 / 2 0 1 6 Late Winter/ Early Spring 2016 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Summer 2016 Fall 2016 For more information, visit www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/ $WWDFKPHQW 13 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS LAW Passed in 2013, the Strategic Transportation Investments Law (STI) allows NCDOT to use its funding more efficiently and effectively to enhance the state’s infrastructure, while supporting economic growth, job creation and a higher quality of life. This process encourages thinking from a statewide and regional perspective, while also providing flexibility to address local needs. STI established the Strategic Mobility Formula, which allocates available revenues based on data-driven scoring and local input. It was used for the first time to develop the 2016–2025 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which schedules the projects that will be funded during a 10-year period. While federal law requires it to be updated at least every four years, NCDOT updates the STIP every two years. PRIORITIZATION NCDOT uses a transparent, data-driven method for prioritizing transportation investment decisions. Through the process, called Prioritization, potential transportation improvement projects are submitted to NCDOT to be scored and ranked through the Strategic Mobility Formula at the statewide, regional and division levels, based on approved criteria such as safety, congestion, benefit-cost and local priorities. These scores and other factors are used to determine whether a project receives funding. Project prioritization occurs every two years. The current round of Prioritization is referred to as P4.0, because it is the fourth iteration of this process. HOW THE STRATEGIC MOBILITY FORMULA WORKS The Strategic Mobility Formula funds projects in three categories: •Division Needs •Regional Impact •Statewide Mobility Division Needs Projects in this category receive 30 percent of the available revenue, shared equally over NCDOT’s 14 transportation divisions, which are groupings of local counties. Project scores are based 50 percent on data and 50 percent on rankings by local planning organizations and the NCDOT transportation divisions. Highway projects in this category are analyzed according to five criteria: •Congestion (15 percent) •Benefit/cost (15 percent) •Safety (10 percent) •Freight and military) (5 percent) •Accessibility/Connectivity (5 percent) Regional Impact Projects in this category receive 30 percent of available revenue. Projects on this level compete within regions made up of two NCDOT transportation divisions, with funding divided among the regions based on population. Data makes up 70 percent of the project scores in this category. Local rankings account for the remaining 30 percent. Regional Impact projects are analyzed according to five criteria: •Congestion (20 percent) •Benefit/cost (20 percent) •Safety (10 percent) •Accessibility/connectivity (10 percent) •Freight and military (10 percent) Statewide Mobility Projects in this category receive 40 percent of available revenue. The project selection process is based 100 percent on data. Statewide Mobility projects are analyzed according to six criteria: •Congestion (30 percent) •Benefit/cost (25 percent) •Economic competitiveness (10 percent) •Safety (15 percent) •Multimodal and military (5 percent) •Freight and mobility (15 percent) Alternate Criteria To provide more flexibility, STI allows regions and divisions to develop alternate criteria tailored to their individual needs. To do so, the metropolitan and rural planning organizations, and the NCDOT divisions within the region must unanimously agree on the criteria. REVENUE DISTRIBUTION For more information, visit www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/ 14 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MeetingDate:March 16, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT 4.0) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Project Lists DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Orange County Transportation Planning Jurisdictions 2.DCHC MPO Projects (March 2016) 3.B-G MPO Projects (March 2016) 4.TARPO Projects (March 2016) INFORMATION CONTACT: $ELJDLOH3LWWPDQ, 245-25 0D[%XVKHOO, 245-25 7RP$OWLHUL, 245-25 PURPOSE: To provide information to OUTBoard members regarding Orange County’s SPOT 4.0 project lists submitted by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (DCHC MPO), the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (B-G MPO), and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) for scoring by NCDOT and ultimate consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). BACKGROUND:The lists of projects submitted by DCHC MPO, TARPO, and B-G MPO in November 2015 are being evaluated this month by NCDOT at the Statewide Mobility level. Following this, the remaining projects will be evaluated at the Regional Impact level, and at the Divisional Needs level, according to the methodology and process discussed in item 5a of the OUTBoard agenda. The comment period for local input on regional projects is from April to May 2016, and from August to September 2016 for Divisional Projects, after which NCDOT will finalize the Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and publish it in December of 2016, with final approval by the Board of Transportation sometime in Summer 2017. On May 20 the OUTBoard considered and recommended to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) transportation projects for the DCHC MPO, BGMPO, and TARPO, to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The OUTBoard unanimously recommended the DCHC and BG MPO project lists as submitted by staff, and recommend the TARPO project list with no ‘widening’ and only alternative operational improvements’ on the NC 54 projects. E 15 On June 2 the BOCC considered a resolution endorsing transportation projects within DCHC MPO, BGMPO, and TARPO planning areas for State scoring and ultimate consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 STIP. For reference, a map of Orange County Transportation Planning Jurisdictions is provided as Attachment 1. DCHC MPO Projects Under the DCHC MPO process, fourteen (14) new projects for each mode (highway, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian, rail) are allowed to be submitted to the prioritization process. Public input will be solicited during the later stages of the process.DCHC MPO will then perform a quantitative analysis to rank all of the projects, ultimately determining the final priority ranking for submission to the SPOT P4.0 process, along with the list of carry-over projects from SPOT 3.0. The project list seen and recommended by the OUTBoard and BOCC last year (May and June, 2015) originally had seventeen (17) projects. Through the DCHC MPO review process and taking the input of the MPO and the division into account, this list was decreased to 14 projects, with six (6) of them relating to interstate improvements. The DCHC MPO/Orange County project list and associated map is provided in Attachment 2. NCDOT is currently in the process of scoring each of these projects, and quantitative project scores are anticipated from NCDOT this month. The process will then continue as previously described. DCHC MPO Combined Project List (Carry-Over from SPOT 3.0 and New) Carry-Over Projects: Map ID Project 1 Add additional lanes on I-40 from I-85 to NC 86 2 Add additional lanes on I-40 from NC 86 to US 15/501 3 Improve interchange at I-40 and NC 86 4 Widen SR 1009 (South Churton Street) to multi-lanes with landscaped median, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks from I-40 to Eno River, widen Bridge No. 240 over Southern Railroad. 5 Improve interchange at I-85 and SR-1009 (South Churton Street) 6 Orange Grove Road Extension (Orange Grove Road to US 70A) with sidewalks and bicycle lanes 7 Improve intersection of NC 54 and Neville Road New Projects: Map ID Project 8 Widen NC 86 from US 70 Bypass North to NC 57 to four lanes with a median and improve intersections 9 Construct new interchange to accommodate increased traffic at I-85 and NC 86 10 Construct new section of SR 1184 (Eno Mountain Road) to align with SR 1192 (Mayo Street) 11 Reconstruct Interchange to allow for full movements at US 70 and the US 70 Connector 12 Widen one lane in each direction on I-85 from west of Mt. Herman Church Road grade separation to west of Durham County Line 16 13 Widen to one lane in each direction and improve interchanges on I-85 from I-85/40 split to east of the NC 86 interchange 14 Construct bicycle lanes on both sides of roadway on Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road from SR 1777 (Homestead Road) to Farm House Road Projects Endorsed by BOCC at June 2, 2015, meeting that were not be submitted by DCHC MPO for scoring: 1)Homestead Road bike lane and sidewalk installation 2)Eubanks Road bike lane installation 3)Mt. Carmel Church Road Bike/Pedestrian Improvements 4)Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk Improvements 5)Orange Grove Road/I-40 Pedestrian Bridge and Supporting Sidewalk Improvements 6)Dairyland Road paved shoulders 7)Trail Connection from English Hill Lane to Buttonwood Drive 8)Trail Connection from Patriots Pointe to Timbers Drive Likely due to the large number of pedestrian and bicycle projects submitted in this iteration of the prioritization process and due to anticipated low scores, these projects were not recommended by the DCHC MPO TAC for inclusion in SPOT 4.0. B-G MPO Projects B-G MPO Combined Project List (Carry-Over from SPOT 3.0 and New) Under the B-G MPO process projects are submitted by local jurisdictions to the MPO, which evaluates the projects and submits them to NCDOT. The B-G MPO will then rank each project using local input points (1,300 points for both Regional Impact and Divisional Needs levels), hold a public hearing to review the projects, and submit to NCDOT. The B-G MPO Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) reserves the right to select the top thirteen (13) projects with the highest SPOT score to receive the maximum local points (100 points each) with the Regional and Division level categories. The project list seen and recommended by the OUTBoard and BOCC last year (May and June, 2015) originally had three (3) projects. Through the B-G review process, this list was reduced to two (2) projects, relating to Buckhorn Road and the Mattress Factory Road Interchange. The B-G MPO/Orange County project list and associated map is provided in Attachment 3. NCDOT is currently in the process of scoring each of these projects, and quantitative project scores are anticipated from NCDOT this month. The process will then continue as previously described. Carry-Over Projects: Map ID Project 1 Buckhorn Road widening from U.S. 70 to West Ten Road* 2 Mattress Factory Road Interchange** *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 17 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. **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: x Modified diamond interchange with a loop ramp in the southeast quadrant for I-40 eastbound exiting vehicles; x Five (5)-lane roadway section on Mattress Factory Road at the proposed interchange; x One bridge structure with a five (5)-lane section and bike/ped accommodations; x Traffic signals installed on Mattress Factory Road at the ramp intersection and Oakwood Street with coordinated signals; and x Industrial Drive realignment to intersect Mattress factory Road either across from Oakwood Street or further north. New Projects: None Projects Endorsed by BOCC at June 2, 2015, meeting that were not be submitted by B-G MPO for scoring: x Mattress Factory Road extension to U.S. 70 – The extension of 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. This project was not recommended by the B-G MPO TAC because of its low score under SPOT 3.0. TARPO Projects Under the TARPO process each county may submit a single ranked list of up to the top ten (10) projects in all modes, and public input must be solicited. TARPO will then perform a quantitative analysis to rank all of the projects, ultimately determining the final priority ranking for submission to the SPOT P4.0 process, along with the list of carry-over project from SPOT 3.0. The project list seen and recommended by the OUTBoard and BOCC last year (May and June, 2015) originally had nine (9) projects. Through the TARPO review process, this list was reduced to eight (8) projects, with five (5) of the projects being segments of NC 54. The other three (3) projects relate to Efland-Cedar Grove Road, 18 Buckhorn Road/Orange Grove Road, and Old Greensboro Road.The TARPO/Orange County project list and associated map is provided in Attachment 4.NCDOT is currently in the process of scoring each of these projects, and quantitative project scores are anticipated from NCDOT this month. The process will then continue as previously described. TARPO Combined Project List (Carry-Over from SPOT 3.0 and New) Carry-Over Projects: Map ID Project 1 NC 54 widening from Orange Grove Road to NC 119 in Alamance County 2 NC 54 widening from Old Fayetteville Road to Orange Grove Road OR just operational improvements* 3 Intersection Improvements at NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road (DCHC MPO planning area)* 4 Intersection Improvements at NC 54 and Dodsons Crossroads* 5 Intersection Improvements at NC 54 and Orange Grove Road* *The NC 54 widening project from Old Fayetteville Road to Orange Grove Road is being split into multiple segments in cooperation between NCDOT Division 7 staff, which favored keeping the project as an added capacity project (as it was shown in the past) and the Town of Carrboro, which favored changing the project to one involving only operational improvements. This allows TARPO to consider both potential options and see how each scores to determine competitiveness for funding. New Projects: Map ID Project 6 Efland-Cedar Grove Road modernization project (Highland Farm Road to NC 86. Termini was previously north of Carr Store Road) 7 Old Greensboro Road modernization project (Jones Ferry Road to NC 87 in Alamance County line. Termini was previously the Alamance County line.) 8 Orange Grove Road/Buckhorn Road modernization project (Dairyland Road to West Ten Road) Projects Endorsed by BOCC at June 2, 2015, meeting that were not be submitted by TARPO for scoring: x Orange Grove Road Paved Shoulders (From NC 54 to Arthur Minnis Road) x Dairyland Road Paved Shoulders x Orange Grove Road/Dodsons Crossroads Paved Shoulders These projects were not recommended by the TARPO Prioritization subcommittee because they are categorized as bicycle infrastructure projects that would require the County to provide a 20% local match and to administer the implementation of the project RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive and review. 19 20 Mebane Hillsborough Chapel HillCarrboro ?k ?ª ?ª ?r Aæ ?o ?o IrKÊ KÊIr I§ I§ !"c$ !"c$ !"_$ !"_$ K© Caswell Person Chatham Durham Alamance Burlington Graham MPO Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro MPO Triangle Area RPO County Boundary City Limits 01 Miles 1 in = 3 miles· Orange County Planning and Inspections Department GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson. 3/3/2016 $WWOrange County Transportation Planning Jurisdictions 21 22 !¬(3 !¬(8 !¬(7 !!(14 !¬(12 !¬(2 !¬(1 !¬(11 ?o See Inset I 8 5 U S 7 0 CON N E C T O R ?k ?ª ?ª ?r Aæ I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o Ir KÊ AË ?ª Caswell Co. Person Co. Chatham Co. Durham Co. Alamance Co. Carrboro Chapel Hill Mebane Cary Hillsborough Durham Attachment 2: DCHC MPO Project List Map B-G MPO DCHC MPO Municipal Boundaries · Orange County Planning and Inspections Max Bushell (3/4/2016) 01 Miles 1 in = 3 miles !¬(9!¬(5 !¬(10 !¬(6 !¬(4 !¬(13 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 OAKDALE DR S CHURTONST E N O MOU NTAIN R D !"c$ !"_$ K© ?ª Hillsborough 23 24 Ci t y o f Me b a n e [[(2 [[(1 B U C K H O R N R D L E B A N O N R D FRAZIERRD S T A G E C O A C H R D E W ASHINGTON ST NFRAZIERRD P A Y L O R S T RICHMOND RD B O W M A N R D REDMA N XING S O U T H E R N D R I N D U S T R I A L D R IRARD P E A R T R E E R D A R R O W H E A D B L V D W HIT A K E R R D SADDLECLUBR R E D G AT E R D C O L L IN G T O N D R HIG H R O C K R D MACE RD NFIFTHST F O R R E S T B EN W I L S O N R D D A N IELS F A R M R D M C G O WAN C R EE K RD MILL C R E E K R D MATTRESS FA C T O R Y R D O A K W O O D S T I§ !"c$ !"_$ OAKWOOD ST WEST TEN RD At t a c h m e n t : B u r l i n g t o n - G r a h a m M P O P r o j e c t L i s t M a p B- G M P O B o u n d a r y Bu c k h o r n E D D ( F L U M ) Me b a n e C i t y L i m i t s Me b a n e E T J · Or a n g e C o u n t y P l a n n i n g a n d I n s p e c t i o n s Br i a n C a r s o n ( 5 / 8 / 2 0 1 5 ) 0 1 , 0 0 0 Fe e t 1 i n = 3 , 0 0 0 f e e t 25 26 ?o[[(7 [[(1 [[(1 [[(2 [[(3[[(5[[(4[[(5 [[(8 [[(6 ?k ?ª ?r Aæ I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o Ir KÊ AË Caswell Person Chatham Durham Alamance B R A D S H A W Q U A R R Y R D O R A N G E GROVE RD S T M A R Y S R D LY N C H STORE RD B U C K H O R N RD D A I R YLANDRD H A L LS MI L L R D WEST T E N R D SCHLEY R D J O N E S F E R R Y R D H E B R O N CH U R C H R D C A R R S T O RER D DI M MOCKS MILLRD DODSONSXRDS B O RLAN D RD ARTHUR M INNIS R D LAWS STORE R D 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 G HLAN D F A R M R D H O L L Y RID G E R D GOVE R N O R S C OTT R D T E E R R D SMIT H L E VEL RD OLD NC 86 PLEASAN T GREENRD HIG H R O CKRD SGREENSBORO ST MORR O W M I L L R D WALNU TGROVECHURCH RD C R A W F ORD D A I R Y RD M T W I L L I N G R D N E W S H A R O N C H U R C H R D NE V I L L E R D U N I ON GROVECH U R C H R D C HEST N UT R I D G E CHUR C 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 O R A N G E GR O V E R D OLD G R E E N S B O R O R D Attachment 4: TARPO Projects in Orange County B-G MPO DCHC MPO · Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (3/7/2016) 01 Miles 1 in = 3 miles 27 28 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT MeetingDate:March 16, 2016 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Task Force DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Adopted Bicycle Safety Task Force Resolution INFORMATIONCONTACT: Abigaile Pittman, 245-2567 0D[%XVKHOO, 245-25 7RP$OWLHUL, 245-25 PURPOSE:Determination of next steps to fill Bicycle Safety Task Force membership. BACKGROUND:At its February 17, 2016 meeting the OUTBoard made the recommendations regarding the Bicycle Task Force membership, charge and term and forwarded these in the form of a resolution on to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for review. At its March 1, 2015 meeting the BOCC approved the resolution (Attachment 1) with one revision, authorizing the creation of a Bicycle Safety Task Force and future appointment of members to serve on the task force. The revision pertained to the membership composition. The wording for the six additional members was changed to read: ‘Up to six (6) additional interested and concerned Orange County residents.’ (Rather thanrequiring knowledge of current bike laws or cycling credentials.) The purpose of this revision was to open up the membership to others that are interested in bicycle/road safety, but may not necessarily be in a bicycle advocacy group or come from a strong bicycle advocacy perspective. The BOCC requested that the OUTBoard to return to the BOCC in May with a recommended list of names to be appointed to the Task Force. To meet the BOCC schedule for appointment of the Bicycle Safety Task Force, the OUTBoard needs to take immediate steps to determine: x Identify and discuss persons known or thought to have an interest in membership; x Determine how to reach out to these persons; x The wording for an advertisement; x The placement for an advertisement; x The creation of an application process (form, review, etc.); and x The assignment of tasks to specific OUTBoard member(s) and staff. The internal calendar for the May 5 BOCC meeting requires staff to have the agenda item confirmed by March 28 and staff abstracts due on April 13. Therefore, substantial progress F 29 with the membership application and review process would need to take place by March 28, with the process completed no later than the first week in April. If potential willing Task Force applicants are identified at the time of the March 16 meeting, the OUTBoard may offer recommendations to the BOCC. All applications received will be carried forward for the BOCC to review at its May 5 meeting. Because the OUTBoard does not meet again before the materials for the May 5 BOCC meeting must be submitted, the OUTBoard’s recommendations may not address all applicants. OUTBoard representative(s) are encouraged to attend the BOCC to address any questions from the Board. RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends the OUTBoard: 1.Receive and review the information; 2.Make recommendation(s) regarding identified potential willing Task Force applicants. 3.Forward the recommendation(s) to the BOCC for review at its March 16, 2016 meeting. 30 31 32 45"''61%"5&)"/%065 33 34 35 36 37 38 39