HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 061516AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
June 15, 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 1. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
7:05
7:10
7:15
7:30
8:15
8:30
8:45
8:50
2.
3.
4.
4.a.
4.b.
5.
5.a.
5b.
6.
7.
Approval of Minutes from April 4 , 2016
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Regular Agenda (Action Items)
Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Rules and Procedures
Amendment (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Consider an amendment to the OUTBoard specific Rules and
Procedures to revise its meeting time, and forward a recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC).
Bicycle Safety Task Force Applicants, Proposed Revised Resolution, Task
Force Charge, and Orange County Bicycle Crash Report 2007-2013)
(Abigaile Pittman and Max Bushell)
OUTBoard Action: To review and make a recommendation on revisions to the slate
of Bicycle Safety Task Force applicants; to review and make a recommendation on
a proposed amended Bicycle Safety Task Force Resolution; to receive and discuss
the Orange County Bicycle Crash Report 2007-2013; and to discuss implementation
of the Task Force Charge as set forth in the Resolution.
Staff Updates
Flow charts indicating the progress of transportation projects through the SPOT 4.0
Transportation Project Prioritization Process (STIP) 2018-2027. (Max Bushell)
OUTBoard Action: Receive information.
Update on NCDOT Division 7 transportation projects located in the Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) planning area. (Max
Bushell)
Board Comments
Adjournment
1
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
1.The OUT Board is charged with advisingthe 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 7:00 p.m. at the Orange County
West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The
OUT Board Chair, in consultation with staff, shall have the authority to change the start
time and location of a regular meeting to meet any special circumstances, provided the
information is included on the distributed agenda.
2
Draft
MINUTES 1
Orange Unified Transportation Board 2
April 4, 2016 3
4
MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Heidi Perry, At-Large Representative; 5
David Laudicina, At-Large Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative; Jeff Charles, At-Large 6
Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; John 7
Rubin, At-Large Representative; Erie Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large 8
Representative;9
10
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township 11
Representative 12
13
STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; 14
Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant 15
16
OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Day, Principal Planner, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) 17
18
AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order and Roll Call 19
20
Heidi Perry called the meeting to order. 21
22
AGENDA ITEM 2: Approval of Minutes for March 16, 2016 23
24
Minutes were approved 25
26
MOTION made by Art Menius. Seconded by Alex Castro 27
VOTE: Unanimous 28
29
AGENDA ITEM 3: Consideration of Additions of the Agenda 30
31
32
AGENDA ITEM 4a: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Strategic Planning Office of 33
Transportation (SPOT 4.0) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural 34
Planning Organization (RPO) Project Priority Lists and Scores (Max Bushell) 35
36
OUTBoard Action: Make a recommendation to the BOCC. 37
38
Max Bushell delivered his presentation. 39
40
Matt Day stated that NCDOT has no idea when the scores will be released. 41
42
Heidi Perry asked if there was a possibility they would be ready for our next meeting. 43
44
Max Bushell said that he hopes so and that there is a BOCC meeting on April 19, where we are hoping to present the 45
scores. 46
47
Matt Day stated the RPO association is already working on a letter to send to the Secretary requesting they release 48
the scores. 49
50
3
Draft
Max Bushell explained to the Board that map ID 4 actually cannot be funded at the Regional Impact funding level 51
because it is a secondary route and is not eligible for funding, except at the Division Needs funding level. 52
53
Heidi Perry asked about improvements for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 54
55
Matt Day explained that there are two pots of funding. There is a regional pot and a division pot. The bike and 56
pedestrian is only eligible in the division pot. Alex Castro asked, whether multi lane with pedestrian and bicycle 57
facilities is just modernization? 58
59
Matt Day explained that multi lane means that they are adding extra lanes so they are saying to make it a 4 lane 60
road.61
62
Jeff Charles said that, while they are doing that, they wanted to go ahead and put the bicycle lanes in. As it is in the 63
MPO jurisdiction, it can potentially get funded. 64
65
Max Bushell explained that highway projects can get funded in any of the three categories. 66
67
Matt Day said that you’re allowed to add bicycle as an incidental piece of a highway project. 68
69
Max Bushell said that NCDOT does not build roads anymore without two foot shoulders. That is the new standard 70
71
Matt Day added to Max’s comment that the new standard applies only to a new road. Road repaving projects, Matt 72
continues, do not have to include the addition of two foot shoulders. 73
74
Jeff Charles said that Orange County is not going to get a lot of new roads. Everything is about resurfacing and 75
making things bicycle friendly. 76
77
Max Bushell suggested that ultimately what we really need to decide here is the top three projects in each category, 78
as those are the projects likely to receive funding. 79
80
Heidi Perry asked if this is the list they had already come up with earlier in the year? 81
82
Max Bushell said that no, it is not. It is the list he put together based on his assessment and the prioritization process 83
used in the last round of prioritization. Ultimately, at this level, the projects that will likely get funded are mostly 84
interchanges or highway projects. 85
86
Art Menius asked about the necessity of improvement on i Hwy 54. 87
88
Abigaile Pittman explained that the corridor study that they are doing has been designed to answer the question as to 89
what is really needed on Hwy 54. 90
91
Matt Day explained that what the Board needs to think about with these rankings is what they believe is the most 92
important should be ranked high. He continued by stating that since they don’t have the scores, it may be advisable 93
for the group to identify the projects they don’t like, and then just accept the NCDOT rankings from highest score to 94
least for the remainder of the projects, then place the projects they don’t like at the bottom of the list. He stated that 95
this is what Chatham County did. 96
97
David Laudicina explained that he travels Hwy 54 often and in the morning it is pretty congested and that people who 98
work in Chapel Hill often times cannot afford to live there, so they are commuting and taking Hwy 54 in to work. 99
100
Heidi Perry asked if it is congested from the lack of another lane or because there isn’t smooth traffic flow. 101
4
Draft
102
David Laudicina thinks that it is a traffic flow issue and that signal improvements may be able to help. 103
104
Alex Castro agrees with Heidi that signalization could improve Hwy 54 more than adding lanes would. 105
106
Jeff Charles said that signalization causes a lot of potential problems and that it is not a simple fix. 107
108
Max Bushell explained that he needs to break number two under TARPO into two projects. 109
110
Matt Day explained that DOT required they leave the widening project in there. 111
112
Max Bushell said that from what he is hearing, the operational improvement project should be a top priority. 113
114
Matt Day agreed with Max Bushell. 115
116
Jeff Charles asked how many of the projects on the list have a chance of getting funded. 117
118
Max Bushell said that for DCHC not very many of these are likely to get funded, based on the level of competition 119
between projects across the funding region. For TARPO however they do need a complete prioritized list. 120
121
Amy Cole asked if they are talking about construction with the on-ramp and off-ramp or are they talking about the 122
actual overpasses on I-85 and Hwy 86. 123
124
Matt Day said that generally with an interchange project you’re replacing the bridge and the ramps all at the same 125
time. 126
127
Amy Cole asked if the bridge will be widened and accessible for bicycles and pedestrians. 128
129
Matt Day said typically yes. 130
131
Jeff Charles asked if they can wait on voting until they see the scores from NCDOT. 132
133
Heidi Perry explained that if they waited they wouldn’t be able to give input. 134
135
Matt Day said that the TARPO meeting when they will actually vote on it is May 19th so if the Board meets before that 136
day you can submit comments then. 137
138
Max Bushell said that he thinks the top three or four will be funded. 139
140
Matt Day said that from his experience interchange projects, interstate widening projects, and intersection projects 141
scored well. 142
143
Max Bushell explained that since they have spent an hour on this already he suggested they move the two I-40 144
projects to the bottom of the list as the group did not think those should be funded at the Regional Impact level and 145
then they should go with the NCDOT scores in order from most to least for the remainder of the projects, because 146
this is one small part of a larger public process and this will maximize the funding to Orange County. 147
148
Alex Castro asked if someone could restate the motion. 149
150
Max Bushell said the motion is to accept the NCDOT scoring as is in the DCHC MPO, but with the two I-40 projects 151
at the bottom and to otherwise rank the projects based on NCDOT scoring. For the TARPO, he said we rank the 152
5
Draft
projects based on NCDOT scoring but the NC 54 widening projects will go to the bottom. The Burlington-Graham 153
MPO projects will remain as prioritized. 154
155
MOTION made by Jeff Charles; Seconded by Alex Castro 156
VOTE: Unanimous 157
158
AGENDA ITEM 4b: Bicycle Safety Task Force (Abigaile Pittman) 159
160
OUTBoard Action: Receive and review Bicycle Safety Task Force applications, provide comments and 161
recommendations, and forward to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). 162
163
Abigaile Pittman delivered the presentation 164
165
OUTBoard members reviewed the submitted applications and expressed approval of all 14 submittals, noting that 166
there were no applicants from the law enforcement and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce membership 167
groups. Abigaile Pittman reminded the Board that the membership groups in the Resolution are guidelines. 168
169
There was agreement that Heidi Perry and Jeff Charles would serve as liaisons to the Bicycle Safety Task Force. 170
171
Jeff Charles, Heidi Perry, Alex Castro, Art Menius and Erle Smith expressed concern about not having Orange 172
County law enforcement representation on the Task Force. They felt that constructive input from law enforcement at 173
Task Force meetings will be very important and that it would be difficult to succeed in its endeavor otherwise. They 174
noted that education is a key component of the Task Force’s mission. Law enforcement representation will allow the 175
Task Force to better know what the rules of the roads are; and disseminate this information out across the 176
motoring/bicycling population. Educational information developed by the Task Force will also be available for use by 177
Orange County law enforcement in its interactions with the public, so their input is important for this reason also. 178
179
MOTION made by Jeff Charles to: 180
x Recommend the 14 applications that were received;181
x Designated Heidi Perry and Jeff Charles as OUTBoard liaisons to the Task Force; and182
x Request that the BOCC request Charles Blackwood to select someone from the Sheriff’s Office to serve on183
the Task Force.184
185
The motion was seconded by Erle Smith 186
187
VOTE: Unanimous 188
189
AGENDA ITEM 5: Staff Updates (Abigaile Pittman) 190
Abigaile Pittman instructed the Board to review the DCHC update included in the packet at their leisure. 191
192
AGENDA ITEM 6: Board Comments 193
194
AGENDA ITEM 7: Adjournment 195
196
MOTION made by Gary Saunders to adjourn the meeting seconded by Alex Castro 197
VOTE: Unanimous 198
199
200
___________________________________ 201
Heidi Perry, Chair 202
203
6
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 15, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Rules and Procedures
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATIONCONTACT:
1.Proposed revision to OUTBoard Rules and
Procedures
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation
Planner, 245-2567
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2575
PURPOSE:To consider a recommendation amending the OUTBoard specific Rules and
Procedures to revise its meeting time.
BACKGROUND:In April OUTBoard members discussed revising the starting time of its meetings
from 7:00 p.m. to an earlier time to reduce the lag time between the end of the typical work day at
5:00 p.m. and the start of the meeting, and allow members to get home earlier afterwards. A follow-
up poll indicated that a meeting time of 6:30 p.m. would accommodate all members. The Board did
not feel that moving the meeting time up by half an hour would negatively impact civic participation.
To revise the meeting time, Section IV.C.1 of the Board’s adopted Rules and Procedures must be
approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). Planning staff has prepared a proposed
amendment that would revise the meeting time from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Attachment 1).
The OUTBoard’s Rules and Procedures were last amended on January 21, 2016 to add a seventh
(7th) at-large position to encourage membership with expertise or interest in Public Health.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with amending the OUTBoard specific
Rules and Procedures.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is associated with
this item:
GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
The revision of the OUTBoard’s regular meeting time will result in positive outcomes related to
eliminating barriers to volunteer member participation, and will not negatively impact attendance by
Orange County residents.
D
7
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the OUTBoard recommend the BOCC approve
the proposed amendment to the Rules and Procedures.
8
06/15/2016Attachment 1
Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) BOARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Amendment Note:
Proposed deletions to existing text are struck through. Proposed additions to existing
text are depicted in red and underscored.
SECTION IV. MEETINGS
A. Staffing
1.Orange County staff may serve a support function to the OUT Board
upon the approval of the Orange County Manager.
B. Agendas
1.Items for agendas shall be approved by the OUT Board Chair and
Orange County staff.
C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings
1.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 7:00 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.
9
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 15, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 4.b.
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Task Force
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATIONCONTACT:
1.Revised Slate of Bicycle Safety Task Force
Applicants
2.Proposed Amended Bicycle Safety Task
Force Resolution
3.Orange County Bicycle Crash Report
2007-2013
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
Use Planner, 245-2567
Max Bushell, Transportation Planner,
245-2579
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2575
PURPOSE:To review and make a recommendation on revisions to the slate of Bicycle Safety Task
Force applicants (Attachment 1); to review and make a recommendation on a proposed amended
Bicycle Safety Task Force Resolution (Attachment 2); to receive and discuss the Orange County
Bicycle Crash Report 2007-2013 (Attachment 3); and to discuss implementation of the Task Force
Charge as set forth in the Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
A process to create a County Bicycle Safety Task Force was set in motion in November, 2014 when
Commissioners Price and Jacobs brought forth a petition regarding bicycle safety, requesting staff
to work with the OUTBoard to develop a plan with input from key stakeholder groups. Since that
time, continuing efforts by staff and the OUTBoard, with guidance and input from the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) and the Manager, have resulted in the development and
acceptance of a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report, and a Resolution creating a Bicycle Safety
Task Force with a charge focused on bicycle safety, education and research. Applicants for the
Task Force were solicited from key stakeholder groups, the OUTBoard received and recommended
14 applicants; and 3 additional applications have been received through the efforts of the Manager’s
office, to more fully address the membership groups per the Resolution.
Additional Task Force Applicants
Staff and the OUTBoard made an extensive good faith effort towards fulfilling the intent of the
BOCC’s guidelines for Task Force composition. A total of fourteen (14) applications were received
and presented to the OUTBoard at its meeting on April 4, 2016, representing 9 of the 11
membership groups. Since the OUTBoard meeting, in the course of the BOCC agenda review
process for processing the appointment request for the applications, three (3) additional applications
were received through efforts made by the County Manager’s office to address the other two
membership groups (the Sheriff’s Department and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of
Commerce), and to have a member from the Visitor’s Bureau Board, rather than the Director of the
Department. Therefore, the slate of applicants has been revised to more completely fulfill the
10
membership guidelines of the Resolution (Attachment 1), and has been returned to the OUTBoard
for review and recommendation.
Proposed Amended Resolution
The Resolution authorizing the creation of a Bicycle Safety Task Force and future appointment of
members to serve on the task force was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) at its March 1, 2016 meeting. The BOCC requested that staff work with the OUTBoard and
return with a recommended list of names to be appointed to the Task Force. The application
process, including recent efforts by the Manager’s office to fulfill the membership guidelines,
produced sixteen (16) applicants, which is one application over the total number provided by the
initially adopted Resolution. Therefore, a proposed amended Resolution increasing the total number
of Task Force members to sixteen (16) is provided as Attachment 2 for the OUTBoard’s review and
recommendation.
Orange County Bicycle Crash Report, 2007-2013
To support and inform the efforts of the Bicycle Safety Task Force, Max Bushell of the Planning staff
prepared a report on bicycle crashes in the rural parts of Orange County (Attachment 3). Crash data
is originally sourced from police crash reports and provided by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) and is presented as specific locational data for pedestrian and bicycle
crashes with associated information about each crash. While crashes were geocoded as close to
the crash location as possible, users should be aware that the accuracy and level of precision in
crash location reporting may be influenced by a number of factors, though every effort was made to
ensure data accuracy. The report analyzes a total of thirty-four (34) crashes that occurred in the
County between 2007 and 2013 and includes information about age, types of injuries,
demographics, crash types, and road and light conditions. Included in the report is a crash cluster
map, indicating where bicycle crashes are occurring more frequently in the County. The overall
intent of the report is to provide meaningful information about bicycle safety, allowing the
implementation of the Task Force Charge to be based on verified data.
Of these bicycle crashes, three (3) bicyclists were killed and seven (7) severely injured, accounting
for a combined 29 percent of all bicycle crashes between 2007 and 2013. According to the data, the
majority of crash-involved cyclists were white males, while crashes typically occurred during daylight
hours on straight areas of roadway without any special features, i.e. no intersections, driveways,
etc. In terms of location, crashes occurred most frequently in areas directly to the west of Carrboro
and between the City of Durham and the Town of Hillsborough.
The analysis of the Crash Report verifies that motorists overtaking bicyclists can create hazardous
conditions for both road users and that intersections also pose a threat in terms of safety. As most
roads are narrow, have a limited shoulder, and have speed limits higher than 35 miles per hour,
bicycle crashes are also likely to result in injuries, so it is important that the public be aware of the
risks. This information can help target efforts to improve safety and also inform the activities of the
Task Force.
Task Force Charge
The Charge of the Task Force as set forth in the Resolution (Attachment 2) is to:
1. Develop a campaign for bicycle safety, education and research;
2. Develop an implementation timetable with estimated funding request information within
the first 5 meetings, and present it to the OUTBoard for review and recommendation, and
review and approval by the BOCC; and
11
3. Develop an implementation report and present it to the OUTBoard for review and
recommendation, and review, approval and funding commitment by the BOCC.
With the Task Force appointments scheduled to be made at the June 21st BOCC meeting, plans for
the implementation of the Charge need to be underway. A discussion of the Charge and ideas on
Task Force meeting structure and objectives would be appropriate for the Board to undertake at this
time, to be carried forward to the Task Force by the OUTBoard liaisons.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time, there is no immediate financial impact associated with
this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this
agenda item:
x GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
Efforts to implement the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report through the
Bicycle Safety Task Force will result in positive outcomes related to the above Goal.
RECOMMENDATION(S):The staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Review and make a recommendation on revisions to the slate of Bicycle Safety Task Force
applicants (Attachment 1), and forward to the BOCC;
2. Review and make and make a recommendation on the proposed amended Task Force
Resolution (Attachment 2), and forward to the BOCC;
3. Receive and discuss information on the Orange County Bicycle Crash Report 2007-2013
(Attachment 3); and
4. Discuss the Task Force Charge as set forth in the Resolution and the Bicycle Crash Report
and offer ideas on meeting structure and objectives.
12
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Sa
f
e
t
y
Ta
s
k
Fo
r
c
e
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
0ϲ/ϭϱ
/2
0
1
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
Me
m
b
e
r
s
h
i
p
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
La
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
(
S
h
e
r
i
f
f
’
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
P
a
t
r
o
l
)
De
p
u
t
y
B
r
i
a
n
W
h
i
t
e
h
u
r
s
t
Sc
h
o
o
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
Sa
r
a
P
i
t
t
s
,
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
V
i
s
i
t
o
r
’
s
B
u
r
e
a
u
An
t
h
o
n
y
C
a
r
e
y
NC
D
O
T
s
t
a
f
f
Ch
u
c
k
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
,
N
C
D
O
T
Co
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
a
f
f
Ma
t
t
D
a
y
,
T
A
R
P
O
Ab
i
g
a
i
l
e
P
i
t
t
m
a
n
,
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Co
u
n
t
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
El
i
B
e
t
z
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
/
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
Ki
m
T
e
s
o
r
o
Ch
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
/
C
a
r
r
b
o
r
o
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
e
An
t
h
o
n
y
C
a
r
e
y
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
d
v
o
c
a
c
y
g
r
o
u
p
s
Al
y
s
o
n
W
e
s
t
To
d
d
J
o
n
e
s
Wi
l
l
i
a
m
L
a
n
g
s
t
o
n
Th
o
s
e
w
h
o
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
d
r
i
v
e
r
’
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
a
n
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
of
f
e
n
d
e
r
s
Bu
d
d
y
H
a
r
t
l
e
y
,
D
r
i
v
e
r
’
s
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
/
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
d
a
n
d
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Pe
t
e
r
L
e
o
u
s
i
s
Cl
i
f
f
o
r
d
L
e
a
t
h
Pe
t
e
r
K
l
o
p
f
e
r
Bo
n
n
i
e
H
a
u
s
e
r
$WWDFKPHQW
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
VOLUNTEER APPLICATION
ORANGE COUNTY BICYCLE TASK FORCE
This application is a public document
If you are at least 18 years old, and willing to volunteer your time and expertise to the Orange County
Bicycle Safety Task Force, you may complete this application and mail/email it by March 31, 2016 to the
address/email below:
Orange United Transportation Board
(OUTBoard)
c/o Abigaile Pittman, Planning Department
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone (919) 245-2567
Email: abpittman@orangecountync.gov
Your application will be considered by the Commissioners when reviewing and making appointments.
NAME:
HOME ADDRESS:
CITY: Zip Code:
PHONE: (Day) (Evening/late) (Cell)
EMAIL:
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT: JOB TITLE:
ARE YOU AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE?
Yes No
ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING GROUPS? (Check all that apply)
PLEASE LIST YOUR CURRENT COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES/ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
Law enforcement agency
School representative
Orange County Visitors Bureau
NCDOT
Orange County business
Bicycle advocacy group
Orange County Planning
Department staff
Hillsborough/Orange
Chamber of Commerce
Group working with drivers education
classes and/or traffic offenders
Chapel Hill/Carrboro
Chamber of Commerce
Regional planning staff
44
BonnieHauser
4301SugarRidgeRoad
Hillsborough 27278
919732-9316 same 919619-4354
bahauser@aol.com
retired
OrangeCountyVoice
RuralRoadSafetyCoalition
SchleyGrange
ProjectEngageAdvisoryBoard
NorthernOrangeNAACP
OrangeCountySchoolsCommunityEngagement
BigBrothersBigSistersoftheTriangle
MapleViewAgEducaitonCenter
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOUR BACKGROUND EXPERIENCES ARE RELEVANT TO THIS TASK FORCE:
PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS FOR WANTING TO SERVE ON THIS TASK FORCE:
DO YOU HAVE ANY PERSONAL OR BUSINESS INTEREST(S) THAT COULD CREATE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST (EITHER REAL OR PERCEIVED) IF YOU ARE APPOINTED TO THIS TASK FORCE?
Yes No If yes, then please explain:
ARE YOU SERVING OR HAVE YOU EVER SERVED ON ANY ORANGE COUNTY TASK FORCE OR
ADVISORY BOARD?
Yes No If yes, please indicate which one(s):
DO NOT SUBMIT RESUMES OR ATTACHMENTS.
SIGNATURE AND DATE
Signature Date
45
Activelyforseveralyearswithexploringeducational,legalandinfrastructureoptionsto
improvehowmotoristsandcyclistscansharetheroadsafely.
Torepresentruralcommunitieswherecyclingispopular
ProjectEngageAdvisoryBoard
OCSCommunityEngagementTaskForce
EmergencyServicesWorkGroup(affiliate/non-votingmember)
May2,2016
RES-2016-___
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Revised Resolution Authorizing the Creation of a Bicycle Safety Task Force,
Charge, Term and Composition of Members to Serve on the Task Force
WHEREAS, the issue of bicycle safety has been a topic of interest by various
County groups over the past several years, including discussions by the Orange
Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC), and citizen groups; and
WHEREAS, a petition related to bicycle safety was brought forward at the
BOCC’s November 6, 2014 meeting during Petitions by Board Members and
subsequently reviewed by the Chair/Vice Chair/Manager agenda team; and
WHEREAS, in response to the petition the Manager, Chair and Vice Chair
discussed the topic with NCDOT at its regular quarterly meeting; and Planning
staff worked with the OUTBoard and a subcommittee to develop
recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC received the OUTBoard’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Report, including recommendations, at its June 16, 2015 meeting; and
WHEREAS, there exists a need to address bicycle safety in accordance with the
recommendations of the OUTBoard’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report; and
WHEREAS, the creation of the Bicycle Safety Task Force and approval of the
composition, charge and term to same is within the purview of the BOCC; and
WHEREAS, it is the best interest of the citizens of Orange County to create a
Bicycle Safety Task Force;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, by approval of this resolution, does authorize the creation of a
Bicycle Safety Task Force with member composition in accordance with the
following guidelines:
A. Size and Composition –
1.No larger than 16 people total
2.Stakeholders from each of the groups below be included in
the membership, and a Board of County Commissioner
liaison:
a.Law enforcement agencies (Sheriff’s Department,
Highway Patrol)
b.School representatives
c.Orange County Visitor’s Bureau
d.NCDOT staff
e.County and regional planning staff
$WWDFKPHQW
46
f. County business
g. A representative from the Hillsborough/Orange
County Chamber of Commerce and the Chapel
Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce
h. Bicycle advocacy groups
i. Those who work with driver’s education classes and
traffic offenders
j. Up to six (6) additional interested and concerned
Orange County residents.
B. Appointment – The Bicycle Safety Task Force shall be appointed
by the BOCC.The staff shall return to the BOCC in May with an
OUTBoard recommended list of individuals to be appointed to the
Task Force.
C. Term – The Bicycle Safety Task Force shall operate for a term not
to exceed one (1) year from the future appointment date of the
Bicycle Safety Task Force.
D. Charge – The charge of the Bicycle Safety Task Force shall be the
following;
1. Develop a campaign for bicycle safety education and research;
2. Develop an implementation timetable with estimated funding
request information within the first 5 meetings, and present it to
the OUTBoard for review and recommendation, and review and
approval by the BOCC; and
3. Develop an implementation report and present it to the
OUTBoard for review and recommendation, and review,
approval and funding commitment by the BOCC.
Upon motion of Commissioner _______ ________, seconded by Commissioner
______________, the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 1st day of
March, 2016.
I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange,
North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so
much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on March 1, 2016, as
relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are
recorded in the minutes of said Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this ______ day of
___________, 2016.
_____________ ___
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
47
Orange County
Bicycle Crash
Report
2007—2013 Bicycle Crash Analysis for
Orange County, NC
*
* Picture Credit: Sustainable CiƟes CollecƟve, 2015: hƩp://www.sustainableciƟescollecƟve.com/global-site-plans-
grid/1118566/orange-county-poised-become-premier-cycling-desƟnaƟon-north-carolin
May 2016
$WWDFKPHQW
48
Introduction
In order to support and inform the efforts of the Bicycle Safety Task Force, Orange County
Transportation Planning staff has prepared this report on bicycle crashes in the rural parts of Orange
County. This report analyzes a total of 34 bicycle crashes that occurred in Orange County between
January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013 and includes information about age, types of injuries,
demographics, crash types, and road and light conditions. The Town of Hillsborough was not included in
this analysis as no bicycle crashes occurred within the town limits during this time period. The final
section of this document presents a crash cluster map, indicating where bicycle crashes are occurring
more frequently in Orange County. The overall intent of this document is to provide meaningful
information about bicycle safety, allowing the Bicycle Safety Task Force to base any future
recommendations on
verified data.
Data Sources
The North Carolina
Department of
Transportation
(NCDOT) provides
specific locational
data for pedestrian
and bicycle crashes as
well as associated
information about
each crash in a format compatible with the most common mapping software, ArcGIS. The crash data is
provided for the entire state of North Carolina. Orange County Transportation Planning staff obtained
the data from NCDOT using their online portal (Figure 1 -
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b4fcdc266d054a1ca075b60715f88aef); clipped the crash
data to the Orange County boundary, also removing crash data from Chapel Hill/Carrboro; and
performed a spatial analysis on the remaining bicycle crashes. The results of this analysis are presented
in the following sections.
This crash data is periodically updated by NCDOT. This analysis will be updated upon receipt of the new
data, with 2014 data available this winter.
Crash Analysis
Overall, 34 bicycle crashes occurred in Orange County (outside of Chapel Hill/Carrboro) between January
1, 2007 and December 31, 2013. All of these crashes were defined as occurring in rural areas, did not
occur in any municipality or other jurisdiction and, in each case, the bicyclists involved in these crashes
were in the travel lane riding with traffic. In all but one case, the weather was clear; the other instance
occurred on a cloudy day, just after a storm event. It is also important to note that overall, alcohol was
involved in three of these crashes.
Figure 1: Web
Interface for
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Crashes
50
In the following sections, Orange County Transportation Planning staff will present additional
information about bicyclist age, injury severity, race and sex of crash-involved bicyclists, crash types,
road conditions, and
light conditions.
Bicyclist Age
Of the 34 crashes
occurring in Orange
County between
January 1, 2007 and
December 31, 2013,
13 or 38% of
crashes involved
bicyclists between
the age of 50 and
59, while bicyclists
between the age of
20 and 24 and
bicyclists between
the age of 60 and 69 accounted for the second-highest affected age groups. It is unclear if older adults
represent a higher percentage of bicycle crashes or if crashes are equally distributed among the age
groups of riders in rural Orange County.
Injury Severity
Of the 34 bicycle crashes, three (3) crashes resulted in a fatality, seven (7) in a disabling injury, 15 in an
evident injury, seven (7) in a possible injury, and two (2) in no injury. Overall, more than one half of
crashes (64.7 percent) resulted
in a serious injury (disabling
and evident injuries).
Considering that 20 crashes
occurred in areas with a speed
limit of 40 – 45 miles per hour
and 11 crashes occurred in
areas with a speed limit of 50 –
55 miles per hour, these
severities are not surprising.
Only three (3) crashes occurred
in an area with a speed limit of
30 – 35 miles per hour. These
severities highlight the fact that crashes in rural areas are likely to be more severe, based on the higher
automobile speeds and limited space on rural roads to accommodate joint bicycle and automobile
traffic.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0%
1 (3%)
0%
1 (3%)
5 (15%)
1 (3%)
4 (12%)
4 (12%)
13 (38%)
5 (15%)
0%
Age Groups
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
K: KilledA:
Disabling
Injury
B: Evident
Injury
C: Possible
Injury
O: No
Injury
3 (8.8%)
7 (20.6%)
15 (44.1%)
7 (20.6%)
2 (5.9%)
Injury Severity
51
Race and Sex
In terms of bicyclist race and sex, 85 percent of bicyclists involved in a crash are white and 79 percent
are male. Only three cyclists involved in a crash were black and one was categorized as “other”, while 21
percent of crash-involved cyclists are female. Without good information about the demographics of
bicyclists riding in rural Orange
County, it is hard to state
definitively that one group of
people is more likely to be
involved in a crash than any
other. However, this
information generally reflects
the demographics of bicyclists
on Orange County rural roads
based on anecdotal evidence
and likely doesn’t support the
conclusion that white male
cyclists tend to be involved in a
crash to a larger degree than
female bicyclists or people of
other races.
Crash Group/Type
Perhaps the most important
information included as part of
the bicycle and pedestrian crash
data is the crash group/crash
type. This information provides
a clearer picture of how the
crash occurred and is helpful in
determining which, if any,
infrastructure or behavior issues
are creating unsafe conditions
for motorists or bicyclists. For those bicycle crashes occurring in Orange County, the “Motorist
Overtaking Bicyclist” crash group is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most prevalent, accounting for more
than half (53 percent) of all crashes involving bicyclists. In examining this in more detail, the specific
crash types are “Motorist Overtaking – Misjudged Space”, “Motorist Overtaking – Undetected Bicyclist”,
and “Motorist Overtaking – Other/Unknown.” This crash type is directly related to the existing
conditions for bicyclists on rural Orange County roads, namely narrow, high-speed travel lanes, minimal
shoulders, and, at least in some areas, limited sight distances at curves. Other crash groups, including
“Motorist Left Turn/Merge”, “Motorist Right Turn/Merge”, and “Bicyclist Left Turn/Merge”, relate
directly to turning movements by either the bicyclist or the motorist as the primary reason for the crash,
while “Motorist Failure to Yield” is similar to “Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist.” Only one reported “Loss of
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
WhiteBlackOther
29 (85.3%)
3 (8.8%) 2 (5.9%)
Bicyclist by Race
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
MaleFemale
27 (79.4%)
7 (20.6%)
Bicyclist by Sex
52
Control/Turning Error” crash and one “Parallel Paths – Other/Unknown” crash occurred over this seven
year period. Generally, the interaction of motor vehicles and bicycles away from intersections accounts
for the largest percentage of crashes, while conflict points during turning movements by either
motorists or bicyclists are also significant crash considerations. These conclusions are reinforced by an
examination of the roadway character and roadway features at the crash locations.
Roadway Features and Roadway Character
As expected, an examination of roadway features at crash locations confirms that, while traditional
conflict points such as driveways, four-way stops, and T-intersections can be treacherous locations for
bicyclists, particularly in rural areas where drivers may not be expecting non-motorized users, most
bicycle crashes in rural
Orange County (62
percent) occur along areas
of roadway with no
special features. In fact,
the character of the
roadway is more often
straight and level (41
percent of crashes) or
straight and at a grade (32
percent of crashes), than
curved at a grade, curved
and level, or curved and at
a hillcrest (total 26
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
5 (14.7%)
18 (52.9%)
4 (11.8%)
3 (8.8%)
2 (5.9%)
1 (2.9%)
1 (2.9%)
Crash Group
Motorist Left Turn / Merge
Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist
Motorist Right Turn / Merge
Bicyclist Left Turn / Merge
Motorist Failed to Yield - Sign-
Controlled Intersection
Loss of Control / Turning Error
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Driveway,
Private
Four-Way
Intersection
T-IntersectionNo Special
Feature
4 (11.8%) 2 (5.9%)
7 (20.6%)
21 (61.8%)
Roadway Feature
53
percent) for more than half of
all crashes involving bicyclists.
This would indicate that, at
least in a rural context,
situations involving the
interaction of motorists and
bicyclists at speed along open
road are more dangerous for
bicyclists than at intersections,
where traffic is slower.
Light Conditions
In terms of the light conditions
at the time of a bicycle and
motor vehicle crash, more than 80 percent of crashes (28) occurred during daylight, with 1 crash, or 3
percent, occurring at dusk, and five (5) crashes, or 15 percent, occurring at night on an unlighted
roadway. This is likely due the lower number of trips made by bicycle at night in rural Orange County.
Each of the crashes that occurred under dark conditions was a “Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist” crash, of
which two (2) resulted in a fatality. The remaining four (4) crashes all resulted in an injury. Crashes
occurring away from
intersections in dark
conditions were
particularly likely to
result in a more
severe injury.
Overall, this analysis
indicates certain
notable trends about
crashes involving
bicyclists in rural
areas of Orange
County. More likely
than not, bicycle
crashes will result in some kind of injury, are the result of a motorist overtaking the cyclist, and occur
away from intersections during daylight conditions. While intersection crash types are also notable for
their frequency, crashes involving overtaking vehicles on roadways without special features constitute
the most common bicycle crash during this time period.
Crash Map
Using the data provided by NCDOT, Orange County Transportation Planning staff prepared a map of all
bicycle crashes occurring in rural Orange County. Crashes that resulted in a fatality are indicated in red
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Straight
- Grade
Straight
- Level
Straight
-
Hillcrest
Curve -
Grade
Curve -
Level
Curve -
Hillcrest
11 (32.4%)
14 (41.2%)
3 (8.8%)
1 (2.9%)
3 (8.8%) 2 (5.9%)
Roadway Character
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
DaylightDuskDark - Roadway
Not Lighted
28 (82.4%)
1 (2.9%)
5 (14.7%)
Light Condition
Daylight Dusk Dark - Roadway Not Lighted
54
and all other crashes are displayed using yellow. One fatality occurred on NC 54 at Hatch Road, while the
other occurred on Pleasant Green Road just south of St Marys Road.
Using the Kernel Density tool in ArcGIS, the clustering of crash points was calculated and mapped using
red, blue, and yellow to emphasize high, medium, and low levels of clustering, respectively. As expected,
one major cluster of bicycle crashes is located to the west of Carrboro; this area is very popular with
recreational riders and rides originating in Carrboro often terminate at Mapleview Dairy, which lies just
outside the crash cluster. More surprising is the large crash cluster between the Town of Hillsborough
and the City of Durham, which encompasses areas of the Eno River State Park, the confluence of three
highways (US 70, US 70A, and NC 751), and a favored bicycle route, Old State Highway 10. Thirteen (13)
of 34 crashes in the entire rural area of the County can be found in this area, making it a particularly
dangerous area for bicyclists.
55
56
Conclusion
This analysis verifies what many bicyclists in rural Orange County already know, namely that motorists
overtaking bicyclists can create hazardous conditions for both road users and that intersections also
pose a threat in terms of safety. As most roads are narrow, have a limited shoulder, and have speed
limits higher than 35 miles per hour, bicycle crashes are also likely to result in an injury, so it is especially
important to be aware of the risks. Based on anecdotal evidence, bicycle crashes are occurring in areas
with substantial numbers of cyclists, most notably to the west of Carrboro. However, the area between
the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Durham may not have as high a volume of bicyclists, indicating
that this area is particularly dangerous. Both the area west of Carrboro and the area between the Town
of Hillsborough and the City of Durham merit special consideration in terms of safety infrastructure
improvements, education efforts, and enforcement. Additionally, more information about high volume
bicycle routes and areas where people are bicycling should be gathered to enhance this analysis. This
information can help target efforts to improve safety and also inform the creation of a priority bicycle
network in rural Orange County.
57
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 15, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: Transportation Projects Funding Status Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATIONCONTACT:
1.Prioritized Projects Resolution
2.Projects Flow Chart
Max Bushell, Transportation Planner,
245-2582
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
Use Planner, 245-2567
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2575
PURPOSE:To receive an update on the funding status and local input point allocation for
transportation projects in Orange County.
BACKGROUND:At the April 4, 2016 meeting, the OUTBoard approved a methodology for
prioritizing transportation projects in Orange County in the absence of Strategic Planning Office of
Transportation Prioritization 4.0 (SPOT P4.0) project scores and discussed project priorities. Since
that meeting, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) released the SPOT P4.0
scores and opened the window for the application of local input points by each Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO)/Rural Planning Organization (RPO). Using the OUTBoard
methodology, Orange County transportation planning staff prepared a prioritized list of
transportation projects, which was formally approved by the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners in a resolution (Attachment 1) on May 5, 2016. This prioritized list served as a basis
for each MPO/RPO to apply their prioritization process and assign local input points. Following a
public comment period, each MPO/RPO is in the process of approving the local input point
allocations. The NCDOT Division process for allocating their local input points is also currently
underway.
It is important to note that the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and the
Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (B-G MPO) applied local input points to
transportation projects at both the Regional Impact and the Division Needs levels, though the B-G
MPO has not yet finalized their local input point allocations. As such, this transportation project flow
chart reflects the final local input point allocation for Orange County projects in the TARPO, but not
the B-G MPO jurisdiction. The Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
(DCHC MPO) will allocate local input points at the Division Needs level upon receipt of the Regional
Impact level funding allocation results, likely in August/September 2016.
The attached flow chart (Attachment 2) provides a graphic representation of the Orange County
projects that received local input points from the relevant MPO/RPO. Color, ledger size (11” x 17”)
copies of the flow chart will be provided at the meeting.
D
58
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with reviewing the transportation
projects flow chart.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is associated with
this item:
GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
This transportation projects funding flow chart will result in positive outcomes related to engaging
the volunteer and citizen-based OUTBoard with the SPOT P4.0 project prioritization process.
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the OUTBoard receive and review this
information.
59
$WWDFKPHQW
60
61
62
SP
O
T
P
4
.
0
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
S
T
I
P
2
0
1
8
–
2
0
2
7
)
–
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
So
u
t
h
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
O
l
d
N
C
8
6
)
f
r
o
m
I
-
40
t
o
E
n
o
R
i
v
e
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
I-
4
0
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
I
-
4
0
/
I
-
8
5
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
to
N
C
8
6
I-
4
0
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
N
C
8
6
t
o
U
.
S
.
1
5
-
5
0
1
I-
4
0
a
n
d
N
C
8
6
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
I-
8
5
/
O
l
d
N
C
8
6
(
S
R
-
1
0
0
9
-
S
o
u
t
h
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
St
r
e
e
t
)
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
I-
8
5
/
N
C
8
6
I
n
t
e
r
c
ha
n
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
NC
8
6
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
g
En
o
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
o
a
d
/
M
a
y
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
t
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
U.
S
.
7
0
E
a
s
t
/
I
-
8
5
/
I
-
4
0
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
o
a
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Eu
b
a
n
k
s
R
o
a
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
Mt
.
C
a
r
m
e
l
C
h
u
r
c
h
R
o
a
d
B
i
k
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
Or
a
n
g
e
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
R
o
a
d
/
H
a
r
o
l
d
L
a
t
t
a
Ro
a
d
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
/
I
-
4
0
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
Br
i
d
g
e
Da
i
r
y
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
P
a
v
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Tr
a
i
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
H
i
l
l
L
a
n
e
t
o
Bu
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
i
v
e
Tr
a
i
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
P
a
t
r
i
o
t
’
s
P
o
i
n
t
e
t
o
Ti
m
b
e
r
s
D
r
i
v
e
M T TT
I-
8
5
/
O
l
d
N
C
8
6
(
S
R
-
1
0
0
9
-
S
o
u
t
h
Ch
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
So
u
t
h
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
O
l
d
N
C
8
6
)
f
r
o
m
I
-
40
t
o
E
n
o
R
i
v
e
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
I-
4
0
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
I
-
4
0
/
I
-
8
5
in
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
N
C
8
6
I-
4
0
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
N
C
8
6
t
o
U
.
S
.
1
5
-
5
0
1
I-
4
0
/
N
C
8
6
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
I-
8
5
/
N
C
8
6
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
NC
8
6
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
En
o
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
R
o
a
d
/
M
a
y
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
a
t
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
U.
S
.
7
0
E
a
s
t
/
I
-
8
5
/
I
-
4
0
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
o
r
Ho
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
R
o
a
d
B
i
k
e
L
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Ex
t
e
n
d
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
f
r
o
m
O
r
a
n
g
e
Gr
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
t
o
U
S
7
0
A
NC
5
4
a
n
d
N
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
I-
8
5
f
r
o
m
M
t
.
H
e
r
m
a
n
C
h
u
r
c
h
t
o
Du
r
h
a
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
L
i
n
e
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
yg
I-
8
5
f
r
o
m
I
-
8
5
/
I
-
4
0
S
p
l
i
t
t
o
e
a
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
N
C
86
I
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
gg
Di
m
m
o
c
k
'
s
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
R
a
i
l
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
B
e
l
l
v
u
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
II
S
I-
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
*P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
N
e
e
d
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
a
r
e
s
c
o
r
e
d
a
s
l
o
w
p
r
i
o
r
i
ti
e
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
t
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
.
On
c
e
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
c
o
r
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
N
C
D
O
T
in
A
u
g
u
s
t
/
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
e
d
.
10
0
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
70
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
1
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
1
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
50
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
2
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
2
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
NC
5
4
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
Gr
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
t
o
O
l
d
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
r
o
s
s
e
s
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
a
n
d
T
A
R
P
O
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
i
s
r
a
t
e
d
a
s
t
o
p
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
T
A
R
P
O
re
g
i
o
n
.
I
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
l
o
c
a
l
i
n
p
u
t
p
o
i
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
b
o
t
h
or
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
$W
W
D
F
K
P
H
Q
W
63
SP
O
T
P
4
.
0
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
S
T
I
P
2
0
1
8
–
2
0
2
7
)
–
T
A
R
P
O
NC
5
4
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
-
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
Do
d
s
o
n
s
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
-
t
o
O
l
d
Fa
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
NC
5
4
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
to
O
l
d
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
Bu
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
(
S
R
1
1
1
4
)
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
:
Ol
d
G
r
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o
R
o
a
d
P
a
v
e
d
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
C
e
d
a
r
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
/
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
Pa
v
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
P
a
v
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
(F
r
o
m
N
C
5
4
t
o
A
r
t
h
u
r
M
i
n
n
i
s
R
o
a
d
)
Da
i
r
y
l
a
n
d
R
o
a
d
P
a
v
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
/
D
o
d
s
o
n
s
Cr
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
No
t
C
a
r
r
i
e
d
F
o
r
w
a
r
d
NC
5
4
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
-
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
Do
d
s
o
n
s
C
r
o
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
-
t
o
O
l
d
Fa
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
NC
5
4
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
to
O
l
d
F
a
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
Ol
d
G
r
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o
R
o
a
d
P
a
v
e
d
Sh
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
C
e
d
a
r
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
:
Or
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
/
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
Pa
v
e
d
S
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
s
NC
5
4
W
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
(
N
C
1
1
9
i
n
Al
a
m
a
n
c
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
t
o
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
Ro
a
d
)
NC
5
4
a
n
d
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
B
-
G
M
P
O
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
i
s
t
*P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
N
e
e
d
s
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
a
r
e
s
c
o
r
e
d
a
s
l
o
w
p
r
i
o
r
i
ti
e
s
a
s
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
t
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
a
ct
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
l
.
10
0
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
70
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
1
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
1
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
50
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
2
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
2
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
Th
e
N
C
5
4
w
i
d
e
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
r
e
mo
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
s
c
o
r
i
n
g
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
na
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
c
o
r
e
d
h
i
g
h
er
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
so
l
v
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
.
A
l
s
o
,
a
c
o
rr
i
d
o
r
s
t
u
d
y
o
n
N
C
5
4
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
e
t
t
e
r
da
t
a
t
o
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
(
f
u
t
ur
e
)
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
.
Re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
L
o
c
a
l
I
n
p
u
t
S
c
o
r
i
n
g
Re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
L
o
c
a
l
I
n
p
u
t
S
c
o
r
i
n
g
64
SP
O
T
P
4
.
0
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
(
S
T
I
P
2
0
1
8
–
2
0
2
7
)
–
B
-
G
M
P
O
Ma
t
t
r
e
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Ma
t
t
r
e
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
y
R
o
a
d
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
U.
S
.
7
0
Bu
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
(S
R
1
1
1
4
)
Wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
*
Ma
t
t
r
e
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
y
R
o
a
d
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
Ma
t
t
r
e
s
s
Fa
c
t
o
r
y
R
o
a
d
Ex
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
t
o
U.
S
.
7
0
Bu
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
(S
R
1
1
1
4
)
Wi
d
e
n
i
n
g
*I
n
i
t
i
a
l
l
y
n
o
t
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
,
b
u
t
a
d
d
e
d
b
a
c
k
t
o
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
T
I
P
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
s
a
r
e
s
u
l
t
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
v
e
n
u
e
f
r
o
m
H
o
u
s
e
B
i
l
l
9
7
.
T
h
e
B
-
G
M
P
O
T
r
a
n
sp
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
h
e
Me
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
o
n
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
9
,
2
0
1
6
.
10
0
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
70
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
1
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
1
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
50
%
D
a
t
a
D
r
i
v
e
n
,
2
5
%
M
P
O
/
R
P
O
I
n
p
u
t
,
2
5
%
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
I
n
p
u
t
65
TI
P
/
W
B
S
#
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
S
t
a
r
t
/
L
e
t
d
a
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
D
a
t
e
St
a
t
u
s
C
o
s
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
P-
4
4
0
5
I
,
J
,
K
62
0
0
0
.
7
.
S
T
R
1
8
T
1
B
62
0
0
0
.
7
.
S
T
R
2
3
T
1
B
62
0
0
0
.
7
.
S
T
R
2
8
T
1
B
PC
S
I
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
t
G
o
r
d
o
n
T
h
o
m
a
s
D
r
.
,
G
r
e
e
n
b
r
i
a
r
D
r
.
,
B
y
r
d
s
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
St
.
N
S
/
N
C
R
R
s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
o
f
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
P-
4
4
0
5
I
P-
4
4
0
5
J
Ma
y
2
0
1
6
P-
4
4
0
5
K
Ju
n
e
2
0
1
6
De
c
.
2
0
1
6
In
i
t
i
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
Li
m
i
t
e
d
R
O
W
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
(
I
,
J
-
9
5
%
R
W
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
K
-
2
5
%
R
W
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
)
;
1
0
0
%
p
l
a
n
s
un
d
e
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
$5
3
6
,
3
1
9
$1
7
7
,
5
1
3
$7
6
1
,
2
0
0
AR
R
A
-
R
a
i
l
,
S
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
se
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
L
e
t
SS
-
4
9
0
7
B
F
44
2
7
1
.
1
.
F
D
1
44
2
7
1
.
2
.
1
44
2
7
1
.
3
.
1
Ra
d
i
u
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
h
t
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
R
15
6
7
(
P
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
G
r
e
e
n
R
o
a
d
)
a
n
d
S
R
1
5
6
9
(
C
o
l
e
M
i
l
l
R
o
a
d
)
i
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
4/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
6/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
pr
o
c
e
e
d
A
p
r
.
8
,
R
/
W
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
d
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
$1
5
,
0
0
0
P
E
$8
0
,
0
0
0
R
/
W
$5
3
,
6
0
0
C
O
N
St
a
t
e
S
p
o
t
S
a
f
e
t
y
,
R
/
W
p
l
a
n
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
7
/
8
/
1
5
,
C
o
n
s
t
r
.
B
y
S
t
a
t
e
Fo
r
c
e
s
SS
-
4
9
0
7
B
N
44
7
1
3
.
1
.
1
44
7
1
3
.
2
.
1
44
7
1
3
.
3
.
1
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
C
5
4
a
n
d
S
R
1
1
0
2
(D
o
d
s
o
n
s
C
r
o
s
s
R
d
)
/
S
R
1
9
5
1
(
B
u
t
l
e
r
R
d
)
i
n
Ca
r
r
b
o
r
o
7/
1
/
2
0
1
6
10
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
6
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
-
1
5
%
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
$5
,
0
0
0
P
E
$4
5
,
0
0
0
R
/
W
$6
7
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
St
a
t
e
S
p
o
t
S
a
f
e
t
y
,
C
o
n
s
t
r
.
B
y
St
a
t
e
F
o
r
c
e
s
,
B
o
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
M
a
r
.
20
1
6
U-
5
5
4
9
/
S
S
-
4
9
0
7
A
Z
50
1
5
3
.
3
.
F
1
44
2
2
7
44
2
4
7
Ch
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
c
c
e
s
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
n
d
c
u
r
b
r
a
m
p
re
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
o
n
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
N
C
8
6
(
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
a
t
S
R
1
1
5
0
/
S
R
10
0
2
(
K
i
n
g
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
,
a
n
d
N
C
8
6
(
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
a
t
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
,
c
u
r
b
&
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
l
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
we
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
N
C
8
6
/
U
S
7
0
B
u
s
.
(
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
f
r
o
m
T
r
y
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
to
j
u
s
t
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
,
c
u
r
b
&
g
u
t
t
e
r
,
c
r
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
an
d
b
u
s
p
u
l
l
-
o
u
t
o
n
N
C
8
6
/
U
S
7
0
B
u
s
.
(
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
f
r
o
m
s
o
u
t
h
of
M
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
j
u
s
t
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
N
a
s
h
a
n
d
K
o
o
l
o
c
k
S
t
r
e
e
t
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
.
4/
1
3
/
2
0
1
6
O
c
t
.
2
0
1
6
FH
W
A
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
N
o
bi
d
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
o
n
M
a
r
1
7
l
e
t
an
d
A
p
r
i
l
1
3
r
e
-
l
e
t
.
T
o
w
n
wi
l
l
l
o
o
k
a
t
l
e
t
t
i
n
g
i
n
F
a
l
l
20
1
6
w
i
t
h
a
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
fl
o
a
t
i
n
g
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
a
t
e
.
$
1
5
6
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
$2
4
5
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
Sp
o
t
S
a
f
e
t
y
-
S
t
a
t
e
(
A
D
A
c
u
r
b
ra
m
p
)
.
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
S
m
a
l
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
,
S
T
P
-
DA
.
P
C
E
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
F
e
b
.
2
0
1
5
.
LA
P
-
T
o
w
n
o
f
H
i
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
,
M
A
ex
e
c
u
t
e
d
;
A
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
s
t
a
r
t
d
a
t
e
:
Ea
r
l
y
2
0
1
6
U-
5
5
5
0
50
1
5
4
.
3
.
F
S
1
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
F
o
r
d
h
a
m
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
U
S
1
5
/
5
0
1
)
a
n
d
Ep
h
e
s
u
s
C
h
u
r
c
h
R
d
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
.
1/
2
7
/
2
0
1
6
M
a
r
.
2
0
1
7
Pr
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
he
l
d
o
n
4
/
6
/
1
6
,
t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
st
a
r
t
d
a
t
e
i
n
A
p
r
i
l
$1
,
7
3
6
,
0
0
0
Na
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
,
LA
P
-
T
o
w
n
o
f
C
h
a
p
e
l
Hi
l
l
,
M
A
e
x
e
c
u
t
e
d
U-
5
8
4
6
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
S
R
1
7
7
2
(
G
r
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
a
n
d
S
R
17
8
0
(
E
s
t
e
s
D
r
i
v
e
)
i
n
C
a
r
r
b
o
r
o
.
Ja
n
.
2
0
1
8
M
a
r
.
2
0
1
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
/
W
Ja
n
.
2
0
1
7
$7
7
5
,
0
0
0
ST
I
P
,
P
3
.
0
,
P
E
F
-
S
E
P
I
,
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
re
c
e
i
v
e
d
3
/
1
5
U-
5
8
4
7
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
S
R
1
0
1
0
(
W
e
s
t
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
S
t
.
)
a
n
d
S
R
17
7
1
(
M
e
r
r
i
t
t
M
i
l
l
R
d
)
/
S
R
1
9
2
7
(
B
r
e
w
e
r
L
a
n
e
)
i
n
C
h
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
/
Ca
r
r
b
o
r
o
.
Ja
n
.
2
0
1
9
M
a
r
.
2
0
1
9
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
/
W
Ja
n
.
2
0
1
8
$7
7
5
,
0
0
0
ST
I
P
,
P
3
.
0
,
P
E
F
-
S
T
A
N
T
E
C
,
Su
r
v
e
y
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
,
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
an
d
a
n
a
l
ysi
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
U-
5
8
5
4
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
S
R
1
0
0
8
(
M
t
.
C
a
r
m
e
l
C
h
u
r
c
h
R
o
a
d
)
a
n
d
SR
1
9
1
3
(
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
R
o
a
d
)
i
n
C
h
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
Ju
l
.
2
0
1
7
O
c
t
.
2
0
1
8
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
/
W
Ju
l
y 2
0
1
6
$7
7
5
,
0
0
0
S
T
I
P
,
P
3
.
0
,
P
E
F
-
S
E
P
I
W
-
5
6
0
1
D
J
50
1
3
8
.
3
.
1
1
5
Gu
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
E
n
d
T
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
I
-
4
0
a
t
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
in
O
r
a
n
ge
C
o
.
3/
3
/
2
0
1
6
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
,
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
3
/
2
8
/
1
6
$1
6
2
,
0
0
0
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
gra
m
,
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
L
e
t
NC
D
O
T
D
I
V
7
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
I
N
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
,W
H
P
E
66
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
TI
P
Nu
m
b
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
N
a
m
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
B
i
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Da
t
e
Wo
r
k
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
04
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
6
No
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
U
n
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
C2
0
2
9
2
3
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
1
B
R
I
D
G
E
I
N
C
A
S
W
E
L
L
CO
U
N
T
Y
,
3
I
N
G
U
I
L
F
O
R
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
2
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
&
6
I
N
R
O
C
K
I
N
G
H
A
M
CO
U
N
T
Y
.
SM
I
T
H
-
R
O
W
E
,
L
L
C
I
n
g
r
a
m
,
P
E
,
J
.
P
a
u
l
$
7
,
2
9
2
,
8
7
5
.
2
6
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
2
0
5
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
2
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
1
0
0
.
0
0
9
9
.
3
4
C2
0
3
0
2
8
U
-
2
8
0
3
S
R
-
1
9
1
9
(
S
M
I
T
H
L
EV
E
L
R
D
)
F
R
O
M
R
O
C
K
HA
V
E
N
R
D
T
O
B
R
I
D
G
E
O
V
E
R
M
O
R
G
A
N
CR
E
E
K
.
YA
T
E
S
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
CO
.
,
I
N
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$4
,
9
4
6
,
1
9
7
.
8
2
0
1
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
3
0
2
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
3
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
5
9
1
.
9
6
8
9
.
7
9
C2
0
3
2
7
4
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
1
1
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
AL
A
M
A
N
C
E
C
O
A
N
D
3
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
.
HA
Y
M
E
S
B
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$6
,
3
5
6
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
0
4
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
3
0
5
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
3
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
6
7
1
.
0
0
7
0
.
3
9
C2
0
3
3
1
3
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
5
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
AL
A
M
A
N
C
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
2
I
N
C
A
S
W
E
L
L
CO
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
2
I
N
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
AP
A
C
-
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
,
I
N
C
.
TH
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
R
T
H
U
R
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
In
g
r
a
m
,
P
E
,
J
.
P
a
u
l
$
5
,
7
8
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
7
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
0
7
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
1
0
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
6
8
4
.
5
5
9
1
.
2
3
C2
0
3
6
4
0
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
4
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
GU
I
L
F
O
R
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
3
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
HA
Y
M
E
S
B
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
L
o
r
e
n
z
,
P
E
,
K
r
i
s
$
3
,
1
2
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
9
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
8
.
0
0
9
.
9
5
C2
0
3
6
4
1
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
5
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
GU
I
L
F
O
R
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
5
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
R.
E
.
B
U
R
N
S
&
S
O
N
S
C
O
.
,
IN
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
,
9
4
0
,
3
2
3
.
0
0
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
8
.
5
0
2
3
.
7
0
C2
0
3
7
0
9
2
2
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
S
.
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
UN
R
O
C
K
L
L
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
8
1
5
,
0
2
3
.
6
0
0
4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
2
0
/
2
0
1
6
DG
0
0
2
5
5
W
-
5
2
0
7
I
S
R
1
0
0
5
(
J
O
N
E
S
F
E
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
)
A
N
D
D
A
V
I
E
ST
R
E
E
T
I
N
C
A
R
R
B
O
R
O
S.
T
.
W
O
O
T
E
N
CO
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
8
5
,
5
7
7
.
2
8
0
9
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
5
1
0
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
7
/
0
8
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
0
.
0
0
7
5
.
1
7
DG
0
0
2
6
6
2
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
S
I
N
A
L
A
M
A
N
C
E
CO
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
6
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
RI
L
E
Y
P
A
V
I
N
G
I
N
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$4
4
9
,
4
9
3
.
4
2
0
4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
6
0
6
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
6
DG
0
0
2
7
1
S
R
1
5
3
8
(
N
E
W
S
H
A
R
O
N
CH
U
R
C
H
R
O
A
D
)
FR
O
M
S
R
1
5
4
8
(
S
C
H
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
)
T
O
N
C
1
5
7
(G
U
E
S
S
R
O
A
D
)
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
L
L
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
8
4
,
3
9
7
.
1
3
0
4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
0
8
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
6
DG
0
0
2
7
7
U
S
1
5
-
5
0
1
,
N
C
8
6
,
S
O
U
T
H
R
O
A
D
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
UN
R
O
C
K
L
L
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
2
5
9
,
2
5
9
.
6
1
0
4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
DG
0
0
2
7
8
W
-
5
6
0
1
D
J
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
G
U
A
RD
R
A
I
L
E
N
D
U
N
I
T
S
O
N
I
-
4
0
IN
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
RE
Y
N
O
L
D
S
F
E
N
C
E
&
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
I
N
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
1
2
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
0
3
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
0
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6
67