HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 121813 AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
December 18, 2013
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 Roll Call
7:05
7:08
2.
3.
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from October 16, 2013
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
7:10
7:50
8:10
4.
5.
6.
Regular Agenda
Draft Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan. An overview of the 264-page Plan
has been provided in the packet. The draft SRTS Plan is also available on the Orange County
Planning Department website at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/planning/transportation.asp .
Hard copy of the Plan is available upon request.
OUTBoard Action:This plan has been referred to the OUTBoard by the BOCC for review, with
a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its February 18, 2014
regular meeting.
OUTBoard Input for County Commissioners’ Annual Planning Retreat
Development of a list of concerns or emerging issues for the upcoming
year that the OUTBoard plans to address, or wishes to bring to the
Commissioners’ attention.
OUTBoard Action:Develop and approve list
Staff Updates
a. Notes from NCDOT luncheon meeting
b. Eno EDD Access Management Plan
c. Ad hoc committee to define the needs of the County Central and Rural Bus Program
OUTBoard Action:Receive updates
1
8:30
8:35
8:45
8:50
9:00
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
2014 Meeting Calendar
OUTBoard Action:Receive calendar.
Election of New Chair/Vice-Chair
The terms for the current Chair and Vice Chair are concluding; new appointments are needed.
OUTBoard Action: Vote on new Board Chair and Vice-Chair
Upcoming Agenda Items of Interest on Other Regional Transportation Related
Board Agendas
OUTBoard Action: Receive information as a handout
Board Comments
OUTBoard Action:Receive comments
Adjournment – The OUTBoard’s next meeting will be January 15, 2014
Happy Holidays
Have Fun
See you in 2014!
2
D R A F T
MINUTES1
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD2
OCTOBER 16,20133
4
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar 5
Grove Township Representative; Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Gary Saunders, Commission for 6
the Environment Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; 7
8
9
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Andrea Rohrbacher, Planning Board Representative; Jeff Miles, 10
Pedestrian Advocate; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Vacant- Cheeks Township Representative; 11
Vacant –Eno Township Representative; Vacant – Economic Development Representative12
13
14
STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land UsePlanner; 15
16
17
OTHERS PRESENT:Lisa Burley, Orange County Department on Aging18
19
20
AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL21
22
23
AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21,201324
25
The September 18, 2013 OUTBoard minutes were approved with changes by consensus.26
27
28
AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA29
30
31
AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA32
DRAFTENO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN.33
The Draft Access Management Plan is available on the Orange County Planning 34
Department Website at: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/SpecialProjects.asp35
OUTBoard Action:This plan has been referred to the OUTBoard by the BOCC for 36
review, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its 37
November 19, 2013 regular meeting. 38
39
40
Abigaile Pittman advised the members that the Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan was 41
heard at the September 9th Quarterly Public Hearing. The Commissioners referred it to the Planning Board and 42
OUTBoard for recommendation,and the Planning Board reviewed it and recommended the plan on October 2nd. 43
44
Abigaile Pittman reviewed the Access Management Plan. 45
46
Alex Castro asked if the Durham side of the Eno area was an economic development zone.47
48
Abigaile Pittman responded that it is not butthe area is Durham’s future jurisdiction and they are planning for49
extension of their urban servicesinto the area,so they have amended their land use plan to be consistent with the 50
Orange Countyland use plan. She noted that Orange County has a utilityservice agreement with Durham.Abigaile 51
continued review oftheitem. 52
53
Sam Lasris asked Abigaile to explain the internal connectivity.54
3
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
55
Abigaile Pittman responded that the dash lineson the maprepresent frontage roads and then further into areas 56
future developmentwouldalso use access roads. Basically future road networks would be off US 70. Entering US 57
70 would occur at identified safe access points. 58
59
Paul Guthrie raised a question about the proposed transit stop which was just a place where one could possibly be in 60
the area. He added that the long range plan for the NC Railroad for potential commuter rail between Goldsboro and 61
Greensboro is a long term strategy. There is the likelihood that the junction of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro spurof the 62
railroad will be in our area where there might be a switching station for passengers from a long term future 63
north/south Orange County transit system. While working on the Hillsborough rail station committee one thing 64
discussed was that they couldonly locateAmtrak stations so often and if they put a station where they have here,65
andthen they have the Durham station,they will have a problem of either in the future putting a stop at the junction 66
or they would not interested in having Hillsboroughas a stop because of the overabundance of stations. It would be 67
relatively easy to have a station at the Chapel Hill/Carrboro spur junction with the necessary parking. One thing most 68
people don’t understand, including some of the people who building along the railroad, is that it’s a 360-foot right-of-69
way. It is a large right-of-way and it’s owned by the NCRailroad Company which was created by the state of North 70
Carolina. Even in downtown Durham, that 360-foot right- of-way is not always honored so that’s an issue. He 71
continued that inthe foreseeable future, within10 years, the railroad track will be double tracked from where it ends 72
its double track in the first third of the eastern part of the map and all those tussles that are now too low will have to 73
be expanded which means they would be rebuilt. The third issue is that is now a residential neighborhood and to put 74
a railroad commuter station in the middle of a neighborhood like that is not very good far sighted planning. A 75
broader issue which is not on our agendaisthat some of that residential housing in the middle of this area is all 76
single family units thatare not going to disappear in ten years,so the question is how you deal with that area in terms 77
of transportation access. Most of the other transportation suggestions are very well done and thought out. Paul 78
informed the Board that in the area of NC 10 there are onlytwo discernible business enterprises;it is basically 79
modest homes.80
81
Sam Lasris noted that the question is what it will bein 2030 or 2070.82
83
Paul Guthrie answered that it depends on how the transportation planning takes place and what kind of structure you 84
put on Old NC 10.85
86
Sam Lasris added that he thinks most of the action is really centering on US 70 and I-85 and not Old NC 10 and he 87
thinks that in 2070 it will be like15-501 between Durham and Chapel Hill and basically NC 10 and the areas beyond 88
that will remain pretty much unscathed because it’s not where the action really is.89
90
Paul Guthrie added that how the County handles the development of Old NC 10 may determine that outcome.91
92
Abigaile Pittman noted that the Plan contains criteria that there be no access by non-residential development through 93
the 10 year transition area until it commences a transition with urban densities/ intensities.94
95
Sam Lasris moved that the OUTBoard approve the recommendation. Paul Guthrie asked that a member amend the 96
motion to include a request that the Planning Board keep the OUTBoard informed of progress on this issue. Alex 97
Castro made that motion and Sam Lasris seconded it.98
99
Amy Cole noted that she thinks there are a lot of people that unfortunately are too late in having their voices heard.100
101
Abigaile Pittman responded that the staff proposes to review protections measures for Old NC 10.102
103
AmyCole continued that she acknowledges the protection considerationsbut there are a lot of lowincome homes.104
105
Abigaile Pittman responded that they are not in a position to undo the land use plan and zoning approvals that the106
BOCC has already done.She added that they are in a position moving forward to offer options for protection.107
108
4
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
Amy Cole added that she is in agreement but in general the whole plan doesn’t sit well with her but at this point the 109
conceptis already approved and now it is the best situation going forward.110
111
The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.112
113
114
AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES115
a.Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) recommendations for new projects in the 116
DCHC MPO and TARPO planning areas for the State Transportation Improvement 117
Program(STIP)118
b.Clarification regarding bicycle project in the STIP119
c.Safe Routes to School Plan adoption schedule120
d.OUTBoard Appointments121
e.OUTBoard items of discussion for Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District Engineer122
OUTBoard Action: Receive updates123
124
Abigaile Pittman provided an update that the BOCC is reviewed the list of BG MPO projects recommended by the 125
OUTBoard, and on the 19th will review the remainder of the projects in the DCHC MPO and TARPOareafor the 126
STIP. Also, Triangle Transit is working with Orange County for the list of bus projects for implementation of the 127
Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRIP) and a report should be out by the end of the year.128
129
Alex Castro requested that the OUTBoard be given access to the presentation of the DCHC MPO coordinated public 130
transportation plan workshop. He noted that thisrequest was made to the consultants but they never followed up on 131
it. He thinks they do their thing in the MPO and the OUTBoard hears about it secondarily and he thinks the Board 132
should know what is going on as it happens as opposed to after it has been completed. 133
134
Abigaile Pittman stated that she would follow up and get back with Alex Castro about this report. 135
136
Abigaile Pittman clarifiedinformationfrom last month’s meeting aboutbike projects that are over 1 million dollars 137
having tobe classified as highway projects. She statedthat NCDOT has reversed that decision and determined they 138
will continue to be bike projects no matter the costs.Local governments will have to come up with 20% and 139
administer the projects.140
141
AbigailePittman advised that the Safe Routes to School Plan adoption schedule was approved by the BOCC and the 142
OUTBoard will be reviewing it at itsDecember 18th meeting. 143
144
AbigailePittman advised that the OUTBoard will be also be working on the annual work plan to be submitted to the 145
BOCC in December.146
147
Abigaile Pittman let the OUTBoard know that there may not be a need to meet in Novemberand that she would 148
follow up to confirm. 149
150
Paul Guthrie requested to have the Safe Routes to School material several weeks in advance of the December 151
meeting in order to have ample time for review.152
153
Alex Castro suggested working on the annual report by email prior to the December meeting.154
155
Abigaile Pittman advised the Board of the two newly appointed OUTBoard members, Brantley Wells representing 156
Hillsborough Township and Donald Wollum representing Eno Township.157
158
Abigaile Pittman advised the members that Chuck Edwards, NCDOTwants an agenda before coming to a meeting 159
due to time constraints and asked the members to send her topics for an agenda.160
161
Paul Guthrie suggested that Chuck Edwards give the OUTBoard a candid appraisal of what he thinks the new 162
system is going to do withregard to the allocation of different kinds of projects in Orange County.163
5
ReturntoAgenda
D R A F T
164
Abigaile Pittman requested that members email her with anything they would like to discuss with or learn about from 165
ChuckEdwards. 166
167
168
AGENDA ITEM VI: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 169
BOARD AGENDAS 170
OUTBoard Action:Receive information as a handout171
172
173
AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS174
OUTBoard Action:Receive comments175
176
Gary Saunders advised that on the Commission for the Environment they are working on the latest version of the 177
State of the Environment report.178
179
180
AGENDA ITEM VII: MEETING SCHEDULE-THE OUTBoard’s next scheduled meeting isNovember 20, 2013, but 181
this meeting may not be held due to lack of an agenda. 182
183
184
AGENDA ITEM IX: ADJOURNMENT185
186
The meeting was adjourned by consensus.187
6
ReturntoAgenda
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:December 18, 2013
Action Agenda
Item No.4
SUBJECT:Safe Routes to School (SRTS)Strategic Action Plan
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)N
ATTACHMENT(S):
1.Amendment Outline Form
2.SRTS Action Plan Overview
3.Draft SRTSStrategic Action Plan
http://orangecountync.gov/planning/d
ocuments/UpdatedSRTSPlan-
allchapterscombined.pdf (264pages;
hard copyavailableupon request)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use
Planner, 245-2567
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 245-2579
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592
4. Process Flowchart
PURPOSE: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan required for implementing a Safe Routes
to School program in Orange County.
BACKGROUND:Background information on the SRTS program can be found in Section B.2 of
Attachment 1,the Amendment form, approved by the BOCC on October 15, 2013. The
Amendment form contains details regarding the timeframe for the adoption process. The form
also outlines the rationale, process, and implications of the development and adoption of the
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan.
The Draft SRTS Plan was reviewed by the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Division and a final
draft was completed and returned to the Planning Staff in December 2012.
The three schools chosen for the SRTS Action Plan are part of the Orange County school
system, and all are located inside or adjacent to the Town of Hillsborough:
x Grady A. Brown Elementary School
x Cameron Park Elementary School
x C.W. Stanford Middle School
An overview of the SRTS program purpose,considerations forchosen school sites,
recommended projects, and information on project fundingcan be found in Attachment 2.
Staff’s pre-adoption activities on the Draft SRTS Strategic Action Plan can be found in Section
C.1 of Attachment 1.
7
ReturntoAgenda
Public Outreach:
The Plan development process included a public workshop completed in April 2008 that sought
input from residents, including parents, teachers, principals, children, Town of Hillsborough
staff, and Orange County staff.
Attachment 3is the full (264-page) Draft SRTSAction Planfor public hearing.A link is provided
to an online copy of Plan; a hard copy is available upon request.
Attachment 4is a flowchart describing the process for the development and adoption of the
SRTS Strategic Action Plan.
The BOCC had a public hearing on the Plan at its November 19meeting. OUTBoard Chair Paul
Guthrie was present at the meeting. No members of the public spoke in favor or against the
Plan. The BOCC had two comments:
1.To provide additional details about project costs and funding; and
2.To prepare an exhibit with charts depicting the number of students within walking range
of each of the three school addressed in the Plan.
The BOCCreferred the Plan to the OUTBoard with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the BOCC in time for the February 18, 2014BOCC regular meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Otherthan staff time, there is no financial impact associated with
receiving and considering the SRTS Action Plan. Review of the Draft Plan has been doneby
existing Planning staff in the Department’s Comprehensive Planning Division. Following
adoption, Plan implementation will require assistancefrom the NCDOT SRTS Program staff,
the Orange County Schools staff, and the Town of Hillsborough staff.
RECOMMENDATION(S):The Staffrecommends the Board:
1.Receive the Draft Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan (Attachment 3).
2.Recommend approval of the Plan to include any additional items as recommended by
theOUTBoard.
8
ReturntoAgenda
Attachment 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
AMENDMENTOUTLINE
A. AMENDMENT TYPE
Map Amendments
Land Use Element Map:
From: ---
To: ---
Zoning Map:
From:- --
To:---
Other:
Text Amendments
Comprehensive Plan Text:
UDO Text:
UDO General Text Changes
UDO Development Standards
UDO Development Approval Processes
Other:Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan
B. RATIONALE
1. Purpose/Mission
The purpose of the SRTS program is to:
• Enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school;
• Make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation
alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age;
and
• Facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and
activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air
pollution in the vicinity of schools.
9
ReturntoAgenda
Attachment 1
2
The NC SRTS Program works with schools, local governments and agencies,
advocacy and non-profit organizations, and public health professionals at a
grassroots level to identify improvements that can help make bicycling and walking to
and from school a safe and healthy transportation alternative. Orange County
received a SRTS Strategic Action Plan Service Award in July 2008 for planning
assistance to prepare an Action Plan for Grady A. Brown Elementary School,
Cameron Park Elementary School and C.W. Stanford Middle School. In 2009
NCDOT contracted Greenways, Incorporated and Greene Transportation Solutions
to work with County staff, local agency representatives, School Team leaders and
principals of the three schools to identify non-motorized infrastructure improvements
that enhance safety for walking and bicycling.
The Plan development process included a visioning and goals session and map
working session with the project staff, steering committee, and consultants. This was
followed by comprehensive fieldwork and a public workshop that sought input from
residents, including parents, teachers, principals, children, Town of Hillsborough
staff, and Orange County staff.This input and analysis led to the development of a
draft plan that consisted of an analysis of existing conditions, and recommendations
in the program’s framework of engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement,
and evaluation (the essential ‘5 E’s’ of the program).
2. Analysis
Additional analysis will be part of the subsequent evaluation and approval of project
implementation actions.
3. Comprehensive Plan Linkage (i.e. Principles, Goals and Objectives)
Chapter 9: Transportation Element Goals 1, 2, 3 and 4 and their supporting
objectives address a multi-modal transportation system, promotion of public health
and safety, and transportation planning that serves development. Several objectives
specifically speak to the provision of bikeways and walkways.
4. New Statutes and Rules
N/A
C. PROCESS
1. TIMEFRAME/MILESTONES/DEADLINES
a.Completion of Final Draft Plan by Consultant and NCDOT
December 2012
b. Orange County BOCC/Town of Hillsborough Commissioners Joint Meeting Updates
February 24, 2011
February 21, 2013
10
ReturntoAgenda
Attachment 1
3
b. BOCC Authorization to Proceed
April 9, 2013 (Initial adoption steps):
x Joint staff planning meetings with Orange County Schools and the Town of
Hillsborough;
x Meetings with the Orange County School Board and the Town of
Hillsborough Town Board to provide information and receive endorsement
to proceed; and
x The completion of updates to the draft SRTS Action Plan pertaining to the
review of local planning document resources, federal and state funding
sources, depicted school district boundaries, and general corrections such
as the spelling of some road names, etc.
October 15, 2013 (adoption steps)
c. Joint Staff Meeting with Orange County Schools and the Town of Hillsborough
On April 30, 2013 Planning staff met with staff from the Town of Hillsborough,
Orange County Schools, Orange County Health Department, and representatives
from the state Community Transformation Grant program (a related program and
possible funding source). Additional conversations and meetings occurred in
May, June and July to discuss the progress of pre-adoption steps;
d. Meet with Orange County School Board and the Town Board of Hillsborough to
Brief and Receive Approval for Initial SRTS Adoption Steps
On May 28, 2013 Planning staff presented an overview of the SRTS Action Plan
and proposed pre-adoption steps to the Orange County School Board and
received its endorsement.
On June 10, 2013 Planning staff presented an overview of the SRTS Action Plan
and proposed pre-adoption steps to the Town of Hillsborough Board and received
its endorsement.
e. Staff Editing of Draft SRTS Action Plan
Planning staff made minor edits to the Draft SRTS Action Plan through August
pertaining to the review of local planning document resources, federal and state
funding sources, revisions to depicted school district boundaries, and general
corrections such as the spelling of some road names, etc. No revisions were
made to project recommendations developed by the Plan steering committee.
f. BOCC Public Hearing
November 19, 2013(OUTBoard members encouraged to attend)
g. Orange County Schools Adoption Consideration
January 13, 2014
h. Town of Hillsborough Adoption Consideration
February 10, 2014
i. BOCC Adoption Consideration
February 18, 2014
11
ReturntoAgenda
Attachment 1
4
2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM
The Plan development process included a public workshop completed in April 2008
that sought input from residents, including parents, teachers, principals, children,
Town of Hillsborough staff, and Orange County staff.
a. Advisory Boards:
OUTBoard - March 20, 2013 update
OUTBoard – December 18, 2013 review and recommendation
b. Local Government Review:
Town of Hillsborough, as noted in
Section C.1. above
c. Notice Requirements
Not required for these adoption steps
d. Outreach:
FISCAL IMPACT
Other than staff time, there is no financial impact associated with receiving,
considering and authorizing the staff to proceed with adoption steps for the SRTS
Action Plan.
D. AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS
N/A
E. SPECIFIC AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
N/A
Primary Staff Contact:
Abigaile Pittman
Planning Department
(919) 245-2567
abpittman@orangecountync.gov
General Public: The Plan development process included a public workshop
completed in April 2008 that sought input from residents,
including parents, teachers, principals, children, Town of
Hillsborough staff, and Orange County staff.
Small Area Plan Workgroup: N/A
Other: Joint staff meetings with Orange County Schools and the Town of
Hillsborough; and meetings with the Orange County School Board
and the Town Board of Hillsborough.
12
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan OVERVIEW
November 19, 2013
SRTS PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program was established in the 2005 Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). It is a federally-funded grant reimbursement program providing an
opportunity for communities to improve conditions for bicycling and walking to school.
Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU mandates that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) administer this program within the state, providing financial
assistance to state, local, and regional agencies, including non-profit organizations that
demonstrate an ability to meet the requirements of the program.
The purpose of the SRTS program is to:
• Enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school.
• Make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation
alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age.
• Facilitate the planning, development, and implementation of projects and
activities that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air
pollution in the vicinity of schools.
The NC SRTS Program works with schools, local governments and agencies, advocacy
and non-profit organizations, and public health professionals at a grassroots level to
identify improvements that can help make bicycling and walking to and from school a
safe and healthy transportation alternative.
THREE SCHOOLS ADDRESSED BY THE SRTS ACTION PLAN
x Grady A. Brown Elementary School
x Cameron Park Elementary School
x C.W. Stanford Middle School
The three schools chosen for the SRTS Action Plan are part of the Orange County
school system, and all are located inside or adjacent to the Town of Hillsborough. A
comprehensive, multi-faceted approach was taken to examine existing conditions
including the collection of data from parent surveys and student travel tallies, site work
and field interviews, and area mapping. A thorough inventory of existing conditions was
assembled at each school site to provide a baseline by which to measure the results
and outcome of the SRTS Program at the community, school and street levels.
13
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
2
14
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
3
CONSIDERATIONS FOR CHOSEN SCHOOL SITES
Grady Brown Elementary School – located on New Grady Brown School road just off
Orange Grove Road.
x The school is south of I-40 and the roadway bridge has very narrow shoulders.
x There are multiple two-lane rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-
age cyclists and pedestrians.
x There are no sidewalks or pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian facilities of any
kind leading to and away from the school.
x There are no bicycle racks on campus.
x There are no crossing guards.
x Tallies: 240 students were driven by their parents; 225 students took the bus;
0 students walked; and 0 students bicycled.
x Unofficial bus stops lack clear designation and safe harbor in some locations.
x Existing safety concerns expressed by parents: distance; traffic speeds along
routes (45 and 55 mph); traffic volumes along routes; lack of sidewalks or
pathways; and unsafe intersections and crossings.
x Crime not a significant issue of concern based on field analysis and public input.
x Motorist’s behaviors observed as “good” on campus and “fair” along Orange
Grove Road.
x Pedestrian behaviors observed to be generally safe around the school.
x Minor backups of automobile traffic during drop-off times, with more congested
backups during pickup times (causing some thru-traffic weaving and blind spots).
x There is a clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage along New Grady
Brown School Road.
x There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the car drop-
off line.
x Access concerns along Orange Grove Road were highlighted by the
BOCC/Hillsborough-approved Orange Grove Road Access Management Report
(2003).
x The nearby Patriots Pointe multifamily development has one of the highest
densities in the County and is within walking distance of the school.
x Projects for the school would also benefit Cedar Ridge High School.
CW Stanford Middle School – located next to Orange High School inside a
neighborhood with residential roads
x The school is flanked by US 70 and Orange High School Road.
x There is no sidewalk connectivity to neighborhoods and streets in the vicinity of
the school; and the residential land use and street pattern on the eastern side of
the school prevents a direct connection to the school, currently requiring students
to use US 70.
x There are no bicycle racks on campus.
15
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
4
x US 70 presents a serious safety threat for pedestrians and bicyclists because of
its lack of infrastructure, high speeds, and high traffic volumes.
x There are very few traffic calming facilities in the area of the school
x Tallies: 357 students were driven by their parents; 211 students took the bus; 3
students walked; and 0 students bicycled
x Existing safety concerns expressed by parents: distance; traffic volumes along
routes; traffic speeds along routes; safety of intersections and crossings; and the
lack of sidewalks or pathways
x Motorist’s behaviors observed as “good” on campus, “fair” along Orange High
School Road, and “bad” on US 70
x Crime not a significant issue of concern based on field analysis and public input
x Minor backups of automobile traffic during drop-off and pickup times.
x There are possibilities of connecting neighborhoods to the school using trails and
greenways along current easements and “cut throughs”.
x On-campus sidewalks and crosswalks are adequate.
Cameron Park Elementary School – located next to St. Matthews Episcopal Church on
St. Mary’s Road near downtown Hillsborough, with adjacent small businesses and low
density residential development
x The traffic volumes are very high on St. Mary’s Road, especially during
commuter hours.
x There are no sidewalks or bicycle lanes in the vicinity of the school.
x There are multiple roadways that pose safety barriers and challenges for
elementary school age pedestrians and bicyclists.
x Tallies: 237 students were driven by their parents; 187 students took the bus; 19
students carpooled; 3 students walked; and 0 students bicycled.
x Existing safety concerns expressed by parents: traffic speeds along routes; traffic
volumes along routes; distance; safety of intersections and crossings; and the
lack of sidewalks or pathways.
x Motorist’s behaviors observed as “fair” on campus, and “bad” on St. Mary’s
Road.
x Significant backups of automobile traffic during drop-off and pickup times that
impact off and on-site traffic, turning movements, and relate to dangerous
vehicular maneuvers.
x Not all curb ramps comply with ADA regulations.
x The existing bicycle rack on the school’s campus is situated where only one side
can be used and is not covered.
x There is a clearly defined school zone on St. Mary’s Road.
x Besides the crossing on St. Mary’s Road at Thomas Ruffin Road, there are no
marked crosswalks in the vicinity of the school.
x There is an established trail connecting to the adjacent property to the school
grounds that can give children access without having to walk along St. Mary’s
Road.
x Projects for the school would also benefit Orange High School.
16
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
5
SRTS PROJECTS
The SRTS program allows for a great variety of programs that can be implemented.
Eligible SRTS projects can be bundled as infrastructure and non-infrastructure. Funding
can include training volunteers, street crossings, safety and Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), bicycle/pedestrian lanes, etc. All projects must be within two (2) miles of
a K-8 school.
In response to previous questions from Commissioners regarding whether the SRTS
Program will allow projects for high schools, staff has learned that the NCDOT SRTS
Program will fund only those activities that specifically plan for improvements and
programs that promote safe, active travel to K-8 schools, however the benefit of a
project does not have to be exclusively for a K-8 school addressed by the Plan. While
project inclusion in the adopted plan is encouraged, not all projects must be included in
the adopted SRTS plan. Projects from the Plan with multiple purposes/greater impact
are favored. If, for example, a proposed project for CW Stanford Middle School met the
objectives of the SRTS program, but also happened to provide a benefit to the Orange
High School, that is acceptable and even encouraged.
However, there are projects that are not allowed. The following are ineligible activities:
x Recurring costs, such as school crossing guards
x Pick-up and drop-off sites
x Educational focus buses
x Bus stop improvements
The NCDOT SRTS Program will fund only those activities that specifically plan for
improvements and programs that promote safe, active travel to K-8 schools and while
project inclusion in the adopted plan is encouraged, not all projects must be included in
the adopted SRTS plan.
A variety of sources were consulted during the development of the infrastructure
recommendations:
x Plans and studies
x Existing conditions
x The Consultant’s fieldwork inventory
x Public input
x Noted patterns of development
Grady Brown Elementary Projects Identified in the SRTS Action Plan:
x Project #1: New Grady Brown School Road Sidewalk and Midblock Crossing
x Project #2: Orange Grove Road / I-40 Bridge Pedestrian Facilities
x Project #3: Oakdale Road Safety Improvements
x Project #4: Patriots Pointe Trail Connection
CW Stanford Middle School Projects Identified in the SRTS Action Plan:
x Corridor Improvement Projects (8) (sidewalks, multi-use paths) along Orange
High School Road, US 70, Harold Latta Road, Miller Road, NC 86, NC 57, and
along new off-road multi-use paths.
17
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
6
x Crossing Improvement Projects (9) along US 70, Orange High School Road, NC
86, and Gwen Road.
x Traffic Calming Measures along US 70.
x On-campus Improvements (sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle racks, curb ramps).
x Enhance ‘cut throughs’ to school from neighborhoods to the north and west.
x Follow Town of Hillsborough’s sidewalk/greenway planning.
Cameron Park Elementary School Projects Identified in the SRTS Action Plan:
x Corridor Improvement Projects (11) (sidewalks, bicycle lanes, greenway trails)
along Cameron Street, St. Mary’s Road, US 70, Queen Street, Thomas Ruffin
Street, and several new off-road sites.
x Crossing Improvement Projects (4) along Thomas Ruffin Street, St. Mary’s Road,
Cameron Street, and Churton Street.
x Traffic Calming Measures along Queen Street, Thomas Ruffin Street, Cameron
Street, and St. Mary’s Road.
x Off-campus Improvements (bicycle racks, crossing guards, left-turn restrictions,
alleviating conflicts with parking areas).
x Pedestrian signals at signalized intersections along Churton Street.
PROJECT FUNDING
The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program was established in the 2005 Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU) legislation as a federally-funded grant reimbursement program
providing an opportunity for communities to improve conditions for bicycling and walking
to school. The SRTS program is a reimbursement program that does not require a local
match (100% federally funded). Section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU mandated that the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) administer this program within the
state, providing financial assistance to state, local, and regional agencies, including
non-profit organizations that demonstrate an ability to meet the requirements of the
program.
There were some revisions to federal and state funding sources in October 2012 that
will impact future funding sources for the Safe Routes to School program. Specifically,
the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Bill (MAP-21) SRTS program
direct allocation funds were removed. MAP-21 authorized the Transportation
Alternatives Program (TAP) to provide funding for programs and projects defined as
transportation alternatives, including safe routes to school projects. The TAP replaced
the funding from pre-MAP-21 programs, including the SRTS program.
However, NCDOT staff has advised the Planning staff that there will continue to be
SAFETEA-LU funds available for the program under its rolling grant cycle. It is
anticipated that these funds will be continued on an annual basis through FFY 2014 (i.e.
September 2015). SAFETEA-LU funds apportioned for the SRTS Program prior to
MAP-21 are available until expended. In 2012 the North Carolina SRTS Program
received an allocation of $4,699,927, from which projects have been funded in Chapel
Hill, Asheville, Greenville, Mooresville, and Brevard.
18
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 2
7
After identifying projects from the Plan to implement, the County would apply through
the NCDOT Division 7 office. Project funding is based on project priority with as much
local support as possible (Schools, PTA, Superintendent, municipalities, BOCC,
supporting plans, etc.), and projects from the Plan with multiple purposes/greater impact
are favored. If, for example, a proposed project for CW Stanford Middle School met the
objectives of the SRTS program, but also happened to provide a benefit to the Orange
High School, that is acceptable and even encouraged.
Post expenditure of the existing SAFETEA-LU SRTS Program funds, future funding for
SRTS projects will be with TAP funds. The Federal share will be the same as for the
general Federal-aid highway program: 80 percent Federal/20 percent State or local
match. Also, to address the shift in funding programs, prioritized SRTS projects will be
included on the list of future year projects submitted for SPOT 3.0 scoring.
The recommended first step in successful future SRTS project funding is the adoption of
the Plan by Orange County, Orange County Schools, and the Town of Hillsborough.
Adoption of the SRTS Action Plan demonstrates local commitment to the objectives of
the SRTS program and serves to incentivize NCDOT to fund local projects in a
competitive atmosphere. Some haste with the adoption and future project submission
processes is recommended given the limited remaining pool of 100% federally funded
SAFETEA-LU money.
IMPLEMENTATION
The SRTS Action Plan emphasizes that successful implementation will require the
dedication of local government staff, commitment of the school system and local
schools, the creation of a SRTS Advisory Committee, and the continued support of local
advocates and parents. The recommended first step is the adoption of the Plan by
Orange County, Orange County Schools, and the Town of Hillsborough. Adoption of
the SRTS Action Plan demonstrates local commitment and incentivizes NCDOT to fund
local projects. The second recommended step is to establish a SRTS Action Plan
Advisory Committee (SRTS APAC). Planning staff’s initial thought is that the SRTS
Advisory Committee be a sub-committee of the OUTBoard, supplemented by additional
staff from other agencies/jurisdictions as needed. The Advisory Committee would be
responsible for advocating plan implementation and assist with programming and grant
writing, evaluating plan progress, and assessing plan priorities. Multiple subsequent
implementation action steps are outlined and prioritized in the Plan, the fruition of which
would be subject to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the approval
of the BOCC, School Board, and Town of Hillsborough.
Lead Planning Agency Role
Orange County will serve as the Lead Planning Agency in advancing implementation of
the SRTS Action Plan.
19
ReturntoAgenda
ATTACHMENT 4
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan
Process Flowchart
SRTS PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Orange County received NCDOT award to prepare
SRTS Action Plan July 2008
NCDOT contracted Greenways, Inc. and Green
Transportation to preparedraft plan 2009
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
UPDATES and AUTHORIZATIONS TO PROCEED
ADVISORY BOARD UPDATE, REVIEW and RECOMMENDATION
Final draft plan completed by
Consultant and NCDOT December 2012
Pre-adoption joint staff meetings with Orange County
Schools and Town of Hillsborough April-July 2013
Staff contact with Community Transformation Grant
Program staff and Public Health Dept. staffMay 2013
Plan visioning and goals and public workshop
2008-2009
Steering Committee work, fieldwork, and selection of
the three schools 2008 -2009
Staff minor edits/updates to draft plan
August 2013
Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Meeting
Update February 24, 2011
Orange County/Town of Hillsborough Joint Meeting
Update February 21, 2013
BOCC authorization to proceed with initial
adoptionsteps April 9, 2013
Staff presentation to Orange County Schools, received
endorsement of initial adoption steps May 28, 2013
Staff presentation to Town of Hillsborough, received
endorsement of initial adoption steps June 10, 2013
BOCC authorization to proceed with adoption steps
October 15, 2013
IMPLEMENTATION
PUBLIC HEARINGS / ADOPTION CONSIDERATION
OUTBoard Update
March20,2013
OUTBoard Review and Recommendation
December 18, 2013
BOCCpublic hearing
November 19, 2013
Orange County Schools adoption consideration
January 13, 2014
Town of Hillsborough public hearing and adoption
consideration February 10, 2014
BOCC 2nd public hearing and adoption consideration
February 18, 2014
Establish SRTS Advisory Committee as a
subcommittee of the OUTBoard 2014
Project prioritization, constructability and cost review of
projects with NCDOT, project scoping, etc. 2014
Project(s) approved by BOCC
2014 -future years
Projectapplication(s)for funding; construction and
administration–future years
We’re Here!
20
ReturntoAgenda
1
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
INPUT FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ ANNUAL PLANNING
RETREAT
The Board of Commissioners welcomes input from various advisory boards and
commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please complete the
following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other
background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a
substitute for, this form.
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Orange Unified Transportation Board
(OUTBoard)
Report Period: 2013
Person to address the BOCC at Retreat (if requested by BOCC) and contact
information:
Paul Guthrie, Chair. Telephone 919-933-2931
E-mail: guthriep@bellsouth.net
Primary County Staff Contacts:
Abigaile Pittman, 245-2567, abpittman@co.orange.nc.us
Tom Altieri, 245-2579, taltieri@co.orange.nc.us
Tina Love, 245-2575, tlove@co.orange.nc.us
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including
any special meetings and sub-committee meetings?
The OUTBoard typically meets once each month. The Board met less frequently
in 2012 (ten times), as needed to address Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) priorities. There were no subcommittee meetings in 2013.
Brief Statement of Board/Commission’s Assigned Charge and
Responsibilities:
1. To establish a policy and procedures whereby the Orange County Board of
Commissioners will establish the specific policies and procedures governing
the Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board.
2. The Orange County Board of Commissioners may appoint an advisory board
whose duty is to serve in an advisory capacity in regards to planning and
programming transportation infrastructure improvements and other County
transportation planning initiatives, as determined by the Board of
Commissioners.
21
ReturntoAgenda
2
What are your Board/Commission’s most important accomplishments?
In 2013, the OUTBoard has:
1. Reviewed and recommended the Comprehensive Transportation Plan for
rural Orange County. As a part of this process the Board received
presentations from Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning
Branch, and Matt Day, Senior Planner with the Triangle Area Regional
Planning Organization (TARPO).
2. Received a presentation on the content and status of the Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP).
3. Received a presentation on the content and status of the Burlington-
Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) 2035 Long-Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update.
4. Reviewed and recommended the Eno Economic Development District
(EDD) Access Management Plan, implementing a recommendation of the
Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Area Small Area Plan adopted
June 24, 2008 and amended February 3, 2009).
5. Reviewed and recommended the Safe Routes to School Action Plan.
6. Reviewed the WalkBike NC Plan – A North Carolina Statewide Pedestrian
and Bicycle Plan, and endorsed Planning staff’s comment letter to
NCDOT.
7. Received a presentation from staff and Dale McKeel, Bicycle and
Pedestrian Coordinator, Department of Transportation, City of
Durham/DCHC MPO on the designation of St. Mary’s Road as a regional
bicycle route on the DCHC MPO MTP; and then reviewed and
recommended that this designation be removed from the MTP in favor of a
preferred alternative consistent with Orange County’s approved bicycle
route.
8. Received a presentation from Dale McKeel, Bicycle and Pedestrian
Coordinator, Department of Transportation, City of Durham/DCHC MPO
on the prioritization and funding of bicycle and pedestrian projects under
the new Strategic Mobility Formula.
9. Reviewed and recommended prioritization of TARPO, BGMPO and DCHC
MPO transportation projects for the 2016-2022 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
10. Received presentations from staff and reviewed the effect of changes to
State and MPO project prioritization methodology on County projects to be
programmed through TARPO, BG MPO and DCHC MPO.
22
ReturntoAgenda
3
11. Received a presentation from John Tallmadge, Triangle Transit (TTA)
Director of Regional Services Development and Craig Benedict, Planning
Director on the status of the implementation of the Orange County Bus
and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP).
12. Reviewed and recommended proposed rural Orange County bus routes
that serve to implement the OCBRIP.
13. Several OUTBoard members attended the public outreach meetings for
the OCBRIP bus planning.
14. The OUTBoard received updates on several non-recurring current topics:
a. The Triangle Air Quality Report released on April 3, 2013.
b. The NCDOT Rail Division’s three proposed railroad private crossing
closures and the related staff and BOCC comments.
c. The Orange County Master Aging Plan 2012-2017 transportation
strategies.
d. The proposed Old Well to Jordan Lake Scenic Byway.
e. The TARPO Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation
Plan adopted June 2013.
15. Developed a list of members’ area of special interest and assignments for
monitoring other boards’ websites and/or agendas for transportation
related information and activities; and regularly reviewed and reported on
these items at each meeting.
16. Reviewed new criteria for membership and representation, based on
BOCC discussions.
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored
Annually.
1. The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is typically a recurring
two-year process:
First year: Develop priority list of projects to request in TIP
for BOCC approval.
Second year: Recommend comments regarding draft TIP for
BOCC approval to submit to NCDOT during
the public comment period.
The OUTBoard assisted with the identification and prioritization of NCDOT
projects for rural (TARPO RPO) and metropolitan (DCHC MPO and BG
MPO) planning areas. In 2012 and 2013 there were revisions to federal
and state funding project prioritization laws that revised and extended the
typical recurring two-year TIP development process, including the
OUTBoard’s role.
23
ReturntoAgenda
4
2. The OUTBoard regularly reviewed active NCDOT projects in the County,
including various paving, construction and CMAQ projects.
3. Regularly received updates and reviewed the progress of NCDOT
transportation projects within rural Orange County.
4. Regularly received updates on TARPO, BG MPO and DCHC MPO
transportation planning activities.
5. Received updates from the Planning staff on the NCDOT quarterly
luncheon topics of discussion.
6. Reviewed and discussed current Board vacancies.
Describe this board/commission’s activities/accomplishments in carrying
out BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
Accomplishments 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12) (review and recommendation of the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), the Eno Economic Development
District Access Management Plan, the Safe Routes to School Action Plan; the
designation of St. Mary’s Road as a regional bicycle route on the DCHC MPO
MPT; prioritization of TARPO, BGMPO and DCHC MPO transportation projects,
and the review and recommendation of proposed rural Orange County bus
routes that serve to implement the OCBRIP ) relate to BOCC Goal Three
(Implement planning and economic development policies which create a
balanced, dynamic local economy, and which promote diversity, sustainable
growth and enhanced revenue while embracing community values), Priority 20:
Support transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities and other alternatives to the
single passenger automobile.
Accomplishments 6, 11, and 15 (Reviewing the WalkBike NC Plan – A North
Carolina Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, receiving a presentation from
Triangle Transit on the implementation of the Orange County Bus and Rail
Investment Plan, and development of a review process for transportation items of
interest on other boards’ websites and/or agendas) relate to BOCC Goal Two
(promote an interactive and transparent system of governance that reflects
community values), Priority 7 (Improve intra- and intergovernmental coordination,
cooperation and collaboration).
Accomplishment 16 (Review of new criteria for membership and representation,
based on BOCC discussions related to BOCC Goal 2 (Promote an interactive
and transparent system of governance that reflects community values), Priority 8
(Examine advisory boards and commissions to (a) Ensure they are meeting their
missions; (b) Determine how boards relate to each other and how their work can
best be integrated with the BOCC; and (c) Ensure sustainability goals; (d) Ensure
fit with overall County vision; and (e) Recognize and be sensitive to consistencies
represented by boards, commissions when framing this review.)
24
ReturntoAgenda
5
If your board/commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory
Board involved in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process,
please indicate your board’s activities/accomplishments as they may relate
to the Comprehensive Plan’s goals or objectives.
(The Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, EDC, OUTBoard,
Commission for the Environment, Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture
Preservation Board, Affordable Housing Board, Recreation and Parks Advisory
Council)
Accomplishments 1, 4, and 5 (review and recommendation of the
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), the Eno Economic Development
District Access Management Plan, the Safe Routes to School Action Plan relate
to Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Goal 3 (Integrated land use
planning and transportation planning that serves existing development, supports
future development, and is consistent with the County’s land use plans which
include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community
character.), Objective T-3.2 (Create and implement an Orange County
Comprehensive Transportation Plan that provides the framework for a
comprehensive and connected transportation system supporting a mix of
transportation modes, including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, bus and rail
transit facilities, and highways. The plan should be coordinated with the goals
and objectives of this Comprehensive Plan and seek to maintain and enhance
community character and the natural environment.); Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Goal 2 (A multi-modal transportation system that is
affordable, available, and accessible to all users and that promotes public health
and safety.), Objective T-2.7 (Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County that
will make cycling safer, more convenient, and more efficient) ; and
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Goal 4 (A countywide and
regionally-integrated, multi-modal transportation planning process that is
comprehensive, creative and effective.), Objective T-4.1 (Work with nearby
jurisdictions to integrate the County’s transportation plans with those of other
transportation planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the
Triangle Region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect
regional goals and objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce
congestion and reliance on single occupancy vehicles.).
Additionally, Accomplishment 5 (the Safe Routes to School Action Plan) relates
to Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Goal 1 (An efficient and
integrated multi-modal transportation system and that protects the natural
environment and community character), Objective T-1.1 (…expand the use of
…walking and biking as primary modes of travel); Goal 2 (A multi-modal
transportation system that is affordable and accessible to all users and that
promotes public health and safety), Objective T-2.1 (Increase the provision of
bikeways and walkways, and also increase supportive facilities such as bicycle
parking zones), Objective T-2.6 (Increase safety awareness between car drivers
and bicycle riders, and increase safety for pedestrians), and Objective T-2.7
25
ReturntoAgenda
6
(Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County that will make cycling safer, more
convenient, and more efficient); and Goal 4 (A countywide and regionally-
integrated, multi-modal transportation planning process that is comprehensive,
creative and effective), Objective T-4.1 (Work with nearby jurisdictions to
integrate the County’s transportation plans with those of other transportation
planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the Triangle
region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect regional
goals and objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce congestion
and reliance on single occupancy vehicles).
Accomplishment 12 (review and recommendation of proposed rural Orange
County bus routes that serve to implement the OCBRIP.) relate to
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Goal 1 (An efficient and integrated
multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural environment and
community character.), Objective T-1.1 (Increase the occupancy of automobiles
through ridesharing and other means; and expand the use of public transit,
including bus and rail, walking, and biking as primary modes of travel.), Objective
T-1.2 (Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system that
is more energy-efficient, reduces carbon emissions, and reduces the use of fossil
fuels while promoting the use of local renewable and sustainable fuels.), and
Objective T-1.6 (Expand the availability and use of public transportation,
including bus and rail throughout the County to provide better connections
between employment centers, shopping and service locations, and other key
points of interest in both urban and rural areas, particularly for the County’s
senior and disable populations and others without access to automobiles.); Goal
2 (A multi-modal transportation system that is affordable, available, and
accessible to all users and that promotes public health and safety.), Objective T-
2.2 (Evaluate and serve special transportation needs of the senior population,
youth, the economically disadvantaged and the disabled, including both everyday
needs and disaster transit provision.), Objective T-2.4 (Improve the provision of
public transit facilities and services, and also increase supportive facilities for
transit, such as park and ride lots.), and Objective T-2.5 (Improve public
education and advertising of existing transit services.); Goal 4 (a countywide and
regionally-integrated, multi-modal transportation planning process that is
comprehensive, creative and effective.), Objective T-4.1 (Work with nearby
jurisdictions to integrate the County’s transportation plans with those of other
transportation planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the
Triangle region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect
regional goals and objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce
congestion and reliance on single occupancy vehicles.), and Objective T-4.2
(Plan and integrate the County’s multi-modal transportation routes and services
with regional transportation agencies and transit service providers, agencies and
transit providers in neighboring counties, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Amtrak and the North Carolina Railroad.)
26
ReturntoAgenda
7
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2014
as they relate to established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is
there a fiscal impact (i.e., funding, staff time, other resources) associated
with these proposed activities (please list).
(See Item 3 in the section after this for a statement regarding staff resources,
which is the primary fiscal impact associated with carrying out OUTBoard
activities.)
1. Implementation efforts related to the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action
Plan (BOCC Goal Three Priority 20), including the establishment of a sub-
committee to serve in an advisory capacity (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 20).
2. Review and identify what (if any) revisions may be necessary to future
road classifications (and cross-sections) included in the TARPO, DCHC
MPO and BG MPO comprehensive transportation plans, for the purpose
of establishing appropriate linkages to County access management
policies (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 9).
3. Review and comment on amendment to UDO for Eno EDD access
management regulations (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 2: Implement
Comprehensive Plan (a) Rewrite zoning and subdivision regulations
(Unified Development Ordinance).
4. Conclude study of and recommendations on parking regulations for
Economic Development areas and seek BOCC authorization to develop
applicable amendments to the UDO to take to the Planning Board. (BOCC
Goal 3, Priority 2: Implement Comprehensive Plan (a) Rewrite zoning and
subdivision regulations (Unified Development Ordinance).
5. Provide input and recommendations on high speed rail corridor through
the County and proposed rail crossing closings, if requested by the BOCC
(BOCC Goal 3, Priority 20).
6. Continue to work with staff and the BOCC to recommend and monitor
Orange County TIP projects (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 20).
7. Begin examination of UDO Section 7.8 Access and Roadways with
respect to the goals and objectives of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan to determine consistency, and seek BOCC
authorization to develop recommendations of applicable amendments to
the UDO to take to the Planning Board. (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 2:
Implement Comprehensive Plan (a) Rewrite zoning and subdivision
regulations (Unified Development Ordinance).
8. Coordination with the new Orange County Department of Aging Mobility
Manger on implementation efforts of the Master Aging Plan Transportation
Goals (BOCC Goal 3, Priority 20).
27
ReturntoAgenda
8
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the
upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the
Commissioners’ attention?
1. Collector Street Plan review and recommendations with an emphasis on
Economic Development areas.
2. Safe Route To School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan adoption and
implementation.
3. Enhanced regional transportation planning and operational efforts
including rural services as noted in the Orange County Bus and Rail
Investment Plan.
4. Pursuit of funding sources for transportation projects.
5. Review Orange County Master Aging Plan 2012-2017 strategies involving
transportation and mobility and provide recommendations.
6. Coordination with the new Orange County Department of Aging Mobility
Manger on implementation efforts of the Master Aging Plan Transportation
Goals
7. Review of new transportation related technologies (e.g., assess suitability
of use of smart phones for employment connections), and other
innovations promoting transportation commuting alternatives (e.g., Smart
Cars).
28
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center
Lower Level Meeting Room, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough
MEETING NOTES
I. INTRODUCTIONS
Present: Barry Jacobs, Orange County Commissioner’s Chair; Earl McKee, Orange
County Commissioner’s Vice Chair; Tom Stevens, Town of Hillsborough Mayor;
Mike Mills, NCDOT Division Engineer; Dawn McPherson, NCDOT Division Traffic
Engineer; Ed Lewis, Division Planning Engineer; John Howell, NCDOT Highway
Maintenance Engineer; Michael Talbert, Interim County Manager; Craig Benedict,
Orange County Planning Director; Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough Planning
Director; Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Bret
Martin, Orange County Transportation Planner; Abigaile Pittman, Orange County
Land Use/Transportation Planner; Pearl Waite, Orange County OPT
II. DISCUSSIONS
a. Strategic Mobility Formula and SPOT 3.0 (NCDOT)
Mike Mills provided a brief overview of the Strategic Mobility Formula, breakdown
of projects into three categories, and distribution of available revenue: statewide
(40%), regional (30%) and division level (30%). For additional details:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/
--Divisions will assign their allocation of points to projects that score well through
the quantitative process (SPOT 3.0), and the Division recommends RPOs and
MPOs take the same approach.
--Orange County, MPOs/RPOs, and Division Engineer to coordinate during
process of assigning Division points.
--Since funds will be even more limited than in the past, the construction costs of
projects will be more of a consideration in the Division’s assignment of points.
--SPOT 3.0 scores for projects will be available in May 2014.
--Ability to share points between MPOs and RPOs when projects cross
boundaries.
29
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
--Bike/pedestrian projects will require a local match and projects to be locally
administered, so there must be a local commitment to those projects.
--Normalization of the formula across modes will allow a minimum of 4% and a
maximum of 10% of total funding at the region and division levels to be spent on
non-highway modes.
--The new formula may be advantageous for the widening of I-40 and I-85 in
Orange County, as they may be out of the hands of the MPO if funded as part of
the purely data-driven statewide tier category; however, these projects would still
be eligible for funding in both the regional and division tiers.
b. Addressing Local Traffic Issues:
i. Turning east from Churton Street onto US 70 (Craig Benedict, NCDOT)
A description of this traffic problem was provided by Craig Benedict. Mike
Mills stated that the solution to improving turning movements at this
intersection would require widening the road to provide an additional turn
lane) but that sufficient right-of-way is an issue. Dawn McPherson added that
changes in the signalization could also help address the problem, such as
having a through lane with a slip ramp. Craig Benedict added that the turning
problem at this intersection also impacts plans for a transit hub related to
OCBRIP Implementation, and that we are currently working with NCDOT and
TTA to identify possible locations in the vicinity of this intersection for a large
park-and-ride/transit hub. Earl McKee mentioned that 8-12 inch gas line
infrastructure was just added under the road at the intersection. Bret Martin
stated that he believed there was some additional room for right-of-way, the
turn lane or slip ramp, at the intersection (in the southeast quadrant).
Margaret Hauth stated that the grassy area Bret was referring to is key to the
Town of Hillsborough’s Churton Street Plan and is included in future phase
improvements. Earl McKee inquired about whether there were sidewalks and
the response from several people was that there are no sidewalks.
30
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
ii. Addressing Dangerous Roadway Spots in Rural Areas (bad curves without
guard rails and such): Input has been solicited from the fire chiefs and may
not be available by the time of the luncheon meeting (Craig Benedict,
NCDOT)
Addressing NCDOT staff, Craig Benedict stated that if there is any safety
money available, the County still has some needs for improvements at
dangerous curves. Barry Jacobs said that “dangerous curves” should be
interpreted to mean places where there have been actual traffic accidents.
Dawn McPherson stated that her office could collect data and develop
recommendations for improvements. County staff added that they would
communicate with Fire Chief Council about situations involving dangerous
bridges, culverts, curves, etc. and we would prioritized provide a list to Dawn.
Earl McKee stated that the main focus should be on situations where there
are identified issues.
iii. Traffic light questions regarding the left turn lanes on MLK going north/west
onto I-40, and at Orange Grove Road and New Grady Brown School Road.
(Commissioner Barry Jacobs)
Barry Jacobs described an existing left-turn problem with the traffic light on
MLK at I-40. He stated that late at night, when traffic is very light, that a driver
has to sit at the light for a very long time, and inquired if some signal revision
could be done to address the problem. Several options and limitations were
discussed with Dawn McPherson and it was concluded that she would study
the situation and report back.
Barry Jacobs, Dawn McPherson and Margaret Hauth addressed school traffic
problems in the vicinity of the Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar
Ridge High School, particularly at Orange Grove Road and Oakdale Drive,
and Orange Grove Road and New Grady Brown School Road. Abigaile
Pittman stated that some of the projects in the Draft Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Plan were at these intersections. Dawn McPherson stated that her
31
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
staff would evaluate the problems at the intersections and consider possible
ways they would be addressed. She requested that Abigaile send her
information on the proposed SRTS projects for the area.
c. Economic Development Districts
i. Buckhorn EDD - Morinaga development and service road (South of I-85/I-40)
to serve future Morinaga development (Craig Benedict, NCDOT)
Craig Benedict stated that the County had contract with McGill & Associates
for design of the 2,500-foot long service road to serve the future Morinaga
development. He added that the road will involve a stream crossing and a
small amount of wetlands associated with a pipe under the interstate, but that
these environmental issues would be a limited encumbrance. He said that he
anticipates that the design plans would be delivered to NCDOT in March,
2014 and that the County is looking for a letter of commitment from NCDOT
that they will build the road. Mike Mills stated that funding has been approved
for the construction and the funding matter is on his desk. Mike Mills added
that the service road will be on the B-G MPO agenda as a STIP amendment.
Mike Mills and Craig Benedict discussed that Heather Fulghum with NCDOT
can work with the County on approval of the right-of-way documents. Craig
Benedict said he thinks the 80-foot width should handle the cut and fill needs
for the services road. Mike Mills said that the billboard, which is in Mebane’s
jurisdiction, will have to be removed for the right-of-way. Craig responded that
this had been discussed with the current owner of the property, who is the
lease holder. The billboard lease is coming up for renewal and relocation will
be a part of that discussion. There was some discussion between Craig
Benedict, Mike Mills and Ed Lewis about how the stream crossing for the
Morinaga site would be handled under a Corps Nationwide 39 Permit, but
going forward with future stream crossings in the Buckhorn EDD would be
handled under a Corps Nationwide 14 Permit, which will require that they look
at the larger stream network and the long-term planning intent of the EDD.
32
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
ii. Meeting with NCDOT, Orange County and Mebane regarding regional
transportation network.
Craig Benedict reviewed this item briefly and referred to an exhibit (map) that
had been passed out. He said that given economic development efforts in the
area there is a need to review the larger transportation network in the vicinity
of the interstate between Mebane and western Orange County. This network
should include linkages between roads on both sides of the interstate. These
off-interstate linkages would relieve congestion at the interchanges. Barry
Jacobs inquired how this would fit with the proposed Mattress Factory Road
interchange and Buckhorn Road transportation improvement projects. Craig
and Abigaile Pittman summarized the relationship of the proposed
interchange and existing Mebane interchanges (like Mebane Oaks) to the
future level of service issues for Buckhorn Road, and the staff’s efforts to
prioritize these projects with B-G MPO in the NCDOT SPOT 3.0 process.
iii. Eno EDD – Eno Economic Development District (EDD) Access Management
Plan, including protections for residential properties along Old NC Hwy 10
(Abigaile Pittman, Craig Benedict)
Craig Benedict gave a brief summary of the concept and importance of
access management to future development of the Eno EDD, the proposed
plan, and where we were in the process of adoption. He included concerns
that had been expressed by residents and the BOCC about providing some
sort of protection for the properties along Old NC Hwy 10. The staff proposes
to study options for protection of these properties and report back to the
BOCC. Abigaile Pittman noted that implementation of protection option(s)
would be outside the scope of the proposed Plan.
v. Eno EDD - Signage to address truck traffic (NCDOT)
Abigaile Pittman stated that within the past couple of weeks she had met with
Chuck Edwards and discussed possible options for signage in the Eno EDD
33
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
area to alert truck traffic and they cannot go west down Old NC Hwy 10
because of three low rail overpasses. She said that Chuck had advised her
that it was not possible (legal) to prohibit truck traffic on Old NC Hwy 10 but
that NCDOT could certainly look at installing signage throughout the EDD
area to alert truck drivers about the low overpasses, and to install signage on
the overpasses themselves to prevent possible collisions.
d. OPT (Bret Martin, Pearl Waite and Craig Benedict)
i. OPT and OCBRIP Implementation
Orange County Planning Staff has been studying specifics for the
implementation of a cross-county bus route from Mebane-Efland-
Hillsborough-Durham. Orange County staff, in partnership with Triangle
Transit, is also currently developing a five-year bus service expansion
program for Orange Public Transportation (OPT) that will interact with existing
OPT services and the planned Triangle Transit cross-county service. The bus
service expansion program will be reviewed/considered by the BOCC in
January. As an extension of this, Orange County is looking for NCDOT
assistance routing traffic on/off US 70 Bypass for a possible park-and-ride lot
at the Maxway shopping center in Hillsborough or other potential sites further
west along US 70 as well as potential improvements that can made in the US
70 or NC 86 rights-of-way to accommodate these plans.
ii. Park-and-ride update and bus transit hub (Bret Martin and Craig Benedict)
Triangle Transit, in partnership with Orange County planning staff, has been
evaluating options for park-and-ride locations in Mebane, Efland, and
Hillsborough for the cross-county bus route. Many potential park-and-ride
locations have been identified in Mebane near I-85 and along NC 119. An
additional potential site has been identified in downtown Mebane (Z-Bowl). A
potential opportunity to partner with the Piedmont Authority for Regional
Transportation (PART) has been identified to create a transit connection hub
34
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
between PART and Triangle Transit in Mebane. The sites narrowed for
evaluation in Efland and Hillsborough are the Efland-Cheeks Community
Center, Maxway Shopping Center, two greenfield sites west of the Maxway
Shopping Center on US 70, and the Walmart/Home Depot shopping area
near I-85 in Hillsborough. Service recommendations and park-and-ride
locations and their necessary physical improvements will be worked out in the
five-year bus service expansion program.
iii. Funding: Eligibility for Section 5311 for operating expenses associated with
any fixed routes outside the Durham or Burlington Urbanized Areas (UZAs)
and Section 5307 for capital and/or operating expenses for any fixed route
services within the UZAs. (Bret Martin)
This part of the agenda was not discussed during the luncheon. Orange
County planning staff had a call scheduled with NCDOT Public Transportation
Division staff on October 31st to discuss this item.
III. PENDING PROJECTS
a. TIP project updates (Chuck Edwards, NCDOT District 7 Engineer)
Mike Mills provided a brief update regarding on-going and pending TIP projects
in Orange County. He stated that a mill-and-fill project at the I-85/40 split is
starting in the Spring of 2014; a guard rail for a bridge on 751 got funded; the
Columbus Street projects are ahead of schedule and are 50% complete; the
Smith Level Road project is on schedule and should be complete by May 2015;
the Old NC 86 project north of Hillsborough from NC 57 to the County line is a
little behind schedule; and there is bicycle funding for two-foot paved shoulders
on NC 86 from Whitfield to US 70 Business and this project should be starting in
the summer of 2014.
35
ReturntoAgenda
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon
Division 7 and District 1
October 30, 2013 12:00 p.m.
11/07/13
b. I-40 scoping process (Craig Benedict and NCDOT)
Craig Benedict, Mike Mills and Ed Lewis discussed the issues with the
prioritization of the I-40 project. A scoping meeting to initiate a feasibility study for
the incorporation of managed lanes along I-40 from Wade Avenue in Wake
County to the I-40/I-85 split in Orange County will be held November 15th.
Orange County staff will be in attendance.
IV. UPDATES
a. Implementation of downtown Hillsborough access study improvements
(crosswalks, parking, sidewalk work) (Margaret Hauth)
b. Sidewalk from County parking deck to courthouse; Churton Street/Nash and
Kollock Street crosswalk; and sidewalk on east side of Churton Street (Craig
Benedict)
Margaret Hauth addressed both items a. and b. She stated that the designs for
the access study improvements and the sidewalks and crosswalk have been
completed and submitted to Chuck Edwards. There are some questions
regarding the application of ADA regulations on the east side of Churton Street.
The question is whether resurfacing triggers improvements on the east side of
Churton Street. Dawn McPherson stated that she believed that it would be
triggered by resurfacing, and also because of changes to the crosswalk.
Margaret added that there will be an audible intersection at Churton and King
streets with funding from the ADA compliant section. NCDOT will be providing
$250,000 for these improvements.
c. Eno Water and Sewer Project near I/85/US 70 (Craig Benedict)
Craig Benedict provided a brief update on the progress of the Eno Water and
Sewer project near I/85/US 70, explaining that the project is still in the cost
feasibility stage.
36
ReturntoAgenda
37
ReturntoAgenda
38
ReturntoAgenda
Agenda Item 6.c.
Ad hoc committee to be formed January 2014
Committee will meet first 3-4 months of 2014
Torefine and develop the goals andneeds of the County Central & Rural Bus Program
and inform the budget decisions for the Bus and Rail Investment Plan (BRIP)
Lance Hendrix
Orange County
Mobility Manager
Abigaile Pittman
Transportaton/Land Use
Planner
Bret Martin
Transportation Planner
OPT Staff Member OUTBoard Member Aging Department
Staff Member
DSS Department
Staff Member
Health Department
Staff Member
Department of
Housing, Human Rights
and Community
Staff Member
39
ReturntoAgenda
OrangeUnified Transportation Board
2014
Calendar
DATETIMELOCATION
January 15,20147:00P.M.Conference Room004,Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
February 19,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
March 19,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
April 16,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
May 21,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
June 18,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
July 16,2014 7:00P.M.Board vacation -no meeting
August 20,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
September 17,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
October 15,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
November 19,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
December 17,20147:00P.M.Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
40
ReturntoAgenda