Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 092006Approved October 18, 2006 1 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 1 Orange Unified Transportation Board Meeting Summary September 20, 2006 Chapel Hill Public Library, Chapel Hill, NC Members Present: Alice Gordon, BOCC; Nancy Cole Baker; Sam Lasris; Randy Marshall; Pascale Mittendorf; Robert Peterson; Sandy Quinn; James Ray; Bryn Smith; Eric Tillman Staff Present: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant Visitors: Pat Strong, Triangle J Council of Governments; Chuck Edwards, NCDOT I. Call to Order and Roll Call Karen Lincoln called the meeting to order at approximately 7:10 p.m. She distributed copies of the update to the Comprehensive Plan Process, copies of a PowerPoint presentation on the STIP Funding; SAFETEA-LU Highway Program Fact Sheets, and article about Car Free Day. II. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda None. III. Board Comments Lincoln said that Jan Grossman and Al Terry were out of town, and Elisabeth Lake was ill. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion by Sam Lasris to approve the minutes. Seconded by Bryn Smith. Vote: Unanimous. V. Reappointments Lincoln explained that because the BOCC had started late with making all of the appointments to this Board, four appointments are scheduled to terminate soon. Lincoln has spoken with Julian Marshall, Robert Peterson, Bryn Smith and Nancy Baker, who all wish to be reappointed. Motion by James Ray to recommend reappointments. Seconded by Lasris. Vote: Unanimous. VI. Elections Lincoln said that Grossman nominated Robert Peterson as Chair by proxy, since he was out of town for the meeting. Seconded by Sam Lasris. Vote: Unanimous. Approved October 18, 2006 2 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 2 Lincoln explained the role and responsibilities of the Chair and Vice-Chair. Motion by Baker to elect Lasris as Vice-Chair. Seconded by Smith. Vote: Unanimous. VII. Draft Comprehensive Plan Process comments Lincoln said that the synthesis and draft process were included in the agenda packet. Peterson asked Lasris if the Planning Board had met again to finalize this. Lasris replied that there was a meeting last week, and the plan is to provide the draft process to the BOCC in November for approval. Lincoln reminded the Board that their responsibility will be primarily in the development of the Transportation Element, but the timing of the Element’s development has not been determined yet. Lasris added that comments can still be made to the Planning Board about the process if desired. Peterson asked about the section regarding information from other jurisdictions, and how that would be reviewed. Lasris replied that Staff would collect the info, and the Planning Board would be responsible for reviewing it. VIII. Transportation funding sources/programs Chuck Edwards form NCDOT distributed a sheet of Division Managed Projects, and the recent Project Status Report, which is an internal document for tracking projects. He explained that the NCDOT is divided into 14 districts, each representing 5-6 counties. Orange County is in Division 7. The Project Status Report is a comprehensive list that is updated monthly, but some of the information contained may be confusing, since this is intended to be an internal document only, and not for public use. Edwards described the various funding sources. The TIP programs are high dollar, high impact, multi-million dollar projects. Small Construction funds, previously Small Urban funds, are now available for projects anywhere in the county that meet the following criteria: • Right-of-way (ROW) is provided at no cost to NCDOT; • Utility relocation is provided at no cost to NCDOT; • Projects can be completed in 18 months or less; and • Average cost is approximately $250,000. The design for these projects is done in-house. Typical projects funded with Small Construction funds are turn lanes, traffic lights, and safety projects. Baker asked who determines the projects and funding sources, and if ROW. is needed. Edwards replied that NCDOT always reviews projects, regardless of funding sources, and their review includes ROW analysis. Approved October 18, 2006 3 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 3 The Moving Ahead initiative (NCMA) is short term funding program established to provide the state's most critical transportation needs - maintenance, modernization and public transportation. Projects are in the $500,000 - $2.5 million range, and require no more than small amounts of ROW and the simplest and quickest types of permitting. NCMA projects in Orange County include improvements, including 2-ft. paved shoulders on US 70 from Palmers Grove Church Road to Alamance County, and Homestead Road improvements. This program will sunset when funds are gone. Senate Bill 1005 is another program that will sunset. It is designed for rural safety improvements, and projects are based on the discretion of the Transportation Board member. These funds can also be used to incite businesses to relocate. Spot Safety funds are more closely scrutinized, and are intended for safety improvements. The Traffic Engineering Branch conducts a benefit/cost analysis and the prioritizes the project. Requests are then forwarded to the Safety Oversight Committee (SOC) to study possible funding appropriation. Finally the SOC recommends or denys the request. Recommended projects are sent to the Board of Transportation for consideration. The average cost for Spot Safety projects is approximately $200,000. Access and Public Service Funds are available to schools and fire districts. The average cost for Access and Public Service projects is approximately $200,000. Lasris asked if, for larger projects, funds could be combined between the different funding sources, and who is responsible for the checkbooks. Edwards responded that yes, projects can be funded with different sources, and Doug Galyon is our Transportation Board member (who is appointed by the Governor and represents 5 counties), who is responsible for the discretionary funds. Lasris asked if Mr. Galyon looks at a fixed set of criteria for project funding, and Edwards replied that Mr. Galyon does consider criteria the NCDOT has established for projects. He added that some projects are more open-ended and not criteria based. Marshall asked how much of the determination for funding projects is based on political relationships vs. need, and Edwards replied that this is primarily focused on safety needs. Baker asked how projects could be initiated, and Edwards replied that local governments play a large role in identification but NCDOT will also investigate requests from individual citizens. Lincoln mentioned that BOCC representatives meets with NCDOT staff two to four times a year to discuss the County’s needs. Staff can take recommendations for improvements at any time. Peterson asked if a pre-application is necessary, and if traffic studies are needed. Edwards replied that needs just need to be expressed to County staff. Approved October 18, 2006 4 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 4 Smith questioned the traffic light by Dogwood Drive and US15-501 and Edwards replied that funding actually was included with the US 15-501 TIP project improvements. A new light will be installed shortly. Alice Gordon questioned if there is a relative amount of money, or a certain amount allocated to Division 7. Edwards replied that yes, there are allocations, but he didn’t have the information immediately available. Lasris asked about the procedures to be followed if a neighborhood does not want a cut out for a business. Edwards replied that businesses often need to work with DOT to ensure safety in the area. The NCDOT specifies conditions needed for approval of construction plans for access. Access management may be needed for new subdivisions and businesses. An example of the developer working with the NCDOT is Wal-Mart assisting in funding the stoplight at US 70-A and NC 86 due to the anticipated increased in traffic and risk from the development. He also said that, in addition to the funding sources listed on the handout, there are state maintenance funds available for resurfacing, as well as a secondary road construction program for paving unpaved secondary roads. NCDOT reviews secondary roads in each county every four years, and prioritizes projects to be included in the annual resurfacing program and the secondary road construction program. Baker asked how pedestrian improvements are allocated, and Edwards responded that that is generally outside of the purview of NCDOT Division of Highways, unless included as part of a TIP enhancement project. Lasris asked if SB 1005 funds had been used in the County, and Edwards said that US 70 between Hillsborough (Palmers Grove Church Road) and Durham, and NC 49 from Alamance County to NC 86 were included in this program for resurfacing and paved shoulders. US 70 West was done through Moving Ahead funds. Gordon asked what was under the control of the Transportation Board Member. Edwards responded that Doug Galyon reviews the projects with a price range of about $200,000 – 250,000, but said that different programs require different levels of approval. Gordon asked if there was any money available for road improvements at the new high school. Edwards said that the DOT reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and some improvements were needed, but Smith Level Road improvements are listed on the TIP. There are no Moving Ahead funds identified, as they were redirected to Homestead Road project. Baker asked why sidewalks aren’t in the rural areas, and Edwards said that NCDOT doesn’t maintain any sidewalks, only bike lanes if they are attached to the road. The County cannot do maintenance on sidewalks either, so it is generally up to the Approved October 18, 2006 5 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 5 homeowners association. Lasris commented that schools can have sidewalks and maintain them, and Edwards replied that they are on easements outside of the NCDOT ROW. The NCDOT requires a barrier between pedestrian lanes and the roadway; either a curb and gutter or ditch. Gordon asked what can be done at the County level to push for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in projects during the design process. Edwards replied that the NCDOT has a series of public meetings to get input on TIP projects. Smith asked if there is a State bicycle agency, and Edwards replied that the NCDOT has a Bike and Pedestrian Division. Quinn asked how and when it would be possible to get HOV lanes on I-40. Lincoln said that this is a TIP type project that is most relevant between NC 86 and Durham County. Edwards said there are no plans currently to do this. Marshall asked if it was possible to get specifics on the projects, such as the type of funding and importance. Edwards responded that Karen gets the list monthly, and Board members could get a copy from her. Marshall asked where the Moving Ahead and SB 1005 were in terms of sunset, and Edwards responded that most of the Moving Ahead funds have been allocated, but DOT is always open to suggestions. IX. 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program comments Lincoln said that the MPO has released the local supplement of the draft STIP, and there will be a Public Hearing on October 11 at the Transportation Advisory Board meeting. She said that this program won’t be adopted until December. Gordon commented that the County’s priority list would be helpful to review and be able to make comments on the projects. Lincoln replied that Orange County’s Priority List for the 2007-2013 TIP and changes between the 2006-2012 TIP and the draft 2007-2013 STIP are included in the packet materials. Lincoln said that the MPO wants to adopt the MTIP before the State adopts the STIP. Gordon said that since there isn’t a lot of money available, the regional priority list can inform the MPO on how to react. She’s not sure how the County’s comments will mesh with the regional priority list. She suggested the Board concentrate on the TIP list. Lincoln said that the DCHC MPO Technical Coordinating Committee /TIP Subcommittee has started its review of the draft STIP and some of the comments made at that meeting focus on particular projects, such as phasing the I-85 widening project with the first phase being reconstruction of the interchanges and structures at Approved October 18, 2006 6 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoardMinutes 9-20-06.doc 6 Old NC 86, NC 86 and US 70, followed by widening the interstate to six lanes and supporting Carrboro’s requested three lane cross-section with bicycle lanes and sidewalks on Smith Level Road. Gordon commented that she thought that had been resolved to be three lanes, and Lincoln said that the NCDOT roadway design team was still discussing that issue with Carrboro. Ray asked where the Elizabeth Brady extension stood, and Lincoln said that the latest word was that the NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Assessment Branch (PDEA) anticipated the release of the environmental assessment in February, and a Public Hearing in March or April. Gordon said that at the Technical Advisory Committee, they compared the TIP’s, and only two projects had been accelerated and everything else was delayed. The Board doesn’t have the history of how many times the projects have been delayed, and without this information, it is difficult to comment. Gordon stated that, with time to adjourn closing in, the group should concentrate on one or two projects. Baker recommended that the OUTBoard state concerns for the delays in most Orange County projects, and suggested the board emphasize the highest priority on Orange County’s Priority List, the Orange Grove Road pedestrian bridge over I-40. The group agreed by consensus. Baker said she would like for the group to request funding for the bicycle lanes on Dairyland Road. Many bicyclists use Dairyland Road and there is a great need for widened shoulders on Dairyland for safety. The group agreed by consensus. Lincoln stated that she would develop draft comments for the above and asked that the Board Members forward any other comments to her about high priorities for projects. Smith said that the main comment should be to move forward with the projects. Lincoln is to send copies of the comments to the Board members for their approval. X. Adjournment Motion by Smith to adjourn. Seconded by Baker. Vote: Unanimous.