HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 022019 AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
February 20, 2019
6:30 p.m.
You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them.
Whitted Building, Room 230
300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
*PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION*
Page Item Title
1. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
2. Introduction of new at-large OUTBoard member
3-14 3. Approval of Minutes from January 16, 2019
4. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
5.0 Transit Advisory Services/Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT)
This section of the agenda is addressed jointly by the OUTBoard and supplemental
staff from other County departments (Aging; DSS; Housing, Human Rights and
Community Development; Health; and Child Support Enforcement) to address
transit services.
5.a. OCPT Administrative Updates (Theo Letman) — Information to be provided at the
meeting.
OUTBoard/Transit Advisory Services Action: Receive and review information,
provide comments
15-26 5.b. OCPT/OCCO Update (TeLeishia Holloway, Allyson Coltrane)
OUTBoard/Transit Advisory Services Action: Receive and review information,
provide comments.
Transit Advisory Services (TAS) Comments/Questions (Theo Letman) - Opportunity
5.c. for TAS members to offer transit related comments and ask questions regarding
issues not on the agenda.
OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Provide comments and questions, receive
feedback.
6. Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
27-28 6.a. Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee Report (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information and provide any comments or direction
that the Board might have.
29 7.0 Staff Updates
31 7.a. FY 2020-2029 Orange County Strategic Transportation Investment Program (STIP)
Summary
33-38 7.b. Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
39-40 7.c. MPO/RPO NCDOT Protect Updates
OUTBoard Action: Receive the update information and provide any comments that
the Board might have.
8.0 Adjournment — The next regularly scheduled meeting date is March 20, 2019.
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section 1, Part C of the adopted Rules and
Procedures)
1. The OUT Board is charged with advising the Board of County Commissioners
on the planning and programming of transportation infrastructure
improvements and other County transportation planning initiatives, as directed
by the Board.
2. From time to time the OUT Board may be directed to provide input on
regulations on which the Planning Board has primary statutory and local
ordinance advisory duties. In such instances, the OUT Board shall serve in an
advisory capacity to the Planning Board.
Meetings (from Section IV, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings
Regular meetings of the OUT Board shall be held as needed to address items that
require Board action consistent with its Charge and Duties identified herein.
Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of the month. The start time and location
of the meeting shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 6:30 p.m. at
the Orange County West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret
Lane, Hillsborough. The OUT Board Chair, in consultation with staff, shall have the
authority to change the start time and location of a regular meeting to meet any
special circumstances, provided the information is included on the distributed
agenda.
Item 3.a
DRAFT 3
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD
3 JANUARY 16,2019
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Menius, At-Large Representative (Chair); Jenn Sykes, At-Large Representative; Ed Vaughn,
7 Cedar Grove Township Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Heidi Perry, At-Large
8 Representative; Eric Broo, At-Large Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative, Ram Athavale, Chapel Hill
9 Township Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative;
10
11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brantley Wells (Vice Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township
12 Representative; Johanna Birckmayer,At-Large Representative;Alyson West,At-Large Representative;
13
14 STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina Love,
15 Administrative Assistant III;
16
17 OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Day, TARPO; Tina Moon, Town of Carrboro
18
19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER,DETERMINATION OF QUORUM AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
20 Art Menius called the meeting to order.
21
22 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
23 Art Menius: Change line 151 change relative to favorable.
24
25 MOTION by Art Menius to approve the November 28, 2018 OUTBoard Minutes with correction. Seconded by Randy
26 Marshall.
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
30 There were none.
31
32 AGENDA ITEM 4: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA
33
34 Art Menius: Nish isn't here so where do you want to start? Abigaile?
35
36 Abigaile Pittman: I can start with the Bicycle Safety report—page 23.
37
38 AGENDA ITEM 413: BICYCLE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT(ABIGAILE PITTMAN)
39 Abigaile presented the status of the Bicycle Safety Subcommittee activities and next steps.
40
41 Heidi Perry: For the signs being put up in the County, it would be really nice if along with those signs, if there were signs
42 the state would put up that say "4 feet or change lanes to pass". We've never asked them about this and since we are
43 trying to make people aware of the new law this would be a reinforcement of the new laws passed in 2016.
44
45 Amy Cole: I have a question regarding conversations we had at the last meeting about the signage for the reduced speed
46 on Orange Grove Road. You mentioned it would be discussed at the next NCDOT luncheon meeting, how did that work
47 out?
48
49 Abigaile Pittman: I put it on that agenda for the meeting that was held on January 91h and NC DOT is going out to look at
50 the intersection of Oakdale and Orange Grove Road for any additional potential SPOT safety improvements which could
51 include signage or speed limits or flashing lights, etc. In addition, we have a staff engineer, Chris, preparing an estimate
52 for preliminary engineering the purpose of entering discussions with Hillsborough about the sidewalks and maintenance.
53 The 15 bicycle safety road signs are planned to be up by the end of this week. The website has all the links, and you can
4
54 go to it either through the Orange County website or directly. We need to decide on the social media ads, radio ads, etc.
55 and finalize the rest of the budget by the end of February.
56
57 Heidi Perry: For the signs being put up in the County, it would be really nice if along with those signs, if there were signs
58 the state would let up put up that say'A feet or change lanes to pass". We've never asked them about this and since we
59 are trying to make people aware of the new law this would be a reinforcement of the new laws passed in 2016.
60
61 AGENDA ITEM 4A: ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST FOR SPOT 6.0 I FY 2022-2031 STIP (NISH
62 TRIVEDI)-
63 Nish Trivedi gave a presentation on SPOT 6.0. He spoke on the process that MPOs and local jurisdictions go through to
64 submit projects to be included in the next Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(STIP).
65
66 Heidi Perry: Who determines the scoring criteria?
67
68 Nish Trivedi: The NCDOT Board of Transportation (DOT) determines the weights and criteria for the statewide, regional,
69 and division pots. A working group is meeting regularly and will make final recommendations to the Board of
70 Transportation?
71
72 Matt Day: DOT always defer to the working group.
73
74 Heidi Perry: Who comprises the working group?
75
76 Matt Day: The working group is 12 people from NCDOT and 12 non-NCDOT people.They have lots of meetings.
77
78 Ram Athavale: What do you mean by centerlines?
79
80 Nish: Centerline is the center of the road or center of right-of-way. NCDOT uses it to avoid double counting roads. It does
81 not take into account number of lanes. Centerline miles is simply length of road from one end to another.
82
83 Matt Day: DOT has two different ways of counting mileage;centerline and lane miles.
84
85 Nish Trivedi: Federal money is used for bike/ped projects and it is tied to STIP.The Federal money is the SDBGDA.
86
87 Matt Day: You can submit them for STI, there is federal money that is specifically for bike and projects. The federal money
88 is made part of the state's STIP.
89
90 Heidi Perry: And it requires a local match?
91
92 Nish Trivedi. Yes,these require local match and local administration.
93
94 Matt Day: Yes. But STBGDA is available to MPOs not RPOs, you can get federal TAP funds through RPO and anyone
95 can get them through STI.
96
97 Nish Trivedi: There are federal Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) funds TAP also requires local match and local
98 administration. Local match is just one major cost of the project and Local Administration is also another additional cost.
99 Local jurisdictions have to pay both. Orange County has not addressed this issue yet.
100
101 Heidi Perry: Two years ago, wasn't $4 million dollar rescinded back to the federal government because no one could
102 gather local matches for their projects?
103
104 Matt Day: This was based on the recession that happened a few years ago. There's a certain amount of that federal
105 money that has to be spent in towns less than 5,000 people, and they had a hard time getting towns that were that small to
106 contribute money. DOT is using some of those unused TAP funds on ADA curb-ramp improvements, for municipalities in
107 the state.
5
108
109 Heidi Perry: Where is Mebane? DCHC MPO, TARPO?
110
111 Nish Trivedi: Mebane is part in Orange County and majority in BG MPO Alamance County. It is in BG MPO in Orange
112 County, and Orange County is also in BG MPO.
113
114 Jenn Sykes:They are mutually exclusive,color coded in the maps.
115
116 Nish Trivedi continued his presentation referring to Attachments on priorities for TARPO, BG/MPO, &DCHC/MPO.
117
118 Nish Trivedi: Matt correct me if I'm wrong, but if you submit a highway project using a NCDOT standard street cross
119 section that has bike lane, NCDOT will put in that bike lane as part of the highway modernization project.
120
121 Matt Day: DOT is in the process of updating their bike/ped policy. My expectation is that once that update is done, the
122 answer would be, yes. Right now, I can't tell you that the answer is,yes.
123
124 Nish Trivedi: Staff recommends carrying forward and updating the County Priorities used in 5.0. Instead of asking for a
125 paved shoulder we are asking for a highway project with a bike lane. We would use the NCDOT standards street cross
126 section that has bike lane and sidewalk. The sidewalk is included should NCDOT ever change their policy
127
128 Matt Day: If you're going to submit these as highway projects, the DOT thinks you are saying the primary purpose of the
129 project is to modernize the highway with the bicycle lanes as a secondary benefit.
130
131 Nish Trivedi: These are modernization where the focus is improving safety, bring roads to current standards as the
132 primary purpose and the bike lane, pedestrian facility, multimodal component is a secondary benefit.
133
134 Matt Day: If the primary purpose of the project is to provide bike lanes then submit it as a bike project. If the primary
135 purpose is to improve and modernize the road with the bike lanes as a secondary benefit, then submit as a highway
136 project.
137
138 Nish Trivedi: If the bike is primary then you're required to provide local match and local administration. The County has
139 never addressed local match or local administration. I do not believe we have time to address it prior to submission. I'm
140 recommending these as highway modernization projects with the bike lane as a secondary benefit. These are all
141 modernization projects with two exceptions: NC 86 and NC 54 which the staff is recommending as widening projects. The
142 NC-86 is identified because it is in the current adopted TARPO CTP.
143
144 Matt Day:Yes it is in the CTP but just because it is in the CTP does not mean you may want to submit it.
145
146 Nish Trivedi: Yes, the reason these projects are identified is because it is for the County Priorities for SPOT 6 and later for
147 SPOT 7, 8, etc. Staff is identifying a full list that we will bring to you every SPOT cycle rather than reinventing the wheel
148 each time.
149
150 Heidi Perry: In order to make it a highway project with a modernization of bike lanes, does it have to have a curb and
151 gutter?
152
153 Matt Day: No. If you look at the DOT standard cross-sections and desire a bike lane, you will see curb and gutter.
154 Anything that doesn't have a curb and gutter, DOT will typically do a 4-foot paved shoulder, not a full 5-foot.
155
156 Nish Trivedi: No, I used that NCDOT standard street cross section as it is the closest one that reflects the existing 60'
157 right-of-way with a bike lane. I can update the recommendation of having a four-foot paved shoulder instead of a curb and
158 gutter, but it will not be a bike lane.
159
160 Heidi Perry: What makes it a modernization?
161
6
162 Nish Trivedi: Modernization projects are what NCDOT uses to bring the roads to current"modern"standards.
163
164 Matt Day: It's generally projects to make the existing travel lanes to current safe standards, or to straighten out some
165 curves and to add shoulders if necessary.
166
167 Heidi Perry: What I did like was the 11-foot travel lane.Would 11-foot travel lanes be allowed?
168
169 Nish Trivedi: Yes. The majority of the cross section are 11-foot travel lane.
170
171 Heidi Perry: Where do separated multi-use paths stand?
172
173 Nish Trivedi: I can cover that at the very end of this presentation. Multi-use paths or shared use paths or side paths are all
174 considered independent bike/ped projects and funded through federal STBGDA. State funds cannot be used for them.
175
176 Heidi Perry. Does that count as part of a modernization?
177
178 Nish Trivedi and Matt Day: No.
179
180 Matt Day: There is a project in TARPO that has a multi-use path as part of a highway project but such projects falls under
181 the NCDOT Cost Share Policy which local jurisdictions have to pay.
182
183 Heidi Perry: Is this the 20% local match?
184
185 Nish Trivedi: No, cost share policy is based on the local jurisdiction population. Larger populated local jurisdictions pay
186 more for such projects. Durham County pays 50%
187
188 Eric Broo:What about sidewalks?
189
190 Nish Trivedi:This applies to sidewalks and I will show how this policy works at end of presentation.
191
192 Randy Marshall: Looking at Old Greensboro, we can modernize but not include the curb and gutter and sidewalk; is that
193 right? I thought DOT didn't do sidewalks.
194
195 Nish Trivedi: Yes, They administer and build sidewalks, through their pedestrian policy that requires local jurisdiction to
196 pay a percentage of the cost. They do not maintain them.
197
198 Randy Marshall. Why would you put curb, gutters, and sidewalks on Old Greensboro Highway when nobody is there to
199 maintain them? Why not just put the improvements of 11-foot travel lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. Put something in
200 there that's likely to score higher and be more cost effective.
201
202 Heidi Perry:These projects were in there last year.
203
204 Nish Trivedi: Yes, these were in there as paved shoulder projects. The paved shoulder projects were not carried forward
205 at the MPO. Paved shoulder projects were not submitted by MPO to NCDOT because they could not be carried forward.
206 Old Greensboro road was carried forward as a modernization project, not just paved shoulder.
207
208 Heidi Perry: It wasn't submitted last time, and I'm not sure why?
209
210 Nish Trivedi: We did submit it and it is part of SPOT 5.0. It was given a regional and divisional score but it was too low to
211 give it points. Neither OUTBoard nor BOCC recommended it as a priority when it came to local input points so it did not get
212 any points.
213
214 Matt Day: It was submitted and scored, but it didn't score high enough for us to put points on.
215
7
216 Nish Trivedi: As part of your recommendation, would you be asking for removing curb and gutter on all these projects?
217 The focus for these staff recommendations is to modernize the roads, get 11-foot travel lanes and bike lanes.
218
219 Randy Marshall. I think so. Curb and gutter and sidewalk can't happen. We don't have a municipality to maintain, and we
220 should never put it in there.
221
222 Eric Broo: Would that be deemed by the DOT as too costly, nixing the project when we could otherwise get 80% of what
223 we really want?
224
225 Jenn Sykes: Does changing it up the probability of a higher score?
226
227 Nish Trivedi: Cost is a scoring criteria, reducing the cost may improve its score.
228
229 Matt Day: Curbs and gutters will be more expensive.
230
231 Nish Trivedi: Without curb and gutter, there will be no bike lane,just a 4-foot paved shoulder.
232
233 Matt Day: That will be cheaper and improve the score. We are working on ways to improve the modernization aspect so
234 they do not compete with capacity aspects. Perhaps scale differently.
235
236 Heidi Perry: What about bike counts as a provision like along Dairyland Road?There are more cyclists there on weekends
237 then cars.
238
239 Randy Marshall: If you're proposing to do a four-foot bike lane, that would wipe out the ditch, and you would have to do
240 the ditch beyond that and buy the right of way which would run the score down.
241
242 Nish Trivedi: And the length of the road. In SPOT 5.0 the length of Old Greensboro Road was from Alamance County into
243 DCHC MPO. It was not broken into segments. Matt, If we have a projects list and they cover a whole road, can we in the
244 MPO/RPO technical committees and submit only a portion of it?
245
246 Matt Day: As long as there's a logical reason for why we're breaking it at a certain point.
247
248 Nish Trivedi: This list is to get the whole corridor. In the MPO/RPO meetings, they will be divided into separate sections
249 for better scoring. That is why as part of staff recommendations we are providing you the two bases for breaking the
250 segments, Traffic Count(AADT) and Crashes (number and severity) both are variables used in calculating the quantitative
251 scores.
252
253 Heidi Perry: I would like to keep all these on here for discussion. I agree with Randy regarding removing the curb and
254 gutters and keeping them on here as paved shoulders. I would like for there to be some way of saying that the shoulder
255 should be able to withstand the same amount of traffic as the roads.
256
257 Nish Trivedi: That's why staff is recommending these as highway modernization projects, to bring that whole road to a
258 current standard, not just a road with a 2-foot paved shoulder but to ensure sufficient shoulder for safety purpose and/or
259 bike lane.
260
261 Heidi Perry: At some point, we might be able to add another foot to each of these and make them true bike lane projects.
262 I think we need to keep them on here as they are just so they don't go away without some reason for removing them.
263
264 Nish Trivedi: When MPO/RPOs submit highway projects to NCDOT, they must provide a standard street cross section
265 they want the road to be for scoring purpose.
266
267 Matt Day: When we submit these to DOT we have to pick one of their standard cross sections that we submitted it as.
268 We can write in the description what we'd like if one of those standard cross section doesn't exactly match up with what we
269 want.
8
270
271 Nish Trivedi: We can pick a NCDOT standard street cross section and modify it for what we want, like no curb and gutter
272 and/or 5-foot paved shoulder.
273
274 Eric Broo: So Old Greensboro Road should be sliced into two projects?
275
276 Nish Trivedi: One of the criteria is the cost benefit of the project. If it's a shorter portion, the cost is reduced and it's
277 benefit may be higher, thereby scoring better. Segments have a better chance of scoring better than the entire corridor.
278
279 Heidi Perry: If we put in the curb and the gutter, it automatically becomes a bike project. Because it's going to have a bike
280 lane. It's not a shoulder any more it's a lane for bikes
281
282 Nish Trivedi: The curb and gutter does not make it a bike project. When a project's sole purpose is to improve the bike
283 mode of travel that is what makes it a bike project. Simply asking for a bike lane makes it a bike project. Same with asking
284 for a sidewalk makes it a pedestrian project.
285
286 Matt Day: You could have a modernization project that has curbs and gutters and it would be a highway project as long
287 has your stated purpose of the projects is to improve that road.
288
289 Eric Broo: So select stretches that might get a different treatment might be obvious that they were for cyclists and be
290 discarded because there's no other logical reason for doing it?
291
292 Matt Day: I think if you had different designs for different sections then yes that would become obvious.
293
294 Nish Trivedi:That is why I am recommending congestion and safety be the factors used in breaking up segments and both
295 of them are standard criteria for SPOT scoring and geared toward highway projects rather than bike/ped.
296
297 Eric Broo: When do you intend to submit these?
298
299 Nish Trivedi: I am looking for your recommendation right now because both or our recommendations goes to the BOCC for
300 their final decision. We need to get these projects identified by March so we can submit them to MPO/RPO.
301
302 Eric Broo: The bicycle subcommittee could meet and talk about other specific segments?
303
304 Heidi Perry: I think we can't do that without the OUTBoard's recommendation.
305
306 Art Menius: Nish posed the question of whether we wanted to pull curb and gutter and sidewalk out of these projects do
307 we have a consensus on that or need further discussion?
308
309 Nish Trivedi: If that is your recommendation, I will update these entire lists by removing the curb and gutter and sidewalks,
310 and recommend County Priorities as Highway Modernization projects with a 5 foot paved shoulder, rather than 4-foot
311 which matching the NCDOT standard street cross section is 2B.
312
313 Randy Marshall: Will this paved shoulder be built to the same standards as the road?
314
315 Nish Trivedi: Yes, that's why it would be modernized to current standards.
316
317 Nish Trivedi: Do you get the updates for scoping?
318
319 Matt Day: With any kind of sizable project of the MPO/RPO,you should receive notices.
320
321 Art Menius: Where did the discussion about segmenting Old Greensboro project end up?
322
9
323 Nish Trivedi: As Matt said, it's better to segment these sections out. Right now, I'm listing it as the entire corridor as a
324 County concern/priority. Staff recommends using traffic count and crashes as the criteria for separating those segments.
325 It's listed as the entire corridor because we are recommending the entire corridor be a priority for the County for now and
326 future SPOT cycles. By breaking the corroder down into segments, each segment has a better chance of receiving a
327 higher score.
328
329 Matt Day: The reason for segmentation is to cut down the cost to improve its score.
330
331 Nish Trivedi: I will keep the board updated as to what segment will be. Prior to MPO/RPO submitting it to NCDOT, they
332 will go through a 30-day public review period before their policy boards adopts the final project submission list.
333
334 Eric Broo: Does the DOT look at pedestrians and bicyclists when it comes to accidents?
335
336 Nish Trivedi: Yes. Safety was a criteria in SPOT 5.0 and it was based on 20% crash density, 20% crash severity, 20%
337 critical crash rate, and 40% safety benefits. In SPOT 5, it accounted for 10% of the total score in Statewide, Region, and
338 Division.This criteria is expected to be carried forward with SPOT 6.0
339
340 Eric Broo: That includes vehicle and bicycle interactions?
341
342 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT keeps record of all reported crashes, the crash data includes whether it involved pedestrian, cyclist,
343 or animal, as well as hitting a pole, object or rear ending someone.
344
345 Nish Trivedi: Your current recommendation is to remove curb and gutter, have 11-foot travel lanes, and a four-foot paved
346 shoulder increased to five,and I will find the standard cross section NCDOT uses. Should I remove sidewalks as well?
347
348 Heidi Perry: I think so.
349
350 Eric Broo: If there is a school or community center in the future where there should be a sidewalk, I think it would be
351 reasonable to include that portion as a sidewalk.
352
353 Nish Trivedi: Before we complete with TARPO, I want to mention the two projects that were mentioned for widening. As
354 Matt mentioned earlier, NC-86 is part of the adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). I haven't been given
355 direction on whether we're updating the CTP or not. The CTP calls for NC-54 and NC 86 to be widened.
356
357 Matt Day: To provide a little background, NCDOT used to have a policy that was considered NC-86 as a strategic highway
358 corridor. Under the policy, NCDOT required that all plans had to show NC 86 as a four-lane expressway from Hillsborough
359 up to Virginia. That policy was removed a few years ago and we no longer have to show it as a four-lane express way. It
360 was never justified based on the volume of traffic. Recently, when the MPO did their CTP, it did not show a widening of
361 their section of it, so the RPO portion picks somewhere probably a couple miles north of Hillsborough.
362
363 Heidi Perry: We should look at what the population growth is for that part of the county.
364
365 Matt Day: If there's some question about whether that project is necessary, you have on opportunity to request that DOT
366 do an update to the plan to decide if that project is something that is based on updated forecasts, is necessary from the
367 traffic prospective, or something that can be removed from the plan.
368
369 Nish Trivedi: What do I need to do to request that from NCDOT?
370
371 Matt Day: Have the Board of Commissioners make a request to the RPO and then the RPO can make a request to DOT.
372 1 think Nish was also going to talk about the widening of 54. The current CTP shows widening only being necessary out to
373 Orange Grove Road, but a recent corridor study suggested it needed to be widened all the way to Graham so that's
374 another thing you would want to go back and revisit in the plan.
375
10
376 Nish Trivedi: As Matt Day said those two sections are two separate projects that are being recommended as part of this
377 and are broken by traffic count as well.
378
379 Abigaile Pittman: I recall from 2013 that the commissioners actually it was either a letter or a resolution they sent with it?
380
381 Matt Day: Yes. Specific language inserted into the plan document itself was the only reason NC-86 widening was being
382 put in the plan, because of the strategic highway corridor.
383
384 Nish Trivedi: Would I need to get our board's recommendation to have that removed in updating the CTP?
385
386 Abigaile Pittman: Two of these projects are beyond the TARPO boundary, so I would suggest that you be thoughtful of
387 the language and not include something that is in these other jurisdictions.
388
389 Nish Trivedi: I believe that is referring to Dairyland Road and NC-54. Your attachments document which corridors
390 continue into DCHC MPO so we will be coordinating these with them.
391
392 Abigaile Pittman: And NC-86 going down to Eubanks.
393
394 Art Menius: I think the ones we are specifically talking about are NC-86 north of Hillsborough and NC-54 west of Carrboro.
395
396 Nish Trivedi: Staff is recommending that these be considered as new project and priorities for Orange County. I ask that
397 the OUTBoard recommend the BOCC to request TARPO to request NCDOT investigate NC-86 and update the CTP
398 accordingly.
399
400 Matt Day: You could request NCDOT do an update to look at NC-86, and if their analysis says that the traffic forecast
401 does not justify widening,then remove it.
402
403 MOTION by Eric Broo to have the BOCC request that the RPO request a reevaluation of NC 86 from NCDOT. Seconded
404 by Ram Athavale.
405 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
406
407 Nish Trivedi: What about NC 54? It is in TARPO CTP,this is a portion that goes Orange Grove Rd.
408
409 Matt Day: That stops at Dodson's crossroads because that is the boundary between the MPO and RPO.
410
411 Nish Trivedi: So the update should be the removal of Fayetteville Rd. and leave it to Dodson crossroads?
412
413 Heidi Perry: I thought the project was in flux after the corridor study?
414
415 Nish Trivedi: The Corridor Study is technically complete; it has been presented to all member jurisdictions and agencies.
416 Carrboro is currently working with DCHC MPO for additional work on it. NCDOT is satisfied with it. DCHC MPO is the only
417 agency responsible for adopting it. Graham has approved the study.
418
419 Tina Moon: There's two different issues here. There's two different jurisdictions in terms of the MPO vs. RPO. We should
420 be thoughtful with staff about knowingly having our elected officials at odds with one another.
421
422 Eric Broo: Since the study is still with the town and MPO to review the data; is it reasonable to wait?
423
424 Matt Day: The MPOs and RPOs get to submit projects, but so does the NCDOT division. If we choose not to submit,
425 then the division is going to submit this as a project.
426
427 Heidi Perry: Is it possible to ask the BOCC to postpone a decision on whether to add this project until the initial analysis is
428 done?
429
11
430 Nish Trivedi: You could recommend this project be tabled till MPO acts on the study.
431
432 Heidi Perry: I can't support the project until I get the rest of the requested answers.
433
434 MOTION by Heidi Perry to ask the BOCC table this project until the MPO work on it is complete: Seconded by Eric Broo.
435 VOTE: 8-1; Opposed by Jenn Sykes.
436
437 Jenn Sykes: There are people who can't afford to live and they must use a car to get to work. And we are an economic
438 hub and we need to be very cognizant of that because the consequences of not making it easier to work.
439
440 Matt Day: I would suggest that you also hold off and do the NC-86 and NC-54 updates to the CPT at the same time. If
441 we're going to hold off making any decisions about what to do with NC-54, then I would also recommend that you hold off
442 on making any requests about 86.
443
444 Heidi Perry: So don't ask the RPO to update the CTP on NC-86?
445
446 Matt Day: We can't ask DOT to do an update on one thing now and then come back six months from now for another
447 update. If we're going to have multiple requests,we need to make it all as one request.
448
449 Heidi Perry. So, what's the timing in terms of these two projects, because we're waiting for more information on NC-54.
450 So,we don't want to ask them to do the CTP on that,yet?
451
452 Matt Day: I would say even if we ask them to do a CTP update now on NC-86, you're not going to get that back for
453 another year, year and a half.
454
455 Heidi Perry: So,what should our request be?
456
457 Nish Trivedi: You can recommend both NC-86 and NC-54 be tabled till MPO/RPO CTPs are updated.
458
459 MOTION by Eric Broo, Seconded by Heidi Perry.
460 VOTE: 9-0;Abstention by Jenn Sykes
461
462 Jenn Sykes. The development issues aren't worth waiting on. The traffic congestion is already there and it's going to get
463 worse. It's going to get worse before it gets better, and I'd rather just try to get something started. This area is the
464 economic hub of the rural area.
465
466 Heidi Perry: We want to get cars off of roads.
467
468 Jenny Sykes: That may be ideal but it is not practical especially in rural Orange County. There people will always need to
469 drive to get to work.
470
471 Nish Trivedi: The corridor study provides specific intersection improvements along NC-54 as short term solutions.
472
473 Matt Day: When we submit these things, we try to keep them as vague as possible. We don't get into the specifics of turn
474 lanes, how long it is, or which direction or any of that.
475
476 Eric Broo: Would the details be worked through a public process?
477
478 Nish Trivedi: When STIP projects are committed and implemented, NCDOT host local officials and public meetings during
479 preliminary design. They take public comments so they can better finalize the design of these projects. Regarding the
480 other County Priorities that cross into Carrboro, they will be updated to remove curb and gutter but we will continue to
481 coordinate with Carrboro. Just because they may be part of Orange County's priority list, they may not be submitted by us,
482 Carrboro may choose to submit them.
483
12
484 Heidi Perry: Old NC-86 is a road that I think need a separated mixed-use path between Hillsborough and Carrboro.
485 Maybe along with modernization. I just feel that a bike lane or a shoulder on that road is not going to take care of the
486 problems.
487
488 Nish Trivedi: A mixed-use path, shared-use path, side path, or any independent bike/ped facility like is part of two different
489 funding and administration requirements. Federal STBGDA which requires 20% local match and local administration or a
490 sidewalk that is part of NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy and requires 50% cost share for first 5-feet width and 100% local cost
491 for any additional width.
492
493 Matt Day: Yes, I think in theory you could do that. DOT will administer it through the sidewalk cost share policy. If you
494 were to submit as a stand-alone project, it would be only a 20 percent match.
495
496 Abigaile Pittman: I think they would need right of way as well, does that influence?
497
498 Nish Trivedi: Old NC-86 right-of-way is 60'; a mixed-use path will require right-of-way acquisition. County would still have
499 to address the local match and local administration issue or pay share of the cost of the bike/ped facility.
500
501 Amy Cole: Is it possible to have a collaboration with the power company so that we could actually use their right of way as
502 the area where the side path would actually be built?
503
504 Matt Day: It's possible, but usually they don't have right of way; they just have an easement.
505
506 Ed Vaughn: I'm with Heidi on this one. We need separate bike/ped path to utilize the Mountain-to-Sea Trail.
507
508 Nish Trivedi. Staff recommends the bike lane along Old NC-86 because as part of DCHC MPO 2045 Metropolitan
509 Transportation Plan (MTP) recently adopted, this board recommended Old NC-86 as a Bike/Ped corridor, Board of County
510 Commissioners approved and we succeeded in getting it added to the MTP.
511
512 Matt Day: You have two options; one option is to do a modernization requesting a side path with the possibility of cost
513 share, or the second option is to submit it as a stand-alone bike/ped project knowing that it requires a letter of commitment
514 from the county to agree to administer and maintain.
515
516 Nish Trivedi: Another option is just like the other modernization projects, you could recommend removing curb and gutter,
517 and sidewalk and extending the paved shoulder to 5-feet.
518
519 David Laudicina: Why wouldn't you put the multi-use thing on Old NC-86?
520
521 Nish Trivedi: Because the multi-use path is considered an independent bike/ped facility, subject to either federal
522 requirement of 20% local match and local administration or state sidewalk cost share.
523
524 Jenn Sykes: I think some properties probably had some trouble getting the right of ways granted.
525
526 Nish Trivedi: For clarification, you want to turn Old 86 into a modernization with a multi-use path?
527
528 Heidi Perry: Separated side path.
529
530 Art Menius: Multi-use side path.
531
532 Matt Day: Just understanding that there will be a local match and local administration or cost share required. While that
533 project is slightly in TARPO it is mostly in the MPO and you will be competing with all the other MPO projects.
534
535 Amy Cole: Is it possible to do a countywide survey to see whether or not people would support it and make it more likely
536 to score well?
537
13
538 Nish Trivedi: Surveys do not go into SPOT scoring.
539
540 Matt Day: In more rural areas, it's harder to get rural bike/ped projects. You're better off scoring it as a highway project
541 because the criteria used for bike/ped projects are based on your proximity to points of interest and density of population,
542 things working against rural projects.
543
544 Nish Trivedi: Bike/Ped scoring variables are destinations, densities, connectivity,cost effectiveness and safety.
545
546 MOTION by Heidi Perry that the Old NC-86 improvement be submitted as a road modernization project with a separated
547 side-path, seconded by Ed Vaughn.
548 VOTE: 8-1. Opposed, David Laudicina.
549
550 David Laudicina: I live close along there and close enough to 86 that I don't want any more encroachment on my property.
551
552 Amy Cole:You will have problem getting right-of-way along Old NC-86.
553
554 Nish Trivedi: I don't know how Carrboro feels about Old NC-86 improvements.
555
556 Tina Moon: I think this will make for a good corridor study for bike/ped connection between Hillsborough and Carrboro.
557 Carrboro is about to embark on a bike plan and this area may come up.
558
559 Nish Trivedi continued the presentation and directed the OUTBoard to Attachment 2 regarding DCHC and attachment 3,
560 BG MPO Project List.
561
562 Nish Trivedi: Now DCHC MPO. DCHC's SPOT process is tentatively using the adopted MTP. If it is not in the MTP it may
563 not get submitted. I have identified possible projects that my require updating the MTP in order for them to be submitted
564 into SPOT. Right now these are just potential projects identified in DCHC MPO area. Some of these projects are covered
565 in TARPO but cross into DCHC. Because they cross between MPO/RPO they may be easier to submit in one than the
566 other. They are simply presented in both because they cross jurisdiction boundaries. Nish Trivedi: I have added US-70 to
567 the list because it crosses both DCHC MPO and BG MPO connecting Mebane, Hillsborough, and Durham. It is a Strategic
568 Freight Corridor in DCHC MPO. There is increasing traffic and crashes along it. Lebanon Road is also added as a potential
569 project because it too crosses both MPOs. Mebane is against widening Lebanon Road but they support intersection
570 improvements along it due to serious crashes and increasing traffic. Nish Trivedi: As you can see in the table for US-70,
571 there are over 14,000 vehicles going east from Mebane through Hillsborough and into Durham, many of them avoiding the
572 1-85 traffic and trucks avoiding the weight station. There have also been over 1,100 accidents over the past ten years and
573 10 of them being fatal, that's over 100/year and 1 fatality per year while traffic along it continues increasing. US-70 will be
574 the detour when NCDOT later widens 1-85.
575
576 Heidi Perry: One of the reasons was to find better ways to keep the trucks on the interstate. The trucks are exiting onto 70
577 to avoid a weigh station. Adding capacity to 70 would exasperate that problem, would allow trucks to bypass an important
578 safety measure that we have in place for the public good. Another expressed by a majority of the OUTBoard, was the
579 understanding that adding lanes to roads brings more cars and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs), not fewer, and that the
580 state's focus should be on finding ways to decrease VMTs.
581
582 MOTION by Heidi Perry not recommend US-70 as possible project, seconded by Eric Broo.
583 VOTE: 8-1. Opposed by Jenn Sykes.
584
585 Nish Trivedi: Each jurisdiction in the BGMPO is allowed to submit 10 projects, and I don't want us to lose our chance of
586 getting a project in, so I'm asking for all five to be considered as potential projects.
587
588 Art Menius: Any opposition to moving forward with all five?
589
590 Abigaile Pittman: Didn't the U.S. 70 map get removed?
591
14
592 Nish Trivedi: The OUTBoard does not want it removed because remove gives negative connotation. They are just "not
593 recommending" it as a potential project.
594
595 Eric Broo: So,we're talking about four; numbers 2, 3,4, and 5?
596
597 Heidi Perry: I'm confused about three because you said that NCDOT was doing a study on how to handle the railroad
598 there so why would you do the road extension project?
599
600 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT is doing an express Feasibility Study of Buckhorn Road that will address both the widening and a
601 grade separation to US-70 using Mebane's recently adopted Traffic Separation Study.
602
603 Heidi Perry: You said something about the railroad.
604
605 Nish Trivedi: The Mattress Factory Road Extension to US-70 involves an at-grade crossing and Mebane is coordinating
606 with NCDOT to determine what is the best way to do that. NCDOT railroad division is all in favor for removing at grade
607 crossings to better connect Raleigh to Charlotte. The Feasibility Study is geared towards identifying the best way to widen
608 Buckhorn Road, create a grade separation and connect to US-70 for SPOT purpose.
609
610 Matt Day: Their ultimate goal for that line between Raleigh and Charlotte is to get rid of all the at-grade crossings.
611
612 Heidi Perry: So, assuming the project scored highly and were to get funded, they would have to make that part of the
613 extension?
614
615 Nish Trivedi: Yes
616
617 Matt Day: Yes. If project 3 were to get submitted and got funded, the railroad wouldn't let them build a new at grade
618 crossing.
619
620 Nish Trivedi: As part of the Feasibility Study NCDOT is also evaluating an at grade separation for Buckhorn Road and the
621 grade separation is also part of the staff recommendation.
622
623 MOTION by Heidi Perry to keep the four projects on the list for the BGMPO. Eric Broo seconded.
624 VOTE: UNANIMOUS.
625
626 AGENDA ITEM 5: STAFF UPDATES
627
628 AGENDA ITEM 5A: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN(NISH TRIVEDI)-
629 Nish Trivedi gave a quick update on the progress and updates since the last time it came before the OUTBoard. We will
630 be posting this draft plan on January 31 to the website.
631
632 AGENDA ITEM 5B: MPO/RPO NCDOT PROJECT UPDATES(NISH TRIVEDI)
633
634 Nish Trivedi: Included in your packet is the NCDOT update for all projects in Orange County. Let me know if you have any
635 questions on them. Thank you.
636
637 Nish Trivedi: 1-40 Widening, there is a public meeting scheduled for January 24 in Hillsborough at the Passmore Center.
638 Chapel Hill is working with NCDOT to get another public meeting in Chapel Hill.
639
640 AGENDA ITEM:ADJOURNMENT
641 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned.
642
Art Menius, Chair
Item 5.b. 15
00rarveCounty
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Orange Unified Transportation Board
OCPT Update
Theo Letman
TeLeishia Holloway
Allyson Coltrane
Background
• Orange County Public Transportation is the County's
transit system, providing both urban and rural
transportation, in partnership with Go Triangle and
Chapel Hill Transit systems.
• OCPT operates within Orange County and also enters
into neighboring counties. OCPT currently delivers 3
fixed routes and multiple demand response services
such as Medicaid transportation, ADA (Americans with
Disabilities Act), Rural Operating Assistance and Senior
transportation.
ORANGE COUNTY prrcy
NORTH CAROLINA
16
Background Cont'd
• OCPT currently has 23 employees, and operates a fleet
of 17 LTV (light transit vehicles), which are maintained
by AMS (Asset Management Service) mechanics.
• With grant funding from TJCOG (Triangle J Council of
Governments), Orange County was able to establish a
TDM (Transportation Demand Management) program,
purposed in reducing traffic and air pollution by
promoting commute alternatives such as transit,
telework, carpooling, vanpooling, biking and walking.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Commuter Options Program
• Share The Ride NC Campaign
➢ Orange County Pilot
➢ Testing outreach strategies
https://www.sharetheridenc.org/Public/Home.aspx?CustomSubSite=oc
➢ Results/Next Steps
➢ Planning for local businesses
• TDM Grant Funding
➢ Pilot Vanpool Program
➢ Administered by Orange County Human Resources Department
➢ Employer Outreach
➢ Expanding partnerships with local businesses
ORANGE COUNTY � �,
NORTH CAROLINA
17
Funding Streams
In 2017 Orange County Public Transportation became aware of various"Urbanized Area"grant funds
that have been apportioned to Orange County by the FTA(Federal Transit Administration),through the
two MPO's(Metropolitan Planning Organizations)-DCHC(Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro)and
Burlington Graham;and"Air Quality"grant funds through TARPO(Triangle Area rural Planning
Organization).Listed below are the multiple funding sources available to OCPT for Operations,
Administrative and Capital assistance for both the rural and urbanized areas.
Federal
5307 Urbanized area grants-DCHCMPO,BGMPO apportionments
5310 Senior programs transportation-through Orange County Department on Aging
5311 CTP(Community Transportation Program)-Rural area administrative grant
5339 Bus and Bus Facilities-Capital purchases of replacement vehicles and equipment
State
Article 43 Tax district-includes transit sales tax proceeds and vehicle registration fees
Medicaid transportation—through Orange County Department of Social Services
ROAP-Rural Operating Assistance Program(EDTAP,RGP,EMPL)
CMAQ-Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant-through TARPO
�10
ORANGE COUNTY o, ,,,nty
NORTH CAROLINA
Budget
OCPT has increased its budget annually over the last few fiscal years.
Total in operating grant revenue since FY16:
FY16 -$414,742
FY17 -$572,881
FY18 -$855,798
FY19 -$1,619,044
-FY16 first fiscal year OCPT was a stand alone department
-FY17,first year of OCPT with new Transit Director
'Source:Munis reports ��
-� l\ //
ORANGE COUNTY orangecovnt,
NORTH CAROLINA
18
Unmet Needs - Existing Programs
In 2018 Orange County partnered with Go Triangle and Nelson
Nygaard consultant group to produce a Short Range Transit Plan,
which included public participation and is fiscally constrained.
The Plan identifies recommendations to serve unmet transit needs:
providing transit service coverage to the rural areas ("Mobility on
Demand"aka- micro transit), increased trip frequency and service
hours for the fixed routes, and adding various transit amenities such as
bus shelters, and park and ride locations.
OCPT is upgrading its dispatching and scheduling system to take
advantage of the latest technology in the industry to manage the
various services we provide and provide an external platform for
patrons to access real time ride information and schedule trips.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Orange County Transit Plan
• The Orange County Transit Plan final draft
was prepared by Go Triangle, and the
consultant firm Nelson Nygaard in the fall
2018.
• Nelson Nygaard was also contracted to do
the short range transit planning for Wake
County, Go Triangle and Chapel Hill
Transit.
ORANGE COUNTY prrcy
NORTH CAROLINA
19
Orange County Transit Plan Cont'd
• The report covers existing conditions public
outreach and involvement, future service
strategies and service prioritizations based on
existing funding and projections.
• The plan provides mobility options for the
residents of Orange County which will provide
connectivity with our transit partners throughout
the region.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
OCPT Expansion Activities
In 2012 under the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP),
OCPT was allocated 12 %of the available funds from the Article 43 Tax District
funds for Orange County; with 64%going to Chapel Hill Transit and 24%going
to Go Triangle.This mix equated to OCPT receiving funding for about 8560
hours of service at the$58/hour revenue rate.
Under the current Cost Sharing Agreement outlined in the Orange County
Transit Plan of 2017,this arrangement was continued with the understanding
that it will be negotiated periodically to provide equitable distribution of tax
district funds based on the areas transit system needs.
• OCPT currently operates the following routes utilizing tax district funds:
• Hillsborough Circulator
• Hillsborough-Chapel Hill Midday Connector(Chapel Hill Transit 420 route)
• Orange Alamance Midday Connector(Go Triangle ODX route-modified)
ORANGE COUNTY o,�y
NORTH CAROLINA
20
OCPT Expansion Activities Cont'd
OCPT has remaining routes funded through the tax district to deploy. These
route's implementation were delayed due to Go Triangle requesting further
evaluation and short range transit planning completion,to evaluate current
conditions and entertain emerging ideas and technology not available when the
original OCBRIP was adopted back in 2012.
• The original proposed service expansions funded but not implemented
include:
• Fixed zonal routes(to operate on specific days)
• Efland Commuter Loop(to operate during peak hours-weekdays)
• Additional expansion services were planned but not funded under the
current distribution calculation:
• Expanded hours of service on the Hillsborough circulator(to include week
end service)
• Route 420 expansion (to include OCPT operating this route all day)
ORANGE COUNTY tr. ,�k,:n,t•:,-
NORTH CAROLINA
Rural Service is Not One-Size-Fits-AI!
Example Strategies in Orange
County
a Fixed-route service in
appropriate areas(Hillsborough
Chapel Hill and Mebane) -
■ Commuter routes from urban
areas and park-and-rides to
major destinations(Durham and
Chapel Hill)
■ Flexible services in rural areas _
(Dial-a-Ride,deviated fixed-route, ` 1
zone service) o e
■ Van and transportation voucher
programs to assist with mobility
needs
Existing level ofresources are a
challenge for providing robust rural
service
ORANGE COUNTY �y
NORTH CAROLINA
21
Potential Transit Vision Improvements
■ Mobility On Demand:Fixed-Rural
Service(Three zones)
— Each zone:7am-6pm on _
weekdays served with one
vehicle(van,hybrid car)per zone
■ Hillsborough Circulator II
— 7am-Spm(Mon-Sat);30 minutes
— 2 intersecting loops _
■ Hillsborough-Durham Connector
— 9am-4pm;60 minutes _
■ Cedar Grove Peak Connector
6am-9am and 3.30pm-7pm; 30
minutes
�1 �V
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Transportation Needs Extend Throughout County
t .
CF*EL FILL
L�maegp 4J
rtq[�4p�
ORANGE COUNTY orangeCo�e t)
NORTH CAROLINA
22
Summary of OCPT Data
Aggregate Totals FY16 PY17 FY18 Yearly Averages
Rides 55,109 60,991 53,729 56,609.67
Passenger miles 419,035 334,878 347,298 367,070.33
Passenger hours 18,007.90 15,415.44 19,208.86 17,544.07
Invoice Revenue $ 196,820.89 $ 228,177.70 $ 204,167.08 $ 209,721.82
Revenue per ride $ 3.57 $ 3.74 $ 3.80 $ 3.70
Miles per ride 7.60 5.49 6.46 6.52
Hours per ride 0.33 0.25 0.36 0.31
Fare collected $ 92,276.64 $ 92,681.06 $ 87,252.83 $ 90,736.84
Total revenue $ 289,097.33 $ 320,858.76 $ 291,419.91 $ 300,458.67
Revenue per ride $ 5.25 $ 5.26 $ 5.42 $ 5.31
Ridership Totals FY16 FY17 FY18 Yearly Averages.
Fixed routes: 18,593 24,227 21,429 21,416
Hillsborough,Circulator 15,134 18,372 16,535 16,347
Hillsborough-Chapel Hill Connector 3,459 5,856 5,828 5.047
Orange-Alamance Connector - - 66 66
Demand Response: 36,516 36,764 32,300 35,193
ADA 12 54 19 28
❑SS Medicaid transportation 4,295 5,256 4,566 4,706
Dept on Aging-Nutrition transportation 7,839 7,019 7,192 7,350
Dept on Aging-Senior trips 958 958 1.246 1,054
ROAP-EDTAP 5,376 5,617 5,572 5,522
ROAP-RGP 165 153 179 166
Orange Enterprise(discontinued FY19,now EDTAP) 13,062 12,293 10,467 11,941
Sportsplex(discontinued per FTA audit) 3.706 3,601 1,999 3,169
Salty Adult Day(to be discontinued per FTA audit) 1,103 1,613 1,060 1,259
23
TrnP"SfJ FYaa
Oak
r't Nl�,asanr Gnee++Estates
k, gtooarh Fxnt HI�rsst
""� F 83uFfs of Enc FAeadow EsW:vn
+ _ Grey-ryes.:
fl tm Rivpr
51aSc Park WJlow Ridgo- Haverauli
�—krll -IS
Oak Rdgc
mQq-uod
e �� Piney G�o-rc
'I Elrigarfvan
YJ�awi
ocov_N'Run 5;raplwrn lidlx
Seven!WEs Farms � _ _ 3iucklcLe+ry5pnnq
uni,Krvq. ' Gurmarr
Gree+rbnar Vucsx Htlly=ar:
-- .� •.. •'.:.I EtephrLu RBI�-h Glcr
Unrvcrmry Czt:;••_s
L'nlwn:ty Acrex !¢-kp KnNI
WOInte Cum Fallsof New Hop* puke Forestt
Durham OHlifpn
I vehicle—Bus Puke ll n[versiry
Puke Forest Durham
KomUan Pirisian J W'-d
_c�l�n'ara
Mangy hlUl 5loncndge
fl 1
population1,3845 nmb� Ha:rCs
Nonhwl,od Carol Woods 7 mt
617 jobs
Cedar 4kI
Fnx hseoeows fr
7 P
24
Pro?o5eo( FYao
QF-n,
Griytnaif
gh SLw Park VWIv 11 Ridgo 144—h-
wmqwood
Jipadwn
Mill.Gr-q
97m, sv*wrr.Hill, H"Idd—Ty spring
11,wrsiry
Gre Amar Won Hill.Ea
Oulk.Forest
Duke JnF—lty
Dukc Forest Durham
0 Korman Division
Mvn-Pill 11,n-ri.Ir.,
Far I AcLjc,o—
:?
25
Pr,p Sul o
Pieasare Green Esraras
ii li�r•3:
81ufl�yf Err Aieaoow Esucoa
En.Rover Gr•rmrass
Aare Perk W Iknv RrJyn Fa-AAA
rph
p,,kiadge
Marywood
��GrQ�Q .. .
P.r;iadoan
�gC.Dec"�'•' Svayl,Qrn Hills
Hu klQb"Zon9
Vruvnsity H[4a Emr
CrccnUr��r
- Vnlversky EwS'es GFr
Vniversiry peres -- R�r-y 5.�r
N'nlnrn Gww Falis of nicw Hcpn Dye Fast
Durham D7 W—
_ Duke VM,"ty
❑uku Fp r'-'.f'rhdm
Ludt o e
SaneridgQ
� •a� • Lm6ercren
NQ.yrrycd Larvl Woods * (1
fnx Mecdouy i C<dar Hiif
S 11
26
��r-j..F Regional System Map
LW�� a
ao.wrwa..,i,O Nm-
r
o ADD
LEGEND
Tumm CONNECTIONTP 4 w a r ^: _ dew•••
cernaR LOCAL TRAHSWAG0ICT
MEMCM
Imam
NAlDR R01fIE STOPS - S.rvt..ii ppy.�Wyse w.< p �he�N .. .- cJ Oa ""�'
ROUTE x P .�'..a *..
PARK-ANO-RIDE REGIWtAL ROniR - ek �,�. Q - _
LOCATIONS °w 40-Fnea I//`' �..i-w+ ..,�
HOSPITALS O ®��� *a
SCKOoL/vwwERSRy rl
REGKWAL EXP'AIMSS ROUTES
SHOPPvIBCENTEAS ffSe<+e.WmE aak hwks o^b'
MaKgry FEW,
m3c'®®
27
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 6.a.
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
Use Planner, 919-245-2567
PURPOSE: Receive a report on the recent activities of the BSIS.
BACKGROUND: Since the January 16, 2019 OUTBoard meeting, the Bicycle Safety
Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) met to discuss implementation of social media ads and
posts, and radio ads.
Radio Media PSA - The Bicycle Safety group is going to produce a short radio PSA. We have a
mix of people that can do this. Group member Art Menius mentioned that the Orange County
Community Relations Department may have some available spots with WCOM through the end
of July. In response, the County's Community Relations Department has offered to donate
monthly spots on WHUP and WCOM for a month or two. They have asked if there is a best
time, such as a national bicycle safety week/month, and would like to target that time of year.
The spots on those stations tend to be about 10-15 seconds. They could do a longer PSA on
WCHL (30 seconds) that could be run sporadically throughout the year.
Social Media - The BSIS has decided to do a Facebook page and prevent comments because
we intend for the page to just be an information page. The group does not want to have
argumentative comments on the page. We spoke about have safety tips of the week, `did you
know' excerpts of the law, news about bicycle events, photos of bicycle riders and vehicles
safely interacting, a link to the County bicycle safety website, and perhaps other websites with
useful information. The Community Relations Director has advised that we just start with
Facebook. He wants us to concentrate on building up an audience through Facebook before we
think about branching out to the Twitter and Instagram if your audience reaches a certain point.
He said that he can send posts for us on Twitter through the County account. He advised that it
is not possible to stop people from responding on Twitter or Instagram; however, at least on
Twitter, no one would necessarily see any kind of comment unless they specifically clicked on
the tweet, which most people don't do. The County's IT Department will archive our social
media accounts, per County policy.
Bicycle Rodeo — Planning staff has contacted the Orange County Sheriff's office and requested
to coordinate with them on a hosting a bicycle rodeo for kids this spring or summer. We are
awaiting a reply.
28
Next Steps
Staff and the BSIS will continue to work on:
• Facebook social media ads and posts, and radio psa's for this spring and summer.
• The scheduling of events, including a Bike Rodeo, and other community events where
bicycle safety brochures and branded swag bicycle can be shared.
• The distribution of printed posters and brochures.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
Budgeted funds from are being utilized.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive information; and
2. Provide any comments or direction that the Board might have.
29
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 7.0
SUBJECT: Staff Updates
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
7.a. FY 2020-2029 Orange County STIP Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
7.b. Orange County & NCDOT Highway 919-245-2582
Luncheon Meeting Notes Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
7.c. MPO/RPO NCDOT Projects Use Planner, 919-245-2567
PURPOSE: Receive staff updates and provide any comments that the Board might have.
Item 7.a. — FY 2020-2029 Orange County Strategic Transportation Investment Program
STIP — North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has released the draft fiscal
year 2020-2029 STIP for public comments. It is scheduled for adoption by the Board of
Transportation on June 2019. This state capital improvement program identifies which
transportation projects are committed and developed for ten years. Attachment 7.a. provides a
summary of all committed and developed projects in Orange County.
Item 7.b. — Orange County and NCDOT Highway Division Luncheon Meeting Notes — On
January 9, 2019 Orange County and the NCDOT Highway Division had a luncheon meeting to
discuss various right-of-way topics; policies, programs and new projects; NCDOT updates on
pending or active projects; and Orange County staff updates on various local issues and
projects. Notes on the meeting are provided in Attachment 7.b.
Item 7.c. — MPO/RPO NCDOT Project Updates - NCDOT regularly releases lists of
transportation projects underway. Attachment 7.c. provides current projects in the Triangle Area
Rural Planning Organization (TARPO).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
Budgeted funds from are being utilized.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive information; and
2. Provide any comments that the Board might have.
Q
Item 7.a. 31
Orange County FY 2020-2029 STIP
Project STIP ID Location--A Mac—onstruction
1-40 1-3306 Widen from 1-85 to NC-147 2020 2021
Operation improvement from Orange Grove Road to
Old Fayetteville Road and Orange Grove Road
NC-54 R-5821 intersection improvement 2020 2022
Orange Grove Road U-5848 Extend to US-70 Business w/sidewalk and bike lanes 2021 2023
1-85 1-5967 Interchange Improvements at S. Churton Street 2022 2025
NC-54 U-5774 Upgrade road corridor from US15/501 to NC-55 2022 2025
S. Churton Street U-5845 1-40 to Eno River, widen to multilane 2022 2025
1-85 1-5984 Upgrade interchange at NC-86 2024 2026
DO LRT TE-5205 LRT from UNC in Chapel Hill to Alston Ave Durham 2024
OPT TA-6721 Purchase 2 light transit busses 2021
. . Ioil
1-85 1-0305 Widen from Orange Grove Road to Sparger Road 2025 2028
US 15/501 U-5304 Upgrade corridor from NC-86 to 1-40 2026 2028
Q
Item 7.b.
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 33
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center
Upstairs Large Conference Room
200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough
MEETING NOTES
I. INTRODUCTIONS
Present: Penny Rich, Chair, Board of County Commissioners; Commissioner Penny
Rich, Orange County Commissioner; Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager;
Travis Myren, Orange County Deputy Manager; John Roberts, Orange County Attorney;
Todd McGee, Orange County Community Relations Director; Chuck Edwards, NCDOT
District Engineer; Pat Wilson, NCDOT Project Delivery Engineer; Craig Benedict, Orange
County Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor; Nish Trivedi, Orange County Transportation Planner; Abigaile Pittman,
Orange County Land Use/ Transportation Planner; Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough
Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager; and Tom Stevens, Town of Hillsborough
Mayor.
Commissioner Penny Rich, Chair welcomed all and introductions were made.
II. RIGHT-OF-WAY TOPICS
A. Arthur Minnis Road Update (NCDOT/Nish Trivedi)
In order for NCDOT to pave the unpaved section of Arthur Minnis Road, additional
Right-of-Way must be obtained from property owners. NCDOT has sent letters to
property owners and met with the Orange Grove Road Fire Department for it to follow
up. (Exhibit II.A)
Status: Chuck Edwards, NCDOT reviewed the history on an unpaved section of
Arthur Minnis Road between Rocky Ridge Road and Dodson's Crossroads, which has
been on NCDOT's hold list because additional right-of-way is needed for paving.
Since this matter was last discussed with this group, NCDOT has been working with
the Orange Grove Fire Department and County staff. There have been some
personal visits with four outstanding property owners, and letters sent. One additional
property owner agreed to dedicate the needed right-of-way. NCDOT will try again
with the remaining property owners. Fire Department has expressed its concerns
pertaining to response times, safety, etc.
Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT has the legal ability to condemn properties to
acquire the necessary right-of-way consistent with State law and that Arthur Minnis
road meets criteria for condemnation. In order to proceed, a request from property
owners and a commitment by the property owners to post funds to go towards partial
funding of the condemnation process is needed. The anticipated cost for
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 34
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
condemnation would be $2,500 per parcel plus any damages identified through
appraisal. NCDOT could proceed with a project to pave the road if the right-of-way
were made available, subject to available funding.
Tom Altieri mentioned that the Fire Department informally offered to help with any
funding that may be necessary to help acquire right-of-way and that a property owner
is needed to request condemnation to initiate the process per State Statute. Chuck
Edwards confirmed.
Craig Benedict noted that he ran into one of the property owners and will attempt to
schedule a meeting to discuss.
B. Perry Hills Neighborhood Roadway Improvements (Abigaile Pittman)
Paylor Street, Perry Road, Shambley Road, the northern portion of Alpha Drive, and
Lancaster Road were paved during 2018. The Division of Highways has also
assumed the maintenance of Paylor Street. (Exhibit II.B)
Status: Chuck Edwards stated that here has been no change in status since the work
done in 2018 to improve and add Paylor Street to the state system, and pave the
other state roads in the subdivision using NCDOT discretionary funds. Scarlett Street
and the southern portion of Alpha Drive do not meet the density or condition criteria
for being accepted into the state system.
Renee Price stated that EMS vehicles and the school bus cannot turn around at the
end of Alpha Drive. Habitat for Humanity did not build the road extension to current.
Chuck Edwards confirmed that it was built as a single lane road, like a driveway which
does not meet NCDOT minimum subdivision road requirements. General discussion
about how long ago properties were developed in the neighborhood. Margaret Hauth
mentioned how exempt subdivisions may have influenced. Others agreed as a likely
possibility. Renee Price asked that NCDOT review if it is possible to create a
turnaround area for EMS vehicles and school buses. Chuck Edwards stated that his
staff will reach out to OCEM and School staff to get additional information on their
needs and investigate feasibility of making modifications; however, right-of-way may
be a limiting factor.
Discussing how the unopened roads might eventually become a part of the system,
Chuck Edwards stated that it would require bringing any roads up to NCDOT
standards, and cautioned the County about entering road development like a
developer. Also, there are housing density requirements that have not been met.
Craig Benedict noted that there is no public sewer available to the subdivision, and
making it available is problematic because of topography and direction of flow away
from Mebane.
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 35
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
Abigaile Pittman offered there were discussions with Mebane staff about making bus
stops and bus stop improvements on US 70 to serve the residents of Perry Hills.
Bonnie Hammersley noted that this type of discussion should be referred to Theo
Letman, OCPT.
C. Jefferson Davis National Highway Plaque (NCDOT)
In October 2018, the BOCC passed a resolution repealing a 1959 designation of
U.S.15 as the Jefferson Davis National Highway and will petition the NCDOT to have
the pedestal and plaque removed. (Exhibit II.C.)
Status: Chuck Edwards noted that NCDOT has had staff-level discussions regarding
this matter and through examination have found no evidence of any authorization
from DOT or indication of the owner of the plaque. It may have been placed originally
by the Daughters of the Confederacy. What is confirmed is that the plaque isn't in
NCDOT right-of-way, which ends at the back of the curb. It thinks that the land
behind the curb may be owned by UNC and likely combined with Town of Chapel Hill
rights-of-way/easements for areas of sidewalk and other amenities. This would have
to be researched. The Town of Chapel Hill directed its staff to ask NCDOT to remove
it, but NCDOT doesn't own it. It was noted that the General Assembly is not in a
position to take action either.
John Roberts requested a letter from NCDOT saying the plaque is not in its right-of-
way. Chuck Edwards stated that with a formal request from the County
Commissioners or County Manager, such a letter would be sent. Bonnie Hammersley
agreed that a formal letter would be sent by the Manager's Office.
D. Sanders Road and Efland Avenue Neighborhood — Possibility of Adding Roads to
the State Maintained System (NCDOT/Renee Price).
Sanders Road and Efland Avenue are generally bounded by US 70 W to the north,
Greenestead Lane to the west, Gaines Chapel Road to the east, and the railroad to the
south. The original subdivision was recorded in 1919. It has since been re-subdivided
with numerous smaller subdivisions. The roads are mostly graveled with significant
maintenance problems. (Exhibit II.D.)
Status: Renee Price summarized the road maintenance and construction in the
subdivision, noting that it is similar to the situation facing the Perry Hills subdivision.
Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT will investigate and send a report to Abigaile
Pittman who can distribute the findings.
Craig Benedict noted that Gaines Chapel Road is partially encroaching in the rail right-
of-way and may cause problems such as the removal of the crossing to the south if the
railroad revises the curves in the track through this area.
III. POLICIES, PROGRAMS, NEW PROJECTS
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 36
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
A. 1-40 Widening and Interchange Improvements (NCDOT/Tom Altieri)
NCDOT's current design would have impact on 1 mobile home in OC planning
jurisdiction (north side of 140). The south side of 140 is in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction
(Town Limits and ETJ), where community impacts are greatest. The interchange
improvement includes the realignment of Eubanks Rd, which would impact the
Northwood subdivision.
Status: Local Officials Meeting on January 14, 2019, 2:00-4:00 pm at Southern
Human Services Center. Public Open House (drop-in style) Meeting to be held
January 24, 4:00-7:00 pm, at the Passmore Center-Great Hall, 103 Meadowlands
Drive, Hillsborough.
Chuck Edwards stated that based on the feedback received to date, NCDOT is
considering a couple of alternative designs. There are concerns about the impacts to
the Northwood subdivision. He mentioned the upcoming meetings listed above where
these alternatives will be presented and discussed. The project is lengthy and there
are other pieces of the greater 1-40 project that will be reviewed.
Tom Altieri stated that the County was looking for NCDOT's assistance with getting
the word out to the public about the upcoming meetings. Chuck Edwards stated that
DOT will send out public notifications for the meetings, and press releases and
mailers. Orange County can put out the word through their networks also. He said
that if there is a need for multiple meetings with different groups that can be done
also.
Bonnie Hammersley stated that the Orange County Orange County Community
Relations Director is Todd McGee and should be the contact person for NCDOT
notices, they should go through him, and he needs to be on their distribution lists.
B. South Churton Street Widening and Orange Grove Rd. Extension in
Hillsborough (NCDOT/Nish Trivedi)
NCDOT is proposing to widen S. Churton Street from 1-40 to Orange Grove Road in
Hillsborough. The project and is being coordinated with the proposed extension of
Orange Grove Rd.
Status: Local Officials Meeting on January 8, 2019, 2:30-3:30 pm at the Hillsborough
Town Hall Annex, Board Meeting Room,105 East Corbin Street, Hillsborough. Public
Open House (drop-in style) meeting to be held immediately following from 4:00-7:00
pm at the same location. (Exhibit 111. B.)
Margaret Hauth stated that last night (January 8) was the first public meeting on the
S. Churton Street widening. Over 75 people attended the drop-in meeting. There was
a lot of good discussion and she is expecting a lot of useful comments. The Town
also has some basic comments for NCDOT, which are forthcoming.
Penny Rich requested that Margaret Hauth keep Orange County staff updated.
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 37
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
Renee Price asked about the impact on Tuscarora, which is a part of the Orange
Grove Road Extension project area. Margaret Hauth replied that different alignment
options are still being considered, but that there will be some changes. Some options
have been discounted also. The Town didn't like the three options it reviewed
previously.
Craig Benedict initiated a discussion on the coordination of the Orange Grove Road
and S. Churton Street projects under one NCDOT manager, and the coordination of
the 1-85 and 1-40 projects that is necessary.
Margaret Hauth stated that the 1-85/Churton Road interchange has to go first.
Nish Trivedi said that the 1-85 interchange is part of the larger 1-85 widening and all of
the projects are being scheduled around the same time.
Margaret Hauth said that we need to get the project schedules correctly coordinated,
timed out to be in the right order. NCDOT needs to involve the local staff in this
coordination effort. Also, she wanted local staff to be able to see project information
7-10 days prior to public meetings so that they can properly prepare. Chuck Edwards
said that NCDOT is definitely interested in staying connected with the Town and
County on its projects.
Penny Rich stated that the Town and County could see what NCDOT is doing first,
and then put the information on local websites, perhaps utilizing links. Margaret said
that those web sites will need to be built in the very near future. Penny Rich stated
that it was most important to have NCDOT or Orange County telling the story.
Pat Wilson stated that the new STIP is being released and a drop-in public session
will be scheduled in Greensboro to collect comments. It will also be reviewed through
the MPOs. He said that there is typically a two-week time period for information to be
provided to local officials prior to public meetings.
IV. NCDOT UPDATES ON PENDING OR ACTIVE PROJECTS
A. TIP projects (NCDOT)
Chuck Edwards reviewed the list of projects. (Exhibit IV.A.)
B. Resurfacing and/or Bridge Replacements (NCDOT)
(In addition to the typical update on projects, a brief overview of the various types of
materials used for resurfacing and how that determination is made based on roadway
type or function is requested. Also, County staff received an inquiry about wet-
weather surface glare and the visibility of striping on Old NC 86 since its repaving.)
Chuck Edwards reviewed the large number of completed bridge projects in the
County and said that there will be no new bridge replacement projects in the next
year. (Also in Exhibit IV.A.)
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon 38
Division 7 and District 1
January 9, 2019 12:00 p.m.
NCDOT offered to investigate the surface glare on Old NC 86 for any safety
improvements, such as reflective striping and raised pavement markers.
V. ORANGE COUNTY STAFF UPDATES
A. Orange Grove Road Pedestrian/Sidewalk Follow-up (Abigaile Pittman/ Tom Altieri)
Drafting Orange County Budget Request for Sidewalk Preliminary Engineering on
Orange Grove Road.
Abigaile Pittman stated that she has been asked to develop a budget request for a
preliminary engineering estimate for sidewalks along a half-mile section of Orange
Grove Road from Patriot Point to New Grady Brown Road. A staff engineer will be
using online tools to develop an estimate and it may be necessary to follow up with a
comparative estimate from a private engineer.
Tom Altieri stated that the estimate needs to take some specific site conditions like
right-of-way, topography, drainage swales, utilities, and whether curb and gutter is
needed to meet NCDOT guidelines. As a Planner, he anticipates that curb and gutter
will be needed and some areas of retention wall.
There was a general discussion regarding the status of County discussions about
sidewalk construction and maintenance. Bonnie Hammersley mentioned that there
has been a petition for school safety improvements in this area and there will be some
upcoming meetings between County and OC Schools management regarding these
issues. The joint meeting in February with the Town of Hillsborough was also
mentioned and these meetings would need to inform any future budget request.
B. Pedestrian Safety/Spot Safety Evaluation Request (Abigaile Pittman)
At its November meeting, the OUTBoard requested that staff inquire with NCDOT
regarding any possible Spot Safety funded pedestrian improvements at the Orange
Grove Road/Oakdale Drive intersection.
Abigaile Pittman reviewed the safety issues along this section of Orange Grove Road,
the recent history of safety fencing on the 1-40 bridge, and the request of the
OUTBoard for a SPOT safety review at the intersection of Orange Grove Road and
Oakdale Drive.
Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT would perform the requested SPOT safety review
and report back.
VI. FUTURE MEETINGS
Penny Rich brought up the topic of how many times a year these meetings should be
held.
Bonnie Hammersley recommended future meetings be scheduled on a quarterly basis in
January, April, July, and October. The need for each meeting can be evaluated based on
the sufficiency of Commissioner agenda topics.
Item 7.c.
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN TARPO-UNDER DEVELOPMENT 39
TIP/WBS# Description Let/Start Date Completion Cost Status Project Lead
Date
SS4907BV Intersection improvements on NC 86 at SR 1545(Sawmill 4/9/18 Fall 2018 $104,000 Construction completed 11/8/2018, Dawn McPherson
47121.1.1 Road)/SR 1352(Carr Store Road).Improvements include Pending RTE Final Inspection
47121.2.1 flasher and"Vehicle Entering When Flashing"sign installation,
47121.3.1 channelization,and sight distance improvements.
SS4907CD Horizontal curve improvements on SR 1710(Old NC 10)west 12/5/19 Spring 2020 $261,000 Planning and design activities Chad Reimakoski
47936.1.1 of SR 1561/SR 1709(Lawrence Road)east of Hillsborough. underway
47936.2.1 Improvements consist of wedging pavement and grading
47936.3.1 shoulders.
R-5821A Construct operational improvements including 6/21/22 FY2024 $3,924,000 Planning and design activities Jennifer Evans
47093.1.2 Bicycle/Pedestrian accommodations on NC 54 from SR 1006 underway,coordinating with NC54
47093.2.2 (Orange Grove Road)to SR 1107/SR 1937(Old Fayetteville West Corridor Study
47093.3.2 Road).
1-5958 Pavement rehabilitation on 1-40/1-85 from west of SR 1114 11/15/22 FY2024 $7,455,000 Planning activities pending Chris Smitherman
45910.1.1 (Buckhorn Road)to west of SR 1006(Orange Grove Road).
45910.3.1
1-5959 Pavement rehabilitation on 1-85 from west of SR 1006(Orange 11/21/23 FY2025 $11,155,000 Planning activities pending Chris Smitherman
45911.1.1 Grove Road)to Durham County line.
45911.3.1
U-6071 Intersection improvements at NC 54 and SR 1007(Old 1/15/2026 FY 2027 $1,216,000 Planning and design activities Jennifer Evans
47496.1.1 Fayetteville Rd)in Carrboro underway,Project on hold due to Draft
47496.2.1 2020-2029 STIP
47496.3.1
4.0HORTM Cq9� 40
g � North Carolina Department of Transportation
o�=) Active Projects Under Construction - Orange Co.
Contract TIP Location Description Contractor Name Resident Contract Bid Availability Completion Work Start Estimated Progress Completion
Number Number Engineer Amount Date Date Date Completion Schedule Percent
C203640 REPLACEMENT OF 4 BRIDGES IN HAYMES BROTHERS, Lorenz,PE,Kris $3,124,500.00 06/01/2015 11/01/2017 09/02/2015 03/15/2019 100.00 92.24
GUILFORD COUNTY AND 3 INC.
BRIDGES IN ORANGE COUNTY.
C203946 B-5348 REPLACE BRIDGE#85 OVER PHILS DANE CONSTRUCTION Kirkman,PE, $984,596.98 02/01/2018 12/27/2018 02/01/2018 01/30/2019 99.00 92.33
CRK ON SR-1005(OLD G-BORO RD) INC Christopher D
C204025 1-5954 PAVEMENT REHAB ON I-40/1-85 APAC-ATLANTIC INC Kirkman,PE, $9,699,053.68
FROM EAST OF NC-54 IN GRAHAM THOMPSON ARTHUR Christopher D
IN ALAM.CO.TO WEST OF SR-1114 DIVISION
(BUCKHORN RD)IN ORANGE CO.
DG00321 W-5143 SR 1004(EFLAND-CEDAR GROVE CAROLINA SUNROCK Kirkman,PE, $1,711,133.05 04/02/2018 04/02/2019 04/02/2018 04/02/2019 100.00 98.20
RD)ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS. LLC Christopher D
DG00393 RESURFACE SR 1101,SR 1118,SR RILEY PAVING INC Kirkman,PE, $1,084,520.40 04/02/2018 10/12/2018 06/18/2018 12/07/2018 100.00 99.97
1119,SR 1124,SR 1125,SR 1127,SR Christopher D
1128 SR 1130,SR 1134,SR 1135,SR
1137,SR 1141,SR 1143,ETC.
DG00395 REPLACE BRIDGE#189 ON SR 1114 S T WOOTEN Kirkman,PE, $723,924.13 04/01/2018 01/01/2019 05/07/2018 02/07/2019 97.00 99.75
(BUCKHORN ROAD)OVER CANE CORPORATION Christopher D
CREEK
DG00413 RESURFACE US 70 BUS,SR 1009, CAROLINA SUNROCK Kirkman,PE, $3,562,232.66 05/28/2018 11/01/2019 05/29/2018 11/01/2019 38.00 53.71
SR 1102,SR 1129,SR 1239,SR LLC Christopher D
1352,SR 1716 AND SR 1841
DG00419 RESURFACE NC 86 AND 17 CAROLINA SUNROCK Kirkman,PE, $3,764,001.64 05/14/2018 11/01/2019 05/14/2018 11/01/2019 40.00 23.45
SECONDARY ROADS LLC Christopher D
DG00427 REPLACE BRIDGE#51 ON SR 1534 NATIONAL BRIDGE Kirkman,PE, $521,443.82 05/07/2018 03/04/2019 07/30/2018 04/29/2019 100.00 98.48
(MCKEE ROAD)OVER BUFFALO CK. BUILDERS LLC Christopher D
DG00435 AST RETREATMENT ON 22 WHITEHURST PAVING Kirkman,PE, $846,340.66 04/01/2019 10/11/2019
SECONDARY ROADS CO INC Christopher D
DG00444 R-5821B INTERSECTION IMPRRVEMENTS AT FSC II LLC DBA FRED Kirkman,PE, $1,039,900.00 07/16/2018 05/16/2019 08/13/2018 05/16/2019 100.00 90.11
THE INTERSECTION OF NC 54 AND SMITH COMPANY Christopher D
SR 1006(ORANGE GROVE ROAD)
DG00445 R-5787BB INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT LITTLE MOUNTAIN Kirkman,PE, $319,319.80 06/25/2018 02/15/2020 08/06/2018 02/15/2020 70.00 61.61
CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS BUILDERS OF Christopher D
INTERSECTIONS CATAWBA COUNTY
INC
W-5707A INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT LITTLE MOUNTAIN Kirkman,PE, $319,319.80 06/25/2018 02/15/2020 08/06/2018 02/15/2020 70.00 61.61
CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS BUILDERS OF Christopher D
INTERSECTIONS CATAWBA COUNTY
INC
DG00451 U-5854 SR 1008(MT.CARMEL CHURCH CAROLINA SUNROCK Kirkman,PE, $1,833,468.84 08/15/2018 04/30/2020
ROAD)AND SR 1913(BENNETT LLC Christopher D
ROAD)ROUNDABOUT AND RELATED
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
DG00461 BRIDGE REHAB.FOR BRIDGE#031 M&J CONSTRUCTION Robinson, $2,456,272.12 11/12/2018 07/15/2019
ON SR 1010(E.FRANKLIN ST.)OVER CO OF PINELLAS Stephen J
BOLIN CREEK&BOLIN CREEK TRAIL COUNTY INC
DG00462 REHAB BRIDGES 264,288,260,543 IN ELITE INDUSTRIAL Snell,PE, $967,383.15 08/01/2019 01/01/2020
GUILFORD COUNTY AND BRIDGE 031 PAINTING INC William H
IN ORANGE COUNTY