Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard Minutes 011619 Approved 2.20.19 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 91" 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 1 Approved 2.20.19 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"4 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 1 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. 2 Approved 2.20.19 108 109 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 3 Approved 2.20.19 162 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 4 Approved 2.20.19 216 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 1 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. 5 Approved 2.20.19 270 271 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 6 Approved 2.20.19 323 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 7 Approved 2.20.19 376 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 8 Approved 2.20.19 430 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 9 Approved 2.20.19 484 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 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 10 Approved 2.20.19 538 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 Old 86 that I don't want any more encroachment on my 551 property. 552 553 Amy Cole: You will have problem getting right-of-way along Old NC-86. 554 555 Nish Trivedi: I don't know how Carrboro feels about Old NC-86 improvements. 556 557 Tina Moon: I think this will make for a good corridor study for bike/ped connection between Hillsborough and Carrboro. 558 Carrboro is about to embark on a bike plan and this area may come up. 559 560 Nish Trivedi continued the presentation and directed the OUTBoard to Attachment 2 regarding DCHC and attachment 3, 561 BG MPO Project List. 562 563 Nish Trivedi: Now DCHC MPO. DCHC's SPOT process is tentatively using the adopted MTP. If it is not in the MTP it may 564 not get submitted. I have identified possible projects that my require updating the MTP in order for them to be submitted 565 into SPOT. Right now these are just potential projects identified in DCHC MPO area. Some of these projects are covered 566 in TARPO but cross into DCHC. Because they cross between MPO/RPO they may be easier to submit in one than the 567 other. They are simply presented in both because they cross jurisdiction boundaries. Nish Trivedi: I have added US-70 to 568 the list because it crosses both DCHC MPO and BG MPO connecting Mebane, Hillsborough, and Durham. It is a Strategic 569 Freight Corridor in DCHC MPO. There is increasing traffic and crashes along it. Lebanon Road is also added as a potential 570 project because it too crosses both MPOs. Mebane is against widening Lebanon Road but they support intersection 571 improvements along it due to serious crashes and increasing traffic. Nish Trivedi: As you can see in the table for US-70, 572 there are over 14,000 vehicles going east from Mebane through Hillsborough and into Durham, many of them avoiding the 573 I-85 traffic and trucks avoiding the weight station. There have also been over 1,100 accidents over the past ten years and 574 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 575 the detour when NCDOT later widens 1-85. 576 577 Heidi Perry: One of the reasons for not approving the widening of US 70 was to find better ways to keep the trucks on the 578 interstate. The trucks are exiting onto 70 to avoid a weigh station. Adding capacity to 70 would exasperate that problem, 579 would allow trucks to bypass an important safety measure that we have in place for the public good. Another expressed by 580 a majority of the OUTBoard, was the understanding that adding lanes to roads brings more cars and Vehicle Miles 581 Traveled (VMTs), not fewer,and that the state's focus should be on finding ways to decrease VMTs. 582 583 MOTION by Heidi Perry to not recommend US-70 as possible project, seconded by Eric Broo. 584 VOTE: 8-1. Opposed by Jenn Sykes. 585 586 Nish Trivedi: Each jurisdiction in the BGMPO is allowed to submit 10 projects, and I don't want us to lose our chance of 587 getting a project in, so I'm asking for all five to be considered as potential projects. 588 589 Art Menius: Any opposition to moving forward with all five? 590 591 Abigaile Pittman: Didn't the U.S. 70 map get removed? 11 Approved 2.20.19 592 593 Nish Trivedi: The OUTBoard does not want it removed because remove gives negative connotation. They are just "not 594 recommending" it as a potential project. 595 596 Eric Broo: So,we're talking about four; numbers 2, 3,4, and 5? 597 598 Heidi Perry: I'm confused about three because you said that NCDOT was doing a study on how to handle the railroad 599 there so why would you do the road extension project? 600 601 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT is doing an express Feasibility Study of Buckhorn Road that will address both the widening and a 602 grade separation to US-70 using Mebane's recently adopted Traffic Separation Study. 603 604 Heidi Perry: You said something about the railroad. 605 606 Nish Trivedi: The Mattress Factory Road Extension to US-70 involves an at-grade crossing and Mebane is coordinating 607 with NCDOT to determine what is the best way to do that. NCDOT railroad division is all in favor for removing at grade 608 crossings to better connect Raleigh to Charlotte. The Feasibility Study is geared towards identifying the best way to widen 609 Buckhorn Road, create a grade separation and connect to US-70 for SPOT purpose. 610 611 Matt Day: Their ultimate goal for that line between Raleigh and Charlotte is to get rid of all the at-grade crossings. 612 613 Heidi Perry: So, assuming the project scored highly and were to get funded, they would have to make that part of the 614 extension? 615 616 Nish Trivedi:Yes 617 618 Matt Day: Yes. If project 3 were to get submitted and got funded, the railroad wouldn't let them build a new at grade 619 crossing. 620 621 Nish Trivedi: As part of the Feasibility Study NCDOT is also evaluating an at grade separation for Buckhorn Road and the 622 grade separation is also part of the staff recommendation. 623 624 MOTION by Heidi Perry to keep the four projects on the list for the BGMPO. Eric Broo seconded. 625 VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 626 627 AGENDA ITEM 5: STAFF UPDATES 628 629 AGENDA ITEM 5A: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN(NISH TRIVEDI)- 630 Nish Trivedi gave a quick update on the progress and updates since the last time it came before the OUTBoard. We will 631 be posting this draft plan on January 31 to the website. 632 633 AGENDA ITEM 513: MPOIRPO NCDOT PROJECT UPDATES(NISH TRIVEDI) 634 635 Nish Trivedi: Included in your packet is the NCDOT update for all projects in Orange County. Let me know if you have any 636 questions on them. Thank you. 637 638 Nish Trivedi: 1-40 Widening, there is a public meeting scheduled for January 24 in Hillsborough at the Passmore Center. 639 Chapel Hill is working with NCDOT to get another public meeting in Chapel Hill. 640 641 AGENDA ITEM:ADJOURNMENT 642 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned. 643 Art Menius, Chair 12