HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 041719 DRAFT AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
April 17, 2019
6:30 p.m.
You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them.
Conference Room 204 (Second Floor) Orange County West Campus
131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
*PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION*
Page Item Title
1. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
3-14 2. Approval of Minutes from February 20, 2019
3. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
4. Special Presentation
4.a. Small Protect Program Presentation (Chuck Edwards, NCDOT Division 7 District 1
Engineer)
Overview and projects examples of NCDOT small project programs including the
Spot Safety Program, Maintenance Resurfacing Program, and Hi Impact-Low Cost
Program.
5.0 Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
15-19 5.a. Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) Report and Action on a
Recommended Next Step (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive a report on the recent activities of the BSIS and provide
any comments or direction that the Board might have; and take action on a
recommended next step.
6.0 Staff Updates
6.a. MPO/RPO NCDOT Protect Updates (Nish Trivedi) — Handout to be provided at the
meeting
OUTBoard Action: Receive updates.
7.0 Adjournment — The next regularly scheduled meeting date is May 15, 2019.
OUTBoard New Member Orientation — Following adjournment of the OUTBoard
meeting, an orientation session will be held for new members. All members are
welcome to attend.
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
3. Regular meetings of the OUT Board shall be held as needed to address items that
require Board action consistent with its Charge and Duties identified herein. Meetings are
held on the third Wednesday of the month. The start time and location of the meeting
shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 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 2.0
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 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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 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.
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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.
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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 I-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 I-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
Item 3.a
DRAFT 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
15
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 17, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.a.
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) Report and Action on a
Recommended Next Step
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Radio PSA Drafts Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
2. Bike Rodeo Button design Use Planner, 919-245-2567
3. Bike Rodeo Stickers design Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 919-245-2579
Craig Benedict, Planning Director,
919-245-2585
PURPOSE: Receive a report on the recent activities of the BSIS and provide any comments or
direction that the Board might have; and take action on a recommended next step.
BACKGROUND: Since the February 20, 2019 OUTBoard meeting, the Bicycle Safety
Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) discussed implementation of radio PSAs, and begun
planning for a bike rodeo. Additionally, steps were taken to finalize the installation of the bicycle
safety signs and inspection by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
Radio Media PSA - The BSIS has written copy for four short radio PSAs (Attachment 1). Group
member Erik Broo will be doing final recordings of the PSAs in a recording booth owned by
Todd Jones. The Orange County Community Relations Department has some available spots
with WCOM and WHUP. The spots on those stations tend to be about 10-15 seconds. The goal
is to air the spots through the end of July, but focus primarily on May, which is National Bicycle
Month.
Bicycle Rodeo — Planning staff and available members of the BSIS met with Daniel Robertson,
Orange County Sheriff's Department, and Lindsey Bailey, coordinator with the Orange County
Safe Kids Coalition to discuss planning and executing a Bike Rodeo. The group decided to
coordinate a bike rodeo with ongoing events, highlighting planned community summer camps.
The bike rodeo could be held on a specific date at the Cedar Grove Community Center and be a
field trip for the summer camps attendees. Cedar Grove Community Center summer camp runs
from June 24-Aug 1 St.The availability of bicycle helmets from the Sheriff's Department and/or
other sources is being assessed. Safe bike riding instruction, other events, snacks and some
branded bicycle swag would be featured. The group is also exploring coordination with the
Hillsborough Police Department who is known to also participate in Safe Kids Coalition events
and may perhaps have available helmets and bikes.
16
Planning staff has purchased Bike Rodeo buttons (2.75" x 1 .75", Attachment 2), and two types
of stickers to go on bikes and helmets (Attachment 3).
Immediate Next Steps - In the short term, bicycle safety implementation will focus on:
• Facebook social media ads and posts, and radio PSAs for this spring through the end of
June.
• The scheduling and planning of the Bike Rodeo where bicycle safety instruction,
brochures and marketing material can be shared.
• Continue the distribution of printed posters and brochures. There are sufficient posters,
brochures, bike rodeo pins and stickers, as well as other marketing material for future
outreach and tabling at events
Administration of Bicycle Safety Implementation Moving Forward - The BSIS has done an
excellent job in accomplishing several of the activities identified by the Bicycle Safety Task
Force (BSTF). The staff, BSIS and entire OUTBoard has been very appreciative of the support
and funding received from the BOCC and it shares an appreciation for the work. As a reminder,
BSIS was formed by the OUTBoard on August 16, 2017, for the purpose of implementing
identified initial activities of the BSTF Report with a budget of $15,000 for FY 2017-18 ($10,000
from the Non-Departmental General Fund, and $5,000 from the Visitors Bureau). Some
additional funding was provided in FY 2018-19 which will be expended at the end of FY 2018-
2019.
Between now and the end of FY 2018-19 (June 30, 2019), staff is requesting that the BSIS
evaluate its work and determine if there is immediate need to continue meeting separate from
the OUTBoard as a sub-committee or continue its work as part of regular OUTBoard meetings.
Currently, the BSIS has been meeting about once per month, while at times, there has been a
shortage of OUTBoard items, which has led to the cancellation of a few of its meetings.
Although, staff will support bicycle safety implementation either way, it is obligated to bring these
matters of efficiency and policy to the Board's attention. For example, subcommittees as a
matter of Orange County Advisory Board Policy are to have documented goals, deliverables,
and a timeline and cease to meet when these are satisfied. Also consistent with Policy, the
need to reinstate a sub-committee or create others can be considered by the OUTBoard at any
time. Although minor, staff administration and BSIS travel to and from additional meetings are
additional items of consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
Budgeted funds from are still being utilized through the end of FY 2018-19.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive information;
2. Provide any comments or direction that the Board might have for ongoing FY 2018-2019
activities;
3. Request the BSIS evaluate its anticipated future work and determine if there is
immediate need to continue meeting separate from the OUTBoard as a sub-committee,
or continue as part of regular OUTBoard meetings; and
4. Request that staff place Bicycle Safety Implementation on the OUTBoard agenda this
June or July to receive and consider a recommendation from the BSIS and if applicable,
discuss the documentation of goals, deliverables, and associated timeline.
Attachment 1 17
Radio PSA Copy
Did you know? In North Carolina, it is legal for a motorist to cross a double yellow line
to pass a bicyclist or group of bicyclists, provided the motorist has a clear view of the
road ahead and can make the pass safely. When doing so, the motorist must give four
feet of space or change lanes completely to pass.
Thanks for doing your part to keep our roads safe for all users. This message is brought
to you by Orange County's Drive Safely Ride Safely Campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know? In North Carolina, bicycles are considered vehicles, and bicyclists are
subject to the same laws as motorists, including riding with the traffic flow, obeying stop
signs and red lights, and signaling when turning. When riding at night, bicyclists must
have a front light, plus a rear reflector and rear light. Being a visible and predictable
cyclist helps everyone.
Thanks for doing your part to make our roads safer for all. This message is brought to
you by Orange County's Drive Safely Ride Safely Campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know? North Carolina law states that bicyclists are required to ride as far to the
right as practicable, but sometimes they need to take the full lane in order to avoid
hazards on the road or to increase their visibility to other traffic. Bicyclists are allowed to
use the full lane whenever they deem it necessary for their safety.
Thanks for doing your part to make our roads safe for all users. This message is
brought to you by Orange County's Drive Safely Ride Safely Campaign.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know?The law does not require cyclists to ride single file, and groups of
bicyclists sometimes ride 2 abreast [or side by side?]. This makes them more visible to
other traffic, and can facilitate passing by shortening the passing distance. A motorist
must give either four feet of space or move completely into the other lane when passing.
A bit of patience can go a long way toward making our roads safer for everyone.
Thanks for doing your part. This message is brought to you by Orange County's Drive
Safely Ride Safely Campaign.
18
Attachment 2
ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
400
III till
C
O
.com Oran eCount NCBic cleSafet '
g y y y
19
Attachment 3
i
r�