HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard Agenda 091619 AGENDA
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Wednesday, September 16, 2019
Regular Meeting — 6:30 pm
WEST CAMPUS OFFICE BUILDING• 2ND FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 204
131 W. MARGARET LANE• HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA
No. Page(s) Agenda Item -
1. Call to Order
2. 3 — 10 Approval of Minutes
August 21, 2019 OUTBoard/TAS Meeting
3. Consideration of Additions or Changer to Agenda
4. Regular OUTBoard Agenda
4.a. 4 — 48 NC 54 West Corridor Study Supplement (a.k.a. Phase II)— Nish Trivedi
OUTBoard Action: Staff recommends OUTBoard receive Supplement and
offer any comments
5. Staff Report/Updates
5.a. 49 — 52 FY 19-20 Orange County Budget Appropriation for Sidewalk Stud�—
Tom Altieri/Nish Trivedi
OUTBoard Action: Receive the Information
5.b. 53 — 56 MPO/RPO and NCDOT Updates — Nish Trivedi
OUTBoard Action: Receive the Information
6. Information Items
6.a. 57 — 68 NCDOT Complete Streets Policy Amendment
6.b. 69 — 71 BOCC September 3 Meeting Information Item — NCDOT Corridor Updates
7. Adjournment
The next OUTBoard/TAS meeting date is November 20, 2019
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, 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.
I MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD
3 AUGUST 21,2019
4 REGULAR MEETING
5
6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Menius, Little River Township Representative (Chair); Brantley Wells (Vice Chair), Hillsborough
7 Township Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township
8 Representative; Heidi Perry, At-Large Representative; Erik Broo, At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham
9 Township Representative; Johanna Birckmayer, At-Large Representative; Jenn Sykes, At-Large Representative; Todd
10 Jones,At-Large Representative; Alyson West,At-Large Representative;
11
12 MEMBERS ABSENT: Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative, Chapel Hill
13 Township Representative-Vacant;
14
15 TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES MEMBERS PRESENT: Theo Letman, Allyson Coltrane; Teleishia Holloway, Lisa Berley; Alison
16 Smith; Erica Bryant, Beverly Scurry;Anna Sienna;
17
18 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Altlerl, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina Love,
19 Administrative Assistant III;
20
21 OTHERS PRESENT: Zachary Hallock,Town of Carrboro; Matt Day, TARPO
22
23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER,DETERMINATION OF QUORUM AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
24 Art Menius called the meeting to order.
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
27 MOTION by Randy Marshall to approve the May 15, 2019 OUTBoard Minutes with changes. Seconded by Heidi Perry.
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
31 Art Menius: I have 2 to add, one being to find a new transportation planner and a letter thanking Abigail for her work.
32
33 AGENDA ITEM 4A: OCPT/ORANGE COUNTY COMMUTER OPTIONS(OCCO)UPDATE(THEO LETMAN)
34 Theo Letman gave updates on the County's commuter options.
35
36 Heidi Perry: Is there not currently a transit plan?
37
38 Theo Letman: The one from 2017 is still in effect. Most of that plan had a light rail component to it,so we have to redo the
39 plans. We have to start thinking of ways to reauthorize those funds. Another plan going on in the community is a
40 commuter-rail project, a long-range rail project which includes Wake, Durham,Alamance and Orange Counties. They are
41 also trying to connect a commuter-rail line from Selma to Mebane. The component that our jurisdictions cover are from
42 Wake County to Alamance.
43
44 David Laudicina: Do you think they would be expanding it out to Hillsborough?
45
46 Theo Letman: The Hillsborough station is a part of it.
47
48 David Laudicina: With the money that we voted to go towards light rail,will that be extended to cover the commuter rail to
49 Hillsborough and beyond in Orange County?
50
51 Nish Trivedi: The Hillsborough station is a committed STIP project.
52
53 David Laudicina: I'm not talking about the Hillsborough station I'm talking about the commuter rail.
54
55 Heidi Perry: The transit tax was not only dedicated for light rail; it was for all transit.
56
57 David Laudicina: Light rail was the largest component. I think people voted for that money with the thought that the light rail
58 is going to be coming along.
59
60 Jenn Sykes: I think part of your point is that during those light rail discussions Hillsborough was not incorporated into that
61 commute and for it to hit Mebane, Hillsborough is a logical stop on that commuter line.
62
63 David Laudicina: We have this money that we voted for, and it would be nice if we could get a commuter rail stop extension
64 out to Hillsborough.
65
66 Erik Broo: There is a spur, I think, UNC uses to bring coal down to its power plant. Has there been a discussion or can
67 there be a discussion about using that as a commuter-rail line for anyone who wants to get to the UNC campus from
68 Raleigh, Durham, Cary, or Hillsborough? I would be interested to learn how this goes and when incorporating Chapel Hill
69 into this.
70
71 Theo Letman: That's a good point and we will bring that up. There were discussions in the meeting and we have ongoing
72 meetings with staff and GoTriangle. We have discussed spurs and different lines that could feed into the main line, but
73 there are a lot of issues with railroads. CSX and Norfolk Southern are at the meetings and have agreements with Amtrak
74 and the North Carolina Railroad to run across their track.
75
76 Nish Trivedi: Theo, please, correct me when I speak about this. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning (CAMPO)and Durham
77 ECAC-MPO has conducted a major investment study,the MIS study regarding commuter rail. The study was completed
78 earlier regarding Wake and Durham, and is being revisited to include Orange,Alamance,and Johnston Counties regarding
79 the Mebane to Selma extension. There's a lot of work that needs to be done in conducting and improving upon the already
80 conducted major investment study that has been done between Campo and Durham for the commuter rail project. As work
81 continues in the region that would be incorporated into the new transit planning. Wake, Orange, and Durham are all
82 updating their transit plans while the major investment study is being done; commuter rail is just one component of all of
83 that.
84
85 Theo Letman: This study is just beginning. Getting all the partners and entities together is a vital first step.
86
87 David Laudicina: Will this project be a new start if they are going for federal money?
88
89 Theo Letman: I think that's one of the funding streams they will look at.
90
91 David Laudicina: That's 50 percent, and the length of time to get that is unbelievable. What will the legislature going to do
92 to this project? Are they going to nail it like they did the light rail?
93
94 Theo Letman: There are lots of issues and concerns, but in my observation everyone is at the table. We are all open to
95 ideas and expressing our concerns for our advocacy. So far so good.
96
97 Erik Broo: Are there any public access meetings concerning the new transit plan and the commuter rail discussion?
98
99 Theo Letman: I don't think we have discussed that initial meeting yet.
100
101 Tom Altieri: We will be embarking on a 1 to 2 year process to develop that transit plan and anticipate consulting services to
102 assist. The meetings that were originally conducted and the outreach we anticipate to be of the same magnitude as part of
103 this plan. Although not a new plan, it is a review of the plans that have been done and then building on services in the plans
104 to address what would be done and how to integrate services in the absence of light rail. Part of the outreach will include
105 educating the community on the finances. The light rail was financed to a significant degree and was cost shared with
106 Durham. Durham collects more money from the sales tax revenue so it will be able to do more with what it has left over in
107 the absence of light rail. Orange County is different and we also have the Chapel Hill transit BRT project that we will have to
108 fund in addition to services provided by the previous plans. We anticipate additional services as part of the effort.
109 Nish Trivedi: Durham County has an Engage Durham website if you want to participate in their transit plan update.
110
111 Jenn Sykes: Some of the insurance companies that got these contracts to administer Medicaid are doing grants to help
112 county governments and transit. The concept is called social determinants of health and it is about getting people to and
113 from appointments and making sure they have housing stability. These are some funding sources you might want to start
114 paying attention to. You may want to look at insurance companies to get grant money at the moment.
115
116 Theo Letman: We are going to provide services in the county, but how we do it is going to be the mess for us.
117
118 Jenn Sykes: I think there is a piece in Medicaid where they are encouraged to ask each patient if they have access to
119 transportation and then move that forward.
120
121 Theo Letman: I've heard some counties say they may even stop doing Medicaid transportation due to the confusion.
122
123 Heidi Perry: Will the new Sprinter-type vans have bike racks on them?
124
125 Theo Letman: Yes.
126
127 Lisa Berley: About how many seats will be in the new line? Let's say there isn't a wheelchair on there that particular day.
128
129 Theo Letman: It's probably going to get up to 15 people.
130
131 AGENDA ITEM 413: OUT MOBILITY ON DEMAND(ALLYSON COLTRANE,THEO LETMAN)—
132 Allyson Coltrane and Theo Letman gave a presentation and updates.
133
134 Heidi Perry: Will this service be available to anyone?
135
136 Theo Letman: Yes. It will be open to the public.
137
138 Heidi Perry: Is Orange County contracting with private citizens to provide the service or are we hiring full-time drivers; how
139 will it work?
140
141 Theo Letman: My plan is to hire part-time drivers like Uber and Lyft. They will go through safety training class to teach them
142 Orange County's way of providing customer services. This will be an augmented training process. We will conduct
143 background checks and they will work for Orange County transportation services on a part-time basis.
144
145 David Laudicina: Have you thought about a monthly pass?
146
147 Theo Letman: I don't know yet. I think it may be more of a debit kind of situation.
148
149 Beverly Scurry: I see on the survey that you have a 5 to 8 option; is that as late as you will operate?
150
151 Theo Letman: We are still planning with TransLok. We are looking at perhaps 5 to 9 during the weekday and on Saturday.
152 A consistent theme has been transit services on Saturday.
153
154 Beverly Scurry: How are you promoting the survey?
155
156 Allyson Coltrane: We have contacted the main communicators and the communication group to send it out, but I can
157 definitely forward to everyone here if they want to relate it back to anyone else. We will probably do a bigger push to get it
158 out there sometime next week.
159
160 Erik Broo: The vehicles will be provided by our County for these part-time drivers; is that correct?
161
162 Theo Letman: The vehicle procurements that I described will start with five vans.
163
164 Todd Jones: Is this to address the issue of a lack of consistent availability for transportation in Hillsborough?
165
166 Theo Letman: In general, it's a fresh look at a fresh service that's going on across the country. Other communities have a
167 strong presence of Uber/Lyft but not so much here North Carolina. I think by public perspective more transit agencies are
168 going to this model. Some have even replaced their paratransit services with Uber/Lyft style services, mobility on demand.
169
170 Lisa Berley: I would like to highlight that it's a way of people getting out of going into another County, maybe to Alamance or
171 Durham where the other local transportation services don't necessarily get you across there.
172
173 Theo Letman: In our region,we need to have better coordination with linking up our services.
174
175 Lisa Berley: I am imagining that you can get a ride to outside of the county.
176
177 Theo Letman: We probably won't go deep into Alamance County.
178
179 Lisa Berley: Not deep but to help people who are living near that border.
180
181 Theo Letman: Transportation services are to serve all people and it should never be looked down upon. I think providing
182 this service gets us away from that kind of stigma that had it been associated with the service. Providing a service that
183 meets the growing need will be very helpful.
184
185 Alyson West: What is the specific safety training the new drivers will go through to handle bicyclists and pedestrians on the
186 road and how they interact with them?
187
188 Theo Letman: We will keep up the standard of safety training. We have several defensive driving systems that are
189 nationally recognized that we take the staff through. We will also have our drivers take a cone course. This will include
190 EMS folks and any other admin folks who drive County vehicles.
191
192 Erik Broo: Is there any effort to put some device on the bus that measures G-forces or steering and breaking inputs to
193 determine the severity of them to determine if a driver should be flagged for retraining?
194
195 Theo Letman: We do take our drivers to regular training and retraining. We emphasize their handling of the vehicle. There
196 are devices and systems that we can deploy on our vehicles that can monitor that. Telemetry is something that we might
197 look at we upgrade our surveillance systems.
198
199 AGENDA ITEM 4C: OCPT ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES(THEO LETMAN)—
200 Theo Letman gave updates on the department's transit projects.
201
202 AGENDA ITEM 41): TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES(TAS)COMMENTS/QUESTIONS(THEO LETMAN)-
203 Theo Letman asked if any TAS members had any additional questions or comments
204
205 AGENDA ITEM 5: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA
206
207 AGENDA ITEM 5A: BICYCLE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION SUBCOMMITTEE(BSIS) RECOMMENDATION ON FUTURE HANDLING OF
208 BICYCLE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION(NISH TRIVEDI)
209
210 Heidi Perry: How regular will the updates be?
211
212 Nish Trivedi: The recommendation was no more meetings and to have this done at the regular OUTBoard meetings.
213
214 Todd Jones: We may want to make sure that's part the recruitment and selection criteria for board members is to make sure
215 there is some cycling, pedestrians, and any other alternate forms of transportation representation. If the composition of that
216 element is lost, there may not be the same emphasis on alternative forms of transportation that this recommendation
217 assumed.
218
219 Nish Trivedi: That would be a discussion for future meetings regarding the process, not necessarily a subcommittee thing
220 within the OUTBoard but a procedural administration of the OUTBoard itself.
221
222 Todd Jones: There is some mechanism for preserving that interest among the members.
223
224 Heidi Perry: Can we find out what is happening with the radio ads?
225
226 Nish Trivedi: We will try to get an update on that.
227
228 Alyson West: Are all the signs up?
229
230 Jenn Sykes: The signs are up.
231
232 Erik Broo: Do schools have ride your bike to school with your parent's day? Is this something we could co-op to get rid of
233 the swag?
234
235 Alyson West: Bike to School Day is in May.
236
237 Heidi Perry: There's one in October and there's one in May. We would have to get the schools on board with that and it
238 would take manpower. A lot of stuff was geared towards adults and should be shared with the public.
239
240 Nish Trivedi: As I mentioned the work will be continued through the OUTBoard, and you can continue discussing how you
241 want to move forward without a subcommittee.
242
243 Heidi Perry: Can we find out about the upcoming events in and around Hillsborough like a transportation fair?
244
245 Nish Trivedi: There are local events that occur in Hillsborough like Last Fridays and the Farmer's Market that allows
246 nonprofit organizations to put tables. There are similar things happen in Carrboro and Chapel Hill, and I can find out
247 information as an OUTBoard update.
248
249 Alyson West: The idea is to get the message out to people that are not necessarily cyclists. Is there staff time to do tabling
250 like other community outreach?
251
252 Tom Altieri: I don't see this as an end to the bicycle safety efforts and the work that the subcommittee was doing. If we
253 have assistance from volunteers and the ability to set up tables and give out the swag and material that would be fine. My
254 understanding is that the subcommittee's work was winding down and it seemed to make sense that it was time to dovetail
255 into the OUTBoard's work.
256
257 Art Menius: Since you are the microphone,and it is relevant to the discussion.
258
259 Tom Altieri: I would say that we continue with the new planner when they are hired. We have initiated the recruitment
260 process and have posted the position as a planner with a focus on transportation and land use.
261
262 Alyson West: I don't have a problem with dissolving the subcommittee, but I think that getting the message out still needs
263 to get done. At this point, if there is not going to be a subcommittee and specific people involved, it would benefit the county
264 to invest some staff time in getting the message out because the commissioners did support it and the money is there. The
265 materials are there, marketing is there, it's ready and there is momentum. You don't want to lose that.
266
267 Tom Altieri: That is understood.
268
269 Heidi Perry: I'd be happy to volunteer, but I do not want to be"the person". I would like for there to be a staff person, and 1
270 would help.
271
272 Tom Altieri: Okay. Note taken.
273
274 MOTION by Heidi Perry to end and the recommendation of dissolving the subcommittee and folding the work into this body.
275 Seconded by Todd Jones.
276 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
277
278
279 AGENDA ITEM 5B: DRAFT CARRBORO BIKE PLAN(ZACHARY HALLOCK)
280
281 Zachary Hallock provided maps for the Board and reviewed the Draft Carrboro Bike Plan. The next steps are for Carrboro to
282 get a completed draft by the end of this month which will be forwarded to DOT for review at the same time. Staff interest
283 was to have another opportunity to have the OUTBoard provide comments on the full draft plan probably around September
284 or October.
285
286 Heidi Perry: When do you expect to show it to the Board of Alderman?
287
288 Zachary Hallock: Sometime in the fall. November might be the window based on how busy they are.
289
290 Heidi Perry: I noticed that the Jones Creek Greenway had gone out again for a second bid.
291
292 Alyson West: The Morgan Creek one is the one that keeps going out.
293
294 Zachary Hallock: Morgan Creek. Jones Creek is in design.
295
296 Randy Marshall: Is there any designation that separates commuter cycling from recreational cycling?
297
298 Zachary Hallock: Recreational cycling is a different beast than the commuting traffic which tends to be shorter length.
299 There hasn't really been that specific intentionality and how these routes are designated.
300
301 Randy Marshall: Is there any thought to having traffic counts for bicyclist?
302
303 Zachary Hallock: I know the MPO's do traffic counts, bicycle and pedestrian counts and streamline counts. In terms of what
304 the Town itself has done, is cut a little bit outside of our manpower in the scope of the plan, but there's data that we use to
305 work with.
306
307 Heidi Perry: There is a counter right at Old 86 going out of Carrboro that they've been taking counts from, and it shows 250
308 bikes on a Saturday.
309
310 Randy Marshall: But that's simply a matter of justification as to the higher priority for putting bike lanes there.
311
312 Heidi Perry: They just don't score well.Just to talk about Old 86. It's been looked at in different lights because it is an
313 economic tourism tool from Hillsborough to Carrboro which gives people a route that way, it also is the shortest difference
314 between Carrboro and Hillsborough to work, meet, or have recreation. Bottom line we want them to be used for both.
315
316 Alyson West: The demand is there on Old 86 and should be calculated in the STIP which it isn't. That's another reason to
317 revise how that scoring works.
318
319 Nish Trivedi: In terms of SPOT scoring,were are currently going through SPOT 6.0. The bike scoring for bike-ped Project
320 6.0 is totally different than 5.0 and 5.0 was totally different than 4.0. 4.0 was when it became very quantitative and more
321 detailed. From my experience, 7.0 is going to be radically different than 6.0 and it constantly changes and evolves. We
322 have staff do our best to keep up with DOT and how their workgroups do things.
323
324 Erik Broo: In our group,we talk about Old Fayetteville between Hillsborough Road and Calvander because that stretch of
325 road is dangerous. The idea I have is to encourage the DOT to meet the expectations of the county and Carrboro. If there
326 were bike-ped improvements on either side of that sector of the corridor,would the DOT be more inclined to think about that
327 specific short piece of very dangerous road and possibly think of the idea that they are falling behind the other
328 municipalities?
329
330 Zachary Hallock: The map is to tell the MPO that these are the projects that we like to prioritize and might someday submit
331 to SPOT. DOT will see that these are our priorities, but we can't bind them into anything.
332
333 Erik Broo: Is there any way to encourage them through action?
334
335 Nish Trivedi: The other issue to remember is the local match requirement with bike-ped projects. It's not just simply
336 identifying a bike—ped project or improvement, it's who is going to pay for it and who is going to administer that project and
337 monitor DOT doing the work. Is putting the local jurisdictions responsible. The cost plays a big part in who is paying, doing,
338 and administering the project and the DOT is putting this onto the jurisdictions more and more.
339
340 Alyson West: What's the plan for restarting the conversations on the Greenways that have been adopted that are not be
341 discussed right now.
342
343 Zachary Hallock: That's a discussion for the Carrboro Board of Alderman.
344
345 Alyson West: Do they have a plan to restart the conversation, or are they just stalled?
346
347 Zachary Hallock: They have a time point have to have the current conversation completed by. I think it is sometime next
348 year.
349
350 Alyson West: Regarding the short-term and long-term priorities in the draft plan and the idea of the long-term big picture
351 ideas; are there funding implications for not having specific facilities listed in the bike plan?
352
353 Zachary Hallock: The reason for not putting some of those on the map was based on some of the reactions we have gotten
354 in the past for putting things on maps. We wanted to make sure it was still the plan to get covered.
355
356 Alyson West: Does it fall out of the CTP and the other bigger plans?
357
358 Zachary Hallock: Those are separate amendments that would have to happen anyway. Once this is adopted, and we
359 decide to amend the MTO/CTP/or MTP we could include those.
360
361 Alyson West: Keeping the Old 86 segment in the plan is important for keeping it listed in the prioritization, even if it's not
362 scoring well, right?
363
364 Zachary Hallock: Yes.
365
366 Alyson West: I'm just worried that some of these things not been in the plan are going to prolong their funding or being able
367 to move forward.
368
369 Zachary Hallock: As it stands right now, there are no protected bike lanes anywhere on a NCDOT maintained road in the
370 state. I think the idea would hinge on Jones Ferry being successful and then saying; can we show all the protected bike
371 lanes that we are interested in?
372
373 AGENDA ITEM 6: STAFF REPORTS/UPDATES
374
375 AGENDA ITEM 7: INFORMATION ITEMS
376
377 AGENDA ITEM 7A: CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT NORTH-SOUTH BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (NISH
378 TRIVEDI)
379
380 David Laudicina: I notice this is a small start program and it's registered with the FTA. Do the small starts not have to go
381 through the extensive engineering; is that why you're able to do it so quickly?
382
383 Nish Trivedi: They are doing the 30-percent engineering design right now. Their town has already approved the locally
384 preferred alternative which has been adopted earlier this year. So they are putting the package agreement together to get a
385 rating for how it's going to rate against other small start programs across the country. The engineering should be complete
386 by 2019/2020 to start construction.
387
388 David Laudicina: Where's the money coming from? Is it a 50/25/25?
389
390 Nish Trivedi: No. There is also a project being submitted in the SPOT 6.02 to get funding from the state to make it to the
391 STIR There are three versions of it right now in the current 2017 County transit plan, so there is funding from the county
392 transit plan that's going towards this. There's the Board of County Commissioners, DCACMPO, and Chapel Hill transit
393 which have all approved amending the transit plan to put more money towards this project. When the STIP comes out in the
394 next two years we will see how it does in SPOT 6.0 to get state funding.
395
396 David Laudicina: Is the state going to put some money too,and how will we be sure that they're not going to kill it like they
397 tried to kill light rail project?
398
399 Nish Trivedi: We will find out when the next STIP comes out in the 10-year window whether it's to be a committed project or
400 a development project.
401
402 David Laudicina: Where does the local money come from?
403
404 Nish Trivedi: The County transit plan.
405
406 David Laudicina: From the tax thing that they put through?
407
408 Nish Trivedi: Light rail is one project and this is another project that is in the adopted plan.
409
410 AGENDA ITEM 7B: MPO/RPO NCDOT UPDATES(NISH TRIVEDI)
411
412 Heidi Perry: So what we received is not the complete policy, right?
413
414 Matt Day: The policy itself is just those couple of pages.
415
416 Alyson West: It says under the planning and design guidelines that the NCDOT roadway design manual isn't the
417 authoritative reference, Section H. If that's not updated for the engineers, is anything going to change?
418
419 Matt Day: I don't know. One thing we were told is that DOT is changing their standard roadway drawings. The standard
420 drawing used to be with wide outside lanes as their standard bike provision, but this is no longer going to be the standard
421 bike provision.
422
423 MOTION by Heidi Perry instructing Art Menius to write a letter of appreciated to Abigail Pittman. Seconded by Alyson West.
424 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
425
426 AGENDA ITEM 8:ADJOURNMENT
427 Motion to adjourn.
428
Art Menius, Chair
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 16, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 4.a.
SUBJECT: NC 54 West Corridor Study Supplement (a.k.a. Phase II)
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Draft Phase 2 Study Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
919-245-2582
Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 919-245-2579
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the NC-54 West Corridor Study from Orange County
Transportation Planning staff and provide comments.
BACKGROUND: The NC-54 corridor study was started in September 2017 by the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The study area spans from Old Fayetteville Road in
Carrboro to the 1-85/1-40 interchange in Graham. VHB is the consultant assigned to the study
and they completed the final report in November 2018, with every member jurisdiction
participating in the consultant's and MPO's public process. The final recommendations serve to
identify projects for consideration through future Strategic Prioritization of Transportation
(SPOT) processes.
On February 2019, Carrboro, through the DCHC MPO, requested VHB to review and confirm
Phase 1 conclusions through a phase 2 study (Attachment 1) to analyze future trends and
transit alternatives as mentioned in the final report, widening impact on local roads, and other
improvements not on NC-54 (e.g. widening other roads or adding new roads as alternative
improvements). VHB will present phase 2 of the study to the Board of County Commissioners
on November 7, 2019. The MPO will consider taking action on the NC-54 West Corridor Study
in November 2019 following a public hearing.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends the OUTBoard provide comments.
To: DCHC MPO Date: October 1, 2019
Project#: 38587.01
From: Don Bryson Re: NC 54 Supplement
INTRODUCTION
In response to the findings of the NC 54 West Corridor Study,the analyses summarized in this memorandum were
requested to better understand and explain traffic patterns associated with the portion of NC 54 between 1-40 in
Graham and Old Fayetteville Road in Carrboro.Although the focus of the additional analyses is the eastern (Orange
County) end of the corridor,the study area was expanded to provide more regional context, and to more directly
address West Main Street and the NC 54 Bypass to the east.
The analyses in this memorandum address specific questions, supplementing the NC 54 Corridor Study. The NC54
Corridor Study provides more detailed documentation of underlying assumptions,traffic data, analytical
methodology, and findings related to existing conditions, demand forecasts, and evaluation of alternatives.
Some of the major issues addressed in this memorandum include:
• Origins and destinations of traffic using this portion of NC 54
• Traffic forecasts
• Traffic impacts of the proposed widening on other roads
• Transit options, including:
o Park-and-ride lots
o Potential options for UNC-CH and hospital employees
CORRIDOR TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS
According to the latest data (2017) available from the NCDOT traffic count program, average annual daily traffic
(AADT) on NC 54 ranged from a high of 23,000 veh/day at the western end of the study area (just east of 1-40 in
Graham)to a low of 6,400 veh/day near the county line (just west of Mebane Oaks Road/Saxapahaw Road). From
that point eastward AADTs increase to a high of 15,000 just west of Old Fayetteville Road,the eastern end of the
study. This pattern indicates that only a portion of the NC 54 traffic at Old Fayetteville Road consists of"through"
trips (defined as vehicles travelling the entire length of the corridor from 1-40 to Old Fayetteville Road). Even if all
6,400 veh/day at the county line were through trips, only 43%of the traffic approaching Old Fayetteville Road could
be defined as trips traveling the entire length of the corridor. Analysis of travel patterns suggests a much lower
percentage; many of these 6,400 trips having origins or destinations along the corridor or intersecting roadways
such as NC 119, Mebane Oaks Road, Orange Grove Road, and Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road. NC 54 collects and
connects traffic between these dispersed trips ends.
The following sections summarize analyses performed to help identify sources of traffic on this portion of NC 54.
NC 54 Travelsheds
Figure 1 represents the approximate extent of the "travelshed"for trips to/from the center of Chapel Hill via the NC
54 West corridor. Trips beginning/ending within the shaded area are more likely to use NC 54 than alternate routes
(especially 1-40)for trips to/from downtown Chapel Hill, based on historically-determined relative travel times for
routes provided by Google Maps. For example, a traveler starting near the northern edge of the shaded area could
drive to downtown Chapel Hill via NC 54 or 1-40 in about the same time. Figure 2 demonstrates the impact of shifting
the destination slightly south, to Southern Village. The added time required to drive all the way through Chapel Hill
results in NC 54 being a shorter route for trips from the northwest (Burlington/Graham). There is a dividing line for
somewhere around the NC 54 Bypass. Figure 3 is a comparable representation for trips to Burlington/Graham.
Note that the relative volume of trips in each of these cases varies, and will change over time.
The key to defining these travelsheds is the difference in relative travel times among alternative routes. Increasing
congestion along 1-40 or NC 86 would be expected to shift this boundary northward and eastward, while more
congestion along NC 54 would constrict the shaded area. Conversely, improvements that reduce relative travel
times would expand a road's travelshed.
Observations
Comparing the travelsheds for the two major locations considered reveals several interesting observations:
• For central Chapel Hill trips, while the travelshed spreads farther north and east, it does not extend beyond
the ends of the corridor.
• A minor shift south to Southern Village yields a travelshed that extends west and north of the Graham end
of the corridor. This helps demonstrate the complex combination of origins and destinations served by the
NC 54 west corridor. Although Chapel Hill is a major destination for trips using the NC 54 Study Area
Corridor, there are dozens of significant trip-end pairs using portions of the corridor, and the relative
volumes of these trips can shift over time in response to local and regional growth and development,
congestion, and roadway improvements.
• For the centralized Burlington/Graham location,while the travelshed is narrower on the northern side, it
extends well beyond the eastern end of the corridor, widening greatly to the south to include portions of
northern Chatham County. This travelshed also applies to destinations north and west of the indicated
location. Growth outside the corridor is a more significant factor in traffic increases in this travel market
than for the downtown Chapel Hill travel market.
• Trips between western Orange County and points east of Chapel Hill (such as Durham and RTP) use this
portion of NC 54 and the Bypass; however, 1-40 is a more attractive option for trips originating farther west,
or even a slight distance north of NC 54 through the study area.
Although this analysis does provide some insights about who is using this portion of NC 54, it has limitations. It does
not reflect route selections of actual travelers, only the estimated minimum travel-time routes based on historical
averages.These travel times are derived from samplings of signals from location-based services, which are subject to
variation. Furthermore, travelers do not always base their route choices on minimum travel times, even if they have
accurate real-time information and reliable short-range predictions (which is not typically the case). Some drivers
prefer to avoid freeways; others are less comfortable on rural two-lane roads that may require passing. If travel-
time reliability is critical, routes with longer(but more consistent and predictable)travel times may be preferred to
the risk of a long delay. Also,this analysis considers only three very specific—though important—locations. There
are countless other potential locations that would generate different travelsheds.
Streetlight Data
To better understand the origin/destination patterns of traffic on NC 54 west of Carrboro, an analysis was
performed using a Streetlight dataset provided by DCHC.This dataset is comprised of anonymized location
information obtained from personal electronic devices during weekdays (Monday through Thursday) in April, May,
September, and October of 2016-18.The results summarized here are based on a sample of approximately 8,000
devices, representing about 29,000 individual trips.The Streetlight Index sample represents about 23%of the
averaged 2016-2018 AADT on NC 54, based on Index-to-AADT ratios.
The available Streetlight dataset did not include the entire NC 54 West study area (see Figure 4); only the portion of
the corridor east of Orange Grove Road could be analyzed. Figure 5 depicts the associated portion of the corridor in
more detail.
The goal of this analysis was to determine the major origins and destinations of traffic using this segment of NC 54.
In particular, what portion of traffic is passing through the corridor, which intersecting roads contribute the most
traffic, and what traffic is using the NC 54 Bypass versus West Main Street?This analysis can help quantify and
evaluate potential markets for alternative travel options, as well as validating forecast assumptions and confirming
the Triangle Regional Model's accuracy in representing traffic patterns.
It must be emphasized that in the following analyses, percentage drops in traffic refer only to the distribution of
trips passing the defined reference point (indicated by the "100%" label).This does not indicate a reduction in total
traffic (AADT) on NC 54. The exercise traces the destinations of vehicles captured at the reference point as we move
east or west along the corridor away from the reference point. It indicates where these vehicles leave NC 54 and
what portion remain on NC 54 at the end of the analyzed segment.This is not an analysis of traffic passing through
the entire length of the corridor, nor of AADTs.
Eastward Trip Distribution
Figure 6 depicts the eastward distribution of daily vehicle-trips on NC 54 to/from a point just east of Orange Grove
Road. Note that the"100%" label in the figure represents only traffic passing that point on NC 54, in both
directions. This analysis traces the destinations of these trips along the corridor. For simplicity and clarity,we will
discuss eastbound trips; westbound trips are the mirror image of these. The diagram indicates that 83%of these
trips are still on NC 54 just west of Old Fayetteville Road. This 17% drop in volume works out to nearly 2,000
veh/day out of the original 2017 AADT of 11,000 veh/day east of Orange Grove Road. Most of the trips that have
left the corridor by this point used White Cross Road (7%) and Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (4%). The
remaining 6%departed via Dodsons Crossroads, Butler Road, Neville Road, Hatch Road, and various smaller roads
and driveways. (Due to rounding, percentages may not add up precisely.)
Ten percent of traffic drops off at Old Fayetteville Road (8% northbound and 2%southbound), leaving 73%of the
original traffic on NC 54. Another 7%of trips are destined for development in the immediate vicinity of Carrboro
Plaza. The remaining 66% divides between West Main Street(12%) and NC 54 Bypass (54%).This represents an
82%/18% (or 4.5 to 1) split of this traffic between NC 54 Bypass and West Main Street.
For comparison,the analysis was repeated for only the period between 6:00 and 10:00 AM, which includes the
critical AM peak. These results are summarized in Figure 7. The most significant differences are that a higher
proportion of traffic is still on NC 54 just west of Old Fayetteville Road (91%versus 83%), and that most of this
increase continues onto NC 54 Bypass (63%of origin traffic, as opposed to 54% on a daily basis). This results in an
increased share relative to West Main Street (85%/15%, or 5.7 to 1). These differences are consistent with a higher
proportion of commuter traffic to UNC in the morning peak.
Westward Trip Distribution
Similar analyses were performed to estimate the westward distribution of NC 54 traffic to/from West Main Street,
and to/from NC 54 Bypass. Note that the"100%" label in these figures represents only traffic passing those points
(on West Main Street or NC 54 Bypass), in both directions. For simplicity and clarity,we will discuss westbound
trips; eastbound trips are the mirror image of these. Figure 8 depicts the findings of this analysis for traffic on West
Main Street immediately east of NC 54, where the 2017 AADT is 6,400 veh/day. About 44%of this traffic is
associated with destinations in the immediate vicinity of Carrboro Plaza. Another 26% heads east on NC 54 Bypass.
Old Fayetteville Road attracts 6%to the north, and 2%to the south, leaving 22%of the original traffic on NC 54
immediately west of Old Fayetteville Road. Another 9%disperses before Dodsons Crossroads, mainly via Neville
Road (2%) and Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (2%).Another 2%each turn off on Dodsons' Crossroads and White
Cross Road, with 10%of the traffic from West Main Street remaining on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road. This
translates to a drop of nearly 800 vehicles between Old Fayetteville and Orange Grove Roads.
Figure 9 summarizes the results of a similar analysis for NC 54 Bypass south of West Main Street,where the 2017
AADT is 25,000 veh/day. Ten percent of this traffic diverts east onto West Main Street, and another 30% heads for
destinations in the vicinity of Carrboro Plaza. A substantial 21% heads north via Old Fayetteville Road,with 1%going
south, leaving 38%of the original traffic on NC 54 to the west. Intervening roads and driveways attract another 7%
between Old Fayetteville Road and Dodsons Crossroads. White Cross Road (2.5%) and Dodsons Crossroads (1.5%)
account for most of the remaining reduction, leaving 27%of the original NC 54 Bypass traffic on NC 54 just east of
Orange Grove Road. This represents a decrease of nearly 2,800 vehicles between Old Fayetteville and Orange Grove
Roads.
Observations
• About 17% of daily traffic on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road enters/exits NC 54 between this location
and just west of Old Fayetteville Road.
• During the AM peak, only 9%of traffic on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road enters/exits NC 54 between
this location and just west of Old Fayetteville Road.This is consistent with a higher proportion of longer
commuter trips.
• For West Main Street daily traffic, about 12%of traffic enters/exits NC 54 between this just west of Old
Fayetteville Road and just east of Orange Grove Road. For NC 54 Bypass traffic, this figure is about 11%.
• Trips using West Main Street tend to be more local that trips using NC 54 Bypass.
TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS
The NC 54 West corridor study area spans two regional travel demand models. The portion west of the Alamance
County line is represented in the Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM), while the Orange County portion to the
east is part of the Triangle Regional model (TRM v6).
Growth Forecasts
Traffic growth in both models is derived from forecasts of population and employment growth and characteristics,
geographically distributed by traffic analysis zone. Figures 10a-10c and 11a-11c depict TRM and PTRM assumptions
about the distribution and growth of population and employment relative to the NC 54 West study area and the
three travelsheds presented previously.
Because population and employment data available for the two models have different base and design years, values
were extrapolated to obtain consistent values for 2017 and 2045. Also, dot-density plots were used to more
effectively represent the density, magnitude, and distribution of population and employment among traffic analysis
zones (TAZs). Note that each dot represents a number of data points (100 persons; 50 jobs). Dots are randomly
located within each TAZ, and do not represent specific locations.
The socio-economic forecasts in both models were approved and adopted by relevant MPOs and RPOs for use in
transportation planning. Consultation with Alamance and Orange County planning staff did not identify any
problems with the growth assumed in either the TRM and PTRM.
Observations
• Development remains sparse along the middle segment of the corridor, due in large part to environmental
constraints.
• Relative growth is greatest in the western portion of the corridor, both in Alamance County and Mebane,
especially along and west of NC 119. Development includes residential, industrial, and commercial, as well
as newly-approved high school at the corner of NC 54 and NC 119.
• Growth in the east is concentrated in Chapel Hill, primarily in nodes along NC 86 and US 15/501. Particularly
relevant to this study is the Lloyd Farm development in the northeast quadrant of the NC 54/Old Fayetteville
Road intersection.
TRM Comparison to StreetLight Insight Analysis
A select-link analysis was performed using the Triangle Regional model (TRM v6)to provide a comparison against
the StreetLight analysis described previously for the eastward distribution of trips to/from a point on NC 54 just east
of Orange Grove Road. Because of minor anomalies in the Base Year network loading at the western end of the
corridor, some manual adjustments were necessary, and comparative runs for 2045 Build and No-Build scenarios
were also conducted. The results are summarized in Figure 12. The major differences between the TRM the
StreetLight trip distributions occur at the eastern end of the corridor.Just east of Old Fayetteville Road, both
analyses estimate between 82%and 83%of eastbound trips from just east of Orange Grove Road are still on NC 54.
But the TRM distributes 5%fewer trips north on Old Fayetteville Road, and loses none at Carrboro Plaza.This leaves
77%of the original trips, as opposed to 66%according to StreetLight. More importantly,TRM assigns a far higher
proportion of these trips to West Main Street. TRM has 25%of the initial traffic turning on West Main Street(versus
12%according to StreetLight), and 52%continuing down NC 54 Bypass (versus 54%). This works out to a 68%/32%
(or 2.1 to 1) split between n NC 54 Bypass and West Main Street. The Streetlight analysis yielded a split of 82%/18%
(or 4.5 to 1).
This difference is probably attributable to the fact that regional travel demand models like TRM tend to under-
estimate intersection delay as congestion increases, especially through denser downtown areas. It also appears that
trips to Carrboro Plaza and up Old Fayetteville Road (including McDougal Middle School) are either under-
represented or inaccurately routed.
TRM Comparison of Build (Widen NC 54) and No-Build Scenarios
To estimate the traffic impacts of the proposed widening of NC 54 on traffic patterns,two 2045 TRM networks were
compared. Both have identical socio-economic data and include all transportation improvement projects assumed
in the latest DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The only difference is that the Widen NC 54 (Build)
Scenario, a 45-mph 4-lane divided cross-section is assumed for NC 54 between 1-40 in Graham and Old Fayetteville
Road in Carrboro. The No-Build Scenario assumes the existing cross-section is maintained.
After trips were distributed and assigned to the two networks, daily volumes in the No-Build network were
subtracted from the corresponding link volumes in the Build (widen NC 54) network. Results are summarized in
Figure 13. Where traffic volumes are higher in the Build scenario (due to diversion from other routes), links are
shaded red and given bandwidths corresponding to the magnitude of the increase. Where traffic volumes are lower
in the Build scenario, links are shaded blue and assigned bandwidths corresponding to the magnitude of the
decrease. Changes in daily traffic volumes are indicated on representative links. Changes of less than 100
vehicles/day are not represented.Volumes for West Main Street and NC 54 Bypass were adjusted to compensate for
the model's over-assignment of traffic to West Main Street (discussed above). An 80%/20% (4:1) split between NC
54 Bypass and West Main Street was assumed.
A comparison of the daily volumes from the 2045 Build and No-Build scenarios west of Old Fayetteville Road is
shown in Figure 14 to illustrate the shifts in network traffic assignments associated with the widening, according to
the TRM. Historical volumes and 1%and 1.5%annual volume growth rates are displayed, and the typical capacities
of a 2-lane roadway and a 4-lane divided roadway are indicated to provide context for the road's current and
anticipated performance.
Observations
Volume Increases
• As traffic volumes increase on NC 54, longer segments exceed capacity for longer time periods.Travel times
increase, while also becoming less reliable due to crashes, weather events, and other incidents. In response,
some traffic shifts to alternate routes. When NC 54 is widened, congestion and resulting delays and
variations are reduced, and these trips return to NC 54, which should also reduce crashes.
• The most significant volume shifts are on NC 54. The 2,000 veh/day added between Dodson's Crossroads
and Old Fayetteville Road represent about a 10% increase over the No-Build scenario. The resulting volume
is well within the capacity of the proposed 4-lane divided cross section. Assuming 10%of traffic occurs in the
peak hour, with a 60/40 directional split, this translates into about 200 additional vehicles in the peak hour,
with 120 vehicles (two/minute) added in the peak direction.
• Traffic shifts back onto NC 54 decrease to the west, both on an absolute and a percentage basis.To the east,
about 200 vehicles/day are added to West Main Street, and 1000 to the NC 54 Bypass. About one-third of
these are added to South Columbia Street traffic, half continue on the Bypass, and the remainder are
oriented southward.
• Orange Grove Road and Mebane Oaks Road experience smaller increases from traffic that would have
headed north to 1-40 or used rural roads (such as Arthur-Minnis and Bradshaw Quarry)for east-west trips.
Some of these trips appear to be shifted from Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road, Union Grove Church Road, and
even M.L.K.Jr Boulevard. Minor traffic increases occur on segments of Eubanks, Bethel-Hickory Grove
Church, Butler, and White Cross Roads.
• Both the Build and No-Build scenarios exceed the capacity of the 2-lane existing roadway across a range of
growth rate estimates.
Volume Reductions
• Overall,traffic reductions resulting from the proposed NC 54 widening are more dispersed than the traffic
increases.There is a noticeable reduction in east-west traffic along Arthur-Minnis, Bradshaw Quarry, and
New Hope Church Roads. North-south traffic on Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road and Old Fayetteville Road also
decreases.The most significant decrease is 800 vehicles/day along the segment of Old NC 86 between
Dairyland/Homestead Roads and Old Fayetteville Road. Minor reductions occur on portions of Old
Greensboro, Dairyland,Albert, and Union Grove Church Roads, as well as M.L.K.Jr Boulevard. Reductions
to 1-40 traffic, although larger in absolute terms, represent less than 1%of average daily traffic.
Other
• Some feedback questioned whether volumes on rural roads such as Arthur-Minnis and Bradshaw Quarry
would actually increase in response to increased congestion on NC 54, given the nature of these roads.
While there is no way to be absolutely certain,these are the findings based on the Triangle Regional Model,
developed and approved by NCDOT and local agencies for use in transportation planning.These findings
appear reasonable in light of relative travel times and distances. However, if future traffic does not divert to
these roads, most of it would remain on NC 54, with a portion shifting to 1-40. In that case,traffic volumes
on NC 54 would be even higher in the No-Build scenario than in our analysis,while volumes in the Build
scenario would be the same. The end result would be a smaller difference in volumes between the Build
and No-Build scenarios.
HISTORICAL TRENDS
Historical trend analysis is not especially useful in forecasting traffic volumes along this segment of NC 54. Attempts
were made to correlate changes in annual average daily traffic (AADT) along the Orange County portion of NC 54 to
population changes in the vicinity of the corridor.The only consistent population estimates available are for
counties, municipalities, and townships from 2009 through 2017.
Figure 15 shows the jurisdictions used for population estimates.These areas are generally too large for the purposes
of this type of analysis, and neither the estimates nor the AADTs appear to be precise enough. Lagged correlations
did not perform significantly better. In aggregate, however, populations and AADTs were generally consistent, with
population growing by 16%and AADTs by 15% between 2009 and 2017 (see Figure 16). Based on TRM and PTRM
forecasts (and consistent with NC OSBM forecasts), populations in these jurisdictions are estimated to increase by
42% between 2017 and 2045.This study forecasts a corresponding 40% increase in traffic on the Orange County
portion of the NC 54 West study corridor(see Figure 17).
Observations
• Although population and traffic volume trends could not be strongly correlated on an annual or time-series
basis, overall growth rate trends are reasonably consistent.
TRANSIT
There is currently no fixed-route transit service along NC 54 west of Old Fayetteville Road.To gain a better
understanding of historical transit service,future transit plans, and anticipated effects of emerging transportation
technologies, interviews were conducted with four transit agencies in the region, with emphasis on fixed-route
service,versus paratransit:
• Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART)
• Link Transit (Burlington/Alamance County)
• Chapel Hill Transit(CHT)
• GoTriangle
Because of the significant role UNC-CH and UNC Hospitals play in local and regional transit(as well as traffic and
parking), representatives from these institutions were also consulted. Figure 18 depicts transit routes by agency in
the region, as well as locations of relevant existing and proposed park-and-ride lots.
PART
The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART), offers service on the Alamance Burlington Express
(Route 4) between Alamance County and UNC Hospitals. Route 4 is one of PART's most popular routes due in part to
UNC GoPass holders commuting to campus.This route used to run along NC 54 until late 2013, but the routing
switched to 1-40 due to congestion along NC 54 impacting travel-time reliability and the addition of the Mebane Park
& Ride Lot. One of the determinants PART uses in its route selection is congestion along the proposed corridor.
Congestion along a route can affect travel time reliability and schedule adherence. This is especially critical when
connecting to other transit routes; Route 4 provides a transfer to GoTriangle's ODX route. Another reason for PART's
decision to use 1-40 is to serve Alamance Community College and Mebane Cone Health.
Route 4 continues to grow in ridership, with standing room only during some peak periods runs. Every two years,
PART undertakes a system wide analysis and examines its routes and potential adjustments.According to the FY
2020-2029 STIP, PART will be receiving funds to increase Route 4 frequency.
LINK
While Link Transit does not provide transit service to UNC, it does operate fixed-route service in the northern
portion of the study area.The Orange Route services Graham and crosses the north-western portion of the corridor
on 1-40. The two stops in the corridor's vicinity are a park-and-ride lot (located at Hwy 87 and Crescent Square Drive)
and Alamance Community College.The Orange Route has been one of Link Transit's most productive routes with the
top five stops for the system occurring in Graham. Link Transit would like to expand service further into Graham and
Mebane, but needs additional funding or partnerships to implement expanded service.The northern portion of the
NC 54 corridor has potential to support fixed-route transit with continued increases in residential density and
employment centers, like the Honda Manufacturing plant.
Chapel Hill Transit and UNC
The NC 54 West corridor serves east-west travel to and from UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals. Figures 19 and 20
show residence locations for UNC-CH and UNC Hospital employees, based on the UNC-CH Development Plan, 2017
TIA Update. (Locations are not precise, but representational.) Figure 21 (also from the UNC-CH Development Plan,
2017 TIA Update) indicates that just under 2,000 employees (or 12.4%of total employment) are in the sector
assigned to the NC 54 West corridor.This number is a rough estimate, however. The travelshed analysis described
above suggest that many of these employees actually use 1-40, and that some use NC 87. Between 750 and 1450
employee residences are estimated to fall within the travelshed depicted in Figure 1, with most the uncertainty
concentrated in the easternmost end of the travelshed. The potential market for a UNC-oriented transit service
along the NC 54 west corridor falls somewhere in this range.
Park-and-ride lots serving UNC Chapel Hill have long helped reduce demand for on-campus parking, as well as
providing an alternative to reduce personal vehicle use.To help support their fare-free transit system, Chapel Hill
Transit began charging for the use of their park-and-ride lots in 2013. Chapel Hill Transit Park-and-Ride Permits are
available at a daily rate of$2, a monthly rate of$21, or an annual rate of$250. Chapel Hill Transit operates four
park-and-ride locations serving commuters coming from the western portion of the region to campus.Table 1
(below) details the Chapel Hill Transit Park-and-Ride lots, which are also depicted in Figure 18.
While parking demand has fallen for the westernmost park-and-ride lots (Jones Ferry and Carrboro Plaza), demand
has risen for the northern park-and-ride along NC 86 (Eubanks Road) and the southern park-and-ride lot along US
15-501 (Southern Village). While the percent of commuters within each respective corridor is similar, utilization is
not. One key reason appears to be the enhanced service level provided by the NS route compared to those routes
serving the Jones Ferry and Carrboro Plaza.The NS Route operates all day with headways as little as ten minutes
during the peak.This level of service frees commuters from having to plan their journey around a bus schedule.
Commuters have the flexibility to arrive at a park-and-ride at a time of their choosing, knowing the next bus will be
coming shortly.This pattern suggests commuters coming from the west pass by the Carrboro Plaza and Jones Ferry
Park-and-Ride lots in favor of the Southern Village Park-and-Ride (and to a lesser extent,the Eubanks Park-and-Ride)
to take advantage of enhanced transit service.
Table 1: Chapel Hill Transit Park and Ride(data from UNC Chapel Hill Development Plan—TIA Update)
Park-and-Ride Routes Number of Fall 2013 Fall 2015 Fall 2017 %of Total
Lot Served Spaces Utilization Utilization Utilization Commuters
in Corridor
Eubanks Road NS, CRX 400 185 188 216 12.1%
(GoTriangle)
Jones Ferry CM, CW and JFX 443 132 102 86
11.4%
Carrboro Plaza CPX and CW 145 52 30 24
Southern Village NS and V 400 272 260 325 11.7%
The Town of Chapel Hill is in the process of designing the North-South Bus Rapid Transit.This system will run
between the Eubanks Road Park-and-Ride and the Southern Village Park-and-Ride, providing frequent all-day service
to downtown Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals. Bus rapid transit(BRT) elements such as dedicated lanes,traffic signal
priority, and high capacity transit vehicles,will further increase level of service and convenience for those choosing
to park-and-ride from Southern Village or Eubanks to ride the North-South BRT. These enhancements will increase
the appeal for those previously using Carrboro Park-and-Ride or the Jones Ferry Park-and-Ride to reroute their trip
to one of the BRT stations for the premium transit service provided by BRT.
The Draft Chapel Hill Transit:Short Range Transit Plan provides short-term recommendations to improve bus
routing and frequency on key routes, while remaining cost neutral.The Plan also lays out a set of unfunded
improvements. Several desirable service upgrades were identified that could not be achieved within the existing
budget. One such improvement was the West NC 54 Route, which would provide new weekday peak-only service
from White Cross along the NC 54 corridor to UNC Chapel Hill. This route adds approximately ten route-miles per
trip, and is proposed to run at 70-minute headways during peak periods only, Monday through Friday, at an
additional annual operating cost of$154,000.
One alternative suggested for a park-and-ride at White Cross could be the Henry Anderson III Community Park in
Carrboro. However, a park-and-ride lot does not appear to be compatible with park operations, given current
parking demands.
Emerging Technologies
Emerging technologies continue to redefine transit and the micro-mobility industry while providing alternatives to
traditional fixed route transit service.Transit companies in the region continue to explore the possibilities of on-
demand service and its potential to best meet the agencies goals at a reduced cost compared to fixed route service.
Beginning in August, GoTriangle is partnering with Uber and Lyft to subsidize Ride Sharing trips up to ten dollars if it
connects with one of the GoTriangle bus routes within the Research Triangle Park. GoDurham's long term transit
vision also includes "on-demand zones" where GoDurham will subsidize ride sharing trips connecting to their transit
service.The on-demand type trips are viewed as being most effective where traditional fixed route service may not
be efficient as well as when the on-demand trip connects with high frequency transit. PART has also tested on-
demand shuttles around Piedmont Triad International Airport but reverted to fixed route shuttles when on-demand
ridership did not meet expectations. On-demand style shuttles are best used when looking to replace a costly, low-
ridership, inefficient route to soften the financial burden while still providing service coverage to an area.
Transit agencies continue to face a constrained funding environment and must make tough decisions on trade-offs.
Extending transit service along NC 54 would provide additional coverage to an area previously unserved and thus
would create the possibility for new trips. However, given limited resources, extending service further west from
Carrboro limits other opportunities, such as providing more frequent service on core routes with higher ridership.
Observations
• As indicated in Table 1,the current supply of park-and-ride spaces serving traffic from the west (including
the NC 54 West corridor) is underutilized.
• Convenience and frequency of service seem to be significant factors in attracting park-and-ride patrons,
favoring park-and-ride lots along the planned BRT route. This limits traffic reduction benefits along NC 54
west.
• UNC and Chapel Hill Transit support park-and-ride and other transit options in the NC 54 west corridor.
However, low ridership potential and long routes limit the cost-effectiveness of this service relative to other
transit investments.
• Focusing on improvements to higher-demand transit corridors—including BRT—could be a more productive
and cost-effective overall strategy than shifting limited resources to the NC 54 West corridor,given its lower
densities, smaller market, and longer route lengths.
• UNC-CH and UNC Hospital are not planning substantial increases in parking capacity. Travel demand
management (TDM) policies are being implemented to encourage and support a mode shift away from
single-occupant vehicles and towards to transit, biking,walking, and ridesharing. These efforts will be most
productive—and cost-effective—in denser corridors with efficient transit service and/or shorter trip
distances. Limited impacts can be expected in the NC 54 west corridor,given the relatively lower
concentration of trip ends and longer travel distances. Ridesharing and park-and-ride appear to be the most
promising options in this corridor.
• As an important public institution serving the State of North Carolina (and beyond), UNC Hospital must be
accessible to a broad range of patients, visitors, and others.A balance of convenient access by both transit
and automobile must be maintained.
• Although UNC-CH and UNC Hospital are significant contributors to traffic using the NC 54 West corridor,
these trips are only part of the volumes on NC 54. As the region grows,these trips will represent a shrinking
share of NC 54 West traffic. The biggest sources of new traffic on NC 54 West appear to be growth in
Alamance and Chatham Counties, along with overall growth in Orange County.
' II
■ Brti 57
Lahmon Rdt
70
70
S'M�" � wss[•T�n� ��� �
62 c r f
I�
wf _
Ir
R� 7
64
ry 1 b.❑' v
51 0%SIM'% �I
73
It
Y
49p�c1�� �y TL 1 � ��¢'Ral �,n WYiRifeldRd
4 SO
anio
f'raens _; `i I HIl'Rd' / yorim'F r
1 1 1
r� pJtl G[B91'1ebClaall
.Rd. R�
t �� ti U1 Rd a /
7 { ti f � ! f,
" t �„y spa
did�3mf+3Y_.- ZT �4 4 �' 70
Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Maps ■ ��+tL as
*VhbFigure 1: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Chapel Hill
0 1 2 4 Aviles
I
■ Bti r37
FX-
�I•/ � � L CAL
_ ZI ]
I lf� 70
62
l i �11t� -PG gl� _ F� lib
+ 119
87 Y 9 54 r��� Ro i�� � e`` — n
Malt"
a �Q }r A!Ihur M nls Fitl
49
aa
rr- l �.`^- "�E � �gtS�4B�n�43Qy4 R� 7" ✓� �3 1 ,; —
kg l_ g�Y FLC } I !•1�17it
�-
5
J.g} Ci tiI'fL� �4i. � �{�.r t1 a1 J l�.�Q'� .r 4' + �'Y r_ •'�
Sa'-Y' yJ dl f
°elHER ���F15
all
1 ti U1 Rd
Rd
L
did 6imfRY-.-� �� � 3 cis
Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Maps ■ � iS!tL ,�, � _ 'a
loVhbFigure 2: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Southern Village
0 1 2 4 Aviles
' II
■ Brti 57
LJahmon Rd t
70
,X 7i�
r
Nr, wss[•T�n� 4 �
� m
62 r 1 f r f C
87 Ex
� r _
:�
a � •.�yr � % � q� ��{"� Amur MJnnlsFitl I �-
p' &Rd j5 W F Rfield Rd �
49 �� f oavri ri r
ia�
raensy `s l HER
1
�ll
.. ;Yh
Rd
tom . -i pang#Zd
did OamfR 4 `� cD.
Derived from relative historical travel times for 5 PM weekday,per Google Maps L
• er '
SIL
r
"VhbFigure 3: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Burlington
0 1 2 4 Mules
j I Roxboro Henderson
Oxford
►d I
►49\
►J
ti
J
�::yy Hittrel!
IG� Stem 15
ossipee ,r, I
Green Butner
I creedmoor u
,
q�� Level ►J
Elon \ Haw River �� tv Fell Frankllnton Louisburg
Burlington Meba
r!}y HiBstiarough
Graham I
►�'
.4larnance Swepsonvilte� \,
IYoungWlle
Durham ►
Wake Forest
�o
{—'Cargo Chapel HIII Rolesville
i i •�� -_.sus�.'�x.��
Morrisville.
I ,
►5i � � 2ebulon
I Raleigh Knlghtdale
Cary �y Wendell
�213
t
\i
® Apex
Streetlight Data Cowfage Area Plttabom
Project Study Area Iu� Garner n il u
\/ Miles
,' h
Figure 4: Streetlight Insight Dataset Coverage
\
�
b#ac m 9 H.Dme5 w
f
A
I �
ƒ �
= Q
54 \
\ ,jM
® , ^ C%b
. �
z �
®-adG_ns Rd-
Figure /«
`%hb S: NC 54 Corridor r $r Llgh O Hg|n-DeS|nation Anal sis
0 0.3 0.6 12 Miles
Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution (Streetlight Insight Data)
Teer� '
Dairyiand-Rd �
J .Mac-% - $
� � g Nome t�Rd u
100% 1% oy ° <1%
1/0 7/
54
7/o
2% 700 12%, sr
5 °o
ygties��Rd �r
�Old Greepsboro-Fzd- Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
f Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
7Q Bo p driveways along a segment of NC 54
VhbFigure 6: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
AM Peak Vehicle-Trip Distribution (StreetLight InSight Data) F1
Teer�
Dairyiand-Rd
J ' -Mac-Rd - $
Rd u
<1 �� 4% .
�� <1% �a
100% <1% '<1% 2% o
o <1
64 <1% <1%' j F
<1% � ~
3%
6 /.
ygties��Rd �r
�Old Greepsboro-Fzd- Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
f Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
7Q Bo p driveways along a segment of NC 54
VhbFigure 7: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution (Streetlight Insight Data)
Teer '
Dairyiand-Rd �
J .M - - $
Nome t�Rd
� u
�A
1% o � -
2 oo <1 0 0•'
54 2/0 <1%
2% $ N
f
2Y 4�0 sr
54 � f�
/ 2
ygties��Rd �r
�Old Greepsboro-Fzd- Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
f Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
7Q Bo p driveways along a segment of NC 54
VhbFigure 8: Origin-Destination Analysis — West Main St East of NC 54 Bypass
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
Dail Vehicle-Trip Distribution Streetli ht InSi ht Data
Y p � g g )
Teer Rd�
Dairy�and-Rd
Rd �
�A
0
<1°
C11-
54 <1% 1% ° <1%- ' 38% �° �
2:50%
10' ��'•sr
0 .
100%
•Old Greensboro Fed Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
— f
Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
7Q Bo p driveways along a segment of NC 54
VhbFigure 9: Origin-Destination Analysis —NC 54 Bypass South of West Main St
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
Figure 10a: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045)
57
! , l •J 'k, •� •y. a. \ • a • fL.T�,-{. i• - �`•n -'�_ �.a tea;• a �,1,� I _ � f�•,•�r '�•a 4i1,, - ,1
501
r- '• /d91 -�i• .. � ''`-- j1.' r/_ • fir• •��,:�
70
119
'' - "=J, S '• • - ` /� '� _+ •. • --aa •aid
ice_ • �.ti. ,; •'i , . !�•! •dW .I r.:e•
•' � 54
• �s ,
51
147
'• �r .' i• _ ,. •• #ram y3L-• 1
+19 of !+ r � 15 - _�If ��•' }•'� � �l
9 1 2 4 Mles NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamanre and orange Counties
B Mile Pmped Buffer
4 P.ject Comdor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Soho-Eco"rnir Data[2013-2045]
• 1 Dot=100 Source Info:NCDOT,VH8•NCOneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Population2017
Figure 10b: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045)
• • •• • \ •• . ' • _ • • • ' l �' , ■a • . pry.. • �
• • . '�' _. /ash ��'• . " •• !�,--- - ��. F f f_ �,:� .
TO
70
• , - � a •• . - • • "•/` - � _: •. • •-aa •aid
147
62
f �-
N-)40
�-� jam^ ..`5 � .�• ', - � r1r J �rr '+'y � � r ' f '� ��'i"� �l
+19 of �' ,.l � t • � S '--- +--------� �.��1• � ••*I \5 ��ra'"'�y �
• � s- l
91 2 4 Mles NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and orange Counties
B Mile Project Buffer
Project Comdor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Sodo-Eeorwmic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=100 Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,NCOneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Population 2017
Figure 10c: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045)
- ��h • ti� '-r,,_._• 't i - -� ' �t `1 •� •tom..
11 - I
tip- ..•f .�i�••.-� �'• • 49 • • .. � � F r •
TO
• • S 70 t r
• - ` - ~'�aa y r^��+ • ` ••/� _ 'l _: .. • •-aa •aid
119
54
147
70
62
'{� �-■'. � •? •! `,,55�f yr a
• .. - - k;
,
'�. f• J' •'fir ,d sly s •. •��t�.y ���� �•_�,,- _
--- -- azzy'••} ems ' {`-- _ �� • ._ -,�� .�i.• •: .,� �� . yf. ''�...,,�t
• I -�
I r' ti .ti iY• ,
pp-
9 1 2 4 Mles NC 34 West Corridor Study Alamance and orange Counties
B Mile Project Buffer
4 Poject Comdor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Sodo-ECO"MIC Data(2013-2045)
- 1 Dot=10a Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,NCOneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Population 2017
Figure 11a: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045)
501
y;
•'e' •¢+r••'�r� •i+,• • ti.• -� 70 - w •f``- . ' ay '•'. * � 15J
70
54
61
.N
iS540
�. . ' . • i—�..a 5�`. ••i
J r i '--tip •` ..•;ti
1 2 4MUU NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Prbj dL buffer
�Praject Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Sod*-Eeonomie Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VH9,NCOneMap.
• Employment2017to2045 Alamance County.Orange County
Employment 2017
Figure 11b: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045)
y. 5!j4 70
501
r, 2;... 221 f. �.r47.
? .{� �. . •~ t om•-
-Lill
54
61 f �~
147
•• • ,•t70
f { t • �'ry F" T i
54
116
' ` • _ f f f 5d0 U
J - � i '--ti� •` • " ..ply
a 1 2 4MUU NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Prbj dL buffer
�Pmject Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Soria-Economic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VH9,NCCineMap,
• Employment2017Lo204E Alamance County,Orange County
Employment 2017
Figure 11c: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045)
70
21
501
•i is
54
61
.N
14
62
'.Y 551=� i
+ { • • •.7 F.. t
IWI•► ,
1 2 4MUU NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Pebj dL buffer
�Pmject Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2045 TRIM!&PTRM Soda-Economic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VH9,NCOneMap.
• Employment2017to2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Employment 2017
Dail Vehicle-Trip Distribution TRM � �
� Y p � )
Teer
Dairyiand-Rd �
J .Mac-% Not�Rd
- $
� � g me u
2%
100% <1% �� �� 5/ � �a
° 2% �� � o
54
<1% r ° ~
-7% f
2%0% 25%
54 of
• Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Old Greepsboro-Fzd- ?1 1 Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
• Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
driveways along a segment of NC 54
f bo y. C
' � Figure 12: TRM Select Link Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
r + C er�ana Rd 11�0
c I -40Un
p
� 5
r +150 00
L
VI�oa1
00 - o
.Tees
rc.� i i Yvesd
-250
t
-XXX Vehicle/day reduction due to NC 54 x '�
widening I300 Hoar +200 `
+XXX Vehicle/day increase due to NC 54 x ` frt
widening
XXX* Manually adjusted to compensate for
TRM over-assignment to West Main St I -150 � 11 +1000* _J
NOTE: Only differences>100 veh/day are shown X�
Yellow indicates roads in TRM network with
<100 veh/day change between Build&No Build r
hb Figure 13: TRM — Daily Traffic Differences between 2045 NC 54 Widened and No-Build Scenarios
35,000 4-Lane Divided Capacity*
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) West of Old Fayetteville
30,000
25,000 -
,ncrea5e duer" � --
20,000
15,000
2-Lane Capacity*
10,000
5,000 _
■Historical 1.5%Growth ■1.0-%Growth
6
2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Figure 14: Relative Impacts of Traffic Shifts due to NC 54 Widening
Haw River
Township
[5]
Burlington � Cheeks Hillsborough
Township 70 Township Township Eno Township
Melville 70
Township
�9
sz
Graham
Township
54
Coble 87 86
Township
491 Thompson
Township
Albright
Township
Bingham Chapel Hill
Township Township
54
Patterson
Township Newlin
Township
15
'ems°Vh Figure 15: Areas Included in Population-AADT Correlation Analysis
1.16
1.14
P GP-
•
•
1.12 40
•
•
•
1.10 •
r
.6040
00
o �
1.0$ AV
�
LO
O
•
1.06
Ow
do do dW No
1
I
1.04
I
I
1
I
1 02
l
1.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
-Roads Sum — Combined Population
Figure 16: Comparison of Historical Population and AADT Aggregations
1.70
♦
i
1.60 ♦ ♦ ♦•
I ♦
I
I ♦
I ♦
I ♦
I ♦
1.50
I ♦
I ♦
I ♦
1.40
♦
� I ♦
1.3D
I ♦
1.20 �0
or
I
1.1D
1.00
2009 2014 ?019 2024 2029 2D34 2039 2044
Roads Sum -Combined Population
Figure 17: Comparison of Aggregated Population and AADT Forecasts
n
Green Level
16;
Elon Burlington Haw River �� r
Gibson`irille Mebane
Graham 141li115611)rough
B IN
Alamance Swepsonville
$% 1 Carrboro Chapel Hill
Ci
Park and Ride Lots
❑ Existing
V PropOSEd �i
Transit Route
,INK
PART
-Chapel Hill Tra nsA
GaTryen9le
2 1
Onge CoPo huc Tre nsit 0 f
Miles
ra
Figure 18: Transit Routes and Park-&-Ride Lots 'Vhb]
• r ' 158
t 'a 70
{ r• � � r f�``Ftf,}. '�1' �♦ •!• � # � ice. � � # `
TP
40
49
401
i ti' .. '• �, •S 'Js * F � �* ••'tie.�' r'r a' ` -
• �•• _ :..+. �.L! At t-
+• • r ' +' •«1,�(; «'"��' ���'rA: `i - .•' •�fti i� ` •y.r •- - r
421
e��*
AI
15
70
• UNC-CH Employees • - ': ~, + •401 a
• Hospital Employees46
, }
• Source:UNC-CH Development Plan,2017TIA Update
.#Vhb Figure 19: Regional Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
57
1 '. - 3' L 1.L'�L
119
62J
87 `54 86
49
•• � •s •s. fib• �L +�•,
• UNC-CH Employees ` :•f 5 ','
• Hospital Employees
Source:UNC-CH Development Plan,2017 TIA Update
I4M
Yhb Figure 20: Study Area Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
'I f
Approach Corridors
i Study Area
Bell Tower
Highway
Employees 1n Approach
01,993
24.8 939
3 2,331
0 3,906
13.1% 01,949
2.958 02,058
- 07,713
71
MA
G%
12.7% 939
1,993
f
Figure 21: Proportion of UNC-CH and Hospital
1 Employees by Commute Corridor (2017)
�111
Source:UNC-CH Development Plan,2017TIA Update
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 16, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.a.
SUBJECT: FY 19-20 Orange County Budget Appropriation for Sidewalk Study
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. High School Principal Message Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
2. Excerpt FY 2019-20 County Budget Supervisor, 919-245-2579
Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
919-245-2582
PURPOSE: Receive information on available monies to complete a sidewalk study of Orange
Grove and New Brady School Roads to help devise a strategy to mitigate pedestrian safety
concerns and next steps.
BACKGROUND: In 2003, the Town of Hillsborough and OC adopted an Orange Grove Access
Management Plan that identified the need for pedestrian improvements on Orange Grove Road
and New Grady Brown School Road. Pedestrian improvements were also identified in the
County's Safe Routes to School Plan (2014), which was adopted by the OC School Board,
Town, and County. The County has attempted implementation of a variety of projects through
the State's prioritization processes (SPOT) for projects to be included in the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) but has not been successful in obtaining funding.
Although there are some grant sources for funding pedestrian projects, they have not been
actively pursued due to prerequisite local match requirements, as well as uncertainty over
sidewalk maintenance responsibilities.
In addition to the regular discussions and updates provided to the OUTBoard during its annual
goal setting and reporting of activities to the BOCC and biannual discussion of County
transportation priorities, the OUTBoard has received meeting notes from the County's
luncheons with NCDOT staff to keep the Board informed. Planning and its Engineering staff
have continued its research and discussions with NCDOT and completed cost estimates for
sidewalks (2,050 LF) along the north side of Orange Grove Road earlier this year. Including
20% contingency, construction costs are estimated at $823,901 with an additional $115,346
estimated for surveying and design. This estimate does not address the need for a pedestrian
bridge or receiving sidewalks on the southwest side of 1-40 and sidewalks at the schools. In
2010/2011, a feasibility study included a cost estimate of approximately $400,000 for a
pedestrian bridge. The County pursued funding through the SPOT/STIP process in 2013 but
the project scored very poorly through the quantitative process and was not funded. The lack of
receiving sidewalks for any pedestrian bridge has long been cited by NCDOT staff as an
obstacle to funding.
Minor safety improvements that have been completed include the installation of fencing along
the bridge over 1-40 and a reduction in the speed limit along the Orange Grove Road corridor
from 45-MPH to 40-MPH. NCDOT, at the request of the County, has also studied the Oakdale
Drive/Orange Grove Road intersection for congestion and safety improvements. In 2015,
NCDOT conducted a test, placing temporary All-way stop signs at the intersection. As a result,
it was determined that an All-way stop treatment was not viable for this location and a signalized
intersection would be needed. Requests to consider the inclusion of sidewalks on the Cedar
Ridge High School campus, as part of its classroom wing expansion project, were heard but
unsuccessful due to funding limitations.
Pedestrian Struck by Vehicle: On Monday, September 9, 2019, a pedestrian with an age-17
restricted driver's license, was struck by a motor vehicle on Orange Grove Road. The accident
occurred at 2:13 pm at a location 160' toward 1-40 from Oakdale Drive, in the vicinity of the
bridge over 1-40. The pedestrian is a student at Cedar Ridge High School and suffered a broken
arm, while walking home from school, as a result of the accident. Subsequently, the School
Principal issued a message strongly encouraging students to refrain from walking to and from
school as there is not a safe area for them to do so (Attachment 1).
County Budget and Next Steps: In response to the Planning Department's budget request and
the County Manager's recommended budget (Attachment 2), the BOCC approved up to $50,000
for consulting services to complete a sidewalk study of Orange Grove and New Brady School
Roads to help devise a strategy to mitigate pedestrian safety concerns. Since the budget was
passed in June 2019, County staff has received additional information from Town of
Hillsborough staff stating its inability to maintain sidewalks outside of its incorporated area
based on State law. Planning staff received direction to develop a scope of services and
initiate the consultant procurement process in September 2019.
Over the course of the next few weeks, Orange County staff will be meeting with staff
representatives from NCDOT, Orange County Schools, and the Town of Hillsborough to discuss
the Orange Grove Road corridor and safety concerns to help inform the development of a
Scope of Services for a consultant. County Transportation Planning staff is also coordinating
with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization to establish a
financial and planning partnership for the study.
At this time, staff anticipates that the study may include but not necessarily be limited to:
• Study area along Orange Grove Road from Patriots Point Drive to New Grady Brown
School Road intersection and along New Grady Brown School Road to capture the
school properties
• Data collection and analysis
• Collection and summary of existing reports, studies, plans and recommendations
• Short and long-term recommendations, including cross-sections, for on and off-road
improvements to improve pedestrian safety
• Cost estimates, feasibility, and recommendations for funding implementation
• Public involvement at early stages and when a draft is available
• Presentations to the Orange County BOCC and School Board
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends the OUTBoard receive the information and offer
any suggestions on items to be addressed through a Scope of Work for consulting services.
Tom Altieri
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL MAIL!] Fwd: 9/9 Safety Precaution
A message from CEDAR RIDGE HIGH
Good Evening,
Afterschool a student was hit by a car while walking home. CRHS Staff, Orange County Schools Staff, EMS
and the Sheriff department worked together to attend to the students' medical needs. The student was
transported to the hospital after he was given medical attention for his non-life threatening injuries.
We strongly encourage students to refrain from walking to and from school as there is not a safe area for them
to do so. Bus transportation is available for students who do not have an alternative method of transportation. If
your child is in need of bus transportation please contact the school to make that request
Thank you,
Intisar Hamidullah
Principal
Cedar Ridge High School
This e-mail has been sent to you by CEDAR RIDGE HIGH.To maximize their communication with you,you may be receiving this e-mail in
addition to a phone call with the same message.If you no longer wish to receive email notifications from CEDAR RIDGE HIGH,please click here to
unsubscribe.
To view the CEDAR RIDGE HIGH privacy policy,please click here.
1
Government appropriation is recommended to grow from $9.9 million in FY2018-19 to $10.5 million in FY2019-
20. The Budget recommends the following initiatives in General Government functions.
• County Attorney
In FY2018-19, 0.5 FTE Senior Staff Attorney was assigned to be the Director of Human Rights and Relations.
Due to workload pressures, the County Attorney requested to restore this staff capacity to hire a new 0.5
FTE Staff Attorney to specialize in litigation. The FY2019-20 Budget restores this capacity and adds $19,200
to maintain Staff Attorney capacity during an anticipated parental leave.
• County Manager—Information Security Officer&Sidewalk Study
The County Manager's Budget adds 1.0 FTE to serve as the County's cyber security officer, starting in
January of 2020. The County's recent experience with sophisticated malware highlighted the importance of
having a staff resource dedicated to cyber and data security both on the computer network and throughout
County operations. As part of the County Manager's Office, the position will have the full support of County
leadership as well as an indirect line of responsibility to Information Technology. The Budget adds $54,300
in operating funds to support this position. During the Capital Budget Amendment process, an amendment
will be requested to provide an additional $350,000 in to purchase hardware and software to harden the
County defenses to data security threats.
The Unified Transportation Board completed a work plan for Safe Routes to Schools. This plan identified the
need for pedestrian options for students. Since several Orange County Schools are located outside of Town
boundaries, the County has been attempting to devise a strategy to mitigate pedestrian safety concerns.
The County Manager's base budget included $50,000 for program evaluation studies. This funding will be
reallocated to retain a consultant to evaluate options specifically along Orange Grove Road.
• Board of Elections
The 2019-20 Fiscal Year will feature three Countywide elections, municipal, primary, and second primary.
Recommended Operating Budget for the Board of Elections increases by over $226,000 in personnel and
operating costs to reflect the administration of three Countywide elections during FY2019-20.
• Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners
The Clerk's Budget anticipates facilitator expenses of$2,500 to assist with the pilot intergovernmental work
group process. As the facilitator time commitment for these meetings become defined, this amount of
funding may have to be revisited.
• Register of Deeds
Due to current trends,the Register of Deeds recommended a decrease of$125,000 in excise stamp revenue.
This revenue is based on the sale price of a real estate transaction. The decrease could be due to a
reduction in large, commercial sales.
• Tax Administration
The Tax Administration Recommended Budget begins to prepare for the 2021 revaluation. It includes
$26,000 for independent appraisal services for commercial properties as well as$21,100 to maintain staffing
capacity during anticipated parental leaves next year. The Budget also funds NC Property Tax System
enhancements at a cost of$35,000.
7
15
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TIP/WBS# Description Let/Start CompletionDate Date Cost Status Project Lead
SS-4907BS Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of US70 and 5/31/2017 Jul. 2019 $40,500 R/W Construction underway, Tentatively schedule Dawn McPherson
44894.2.1 SR 1114(Buckhorn Road) East of Mebane. $43,200 CON to flash signal 6/14/19
44894.3.1
47798 Increase length of existing turn lane/slip ramp and improve 1/17/2019 Jul. 2019 $189,000 Construction underway-90%complete,final Derek Dixon
existing radius in the SE quadrant of US 70 Business/NC 86 pavment markings pending
at US 70 Bypass in Hillsborough
U-5846 Construct a roundabout at SR 1772 (Greensboro Street)and 5/2/2019 3/1/2022 $3,375,611 Project let and contract awarded to Fred Chad Reimakoski
50236.1.1 SR 1780(Estes Drive)in Carrboro. Smith Company
50236.2.1
50236.3.1
B-4962 Replace Bridge#46 over Eno river on US 70 Bypass 4/16/2019 12/28/2021 $4,863,757 Project let and contract awarded to Conti Kevin Fischer
�40174,1,1 Enterprises, Inc.
40174.2.1
40174.3.1
W-5707K Remove and replace existing curb&gutter and sidewalk, 5/31/2019 Sept.2019 $350,000 ROW acquisition underway, construction Chris Smitherman
48283 add pedestrian signals, concrete island, and signal underway in areas of existing ROW Derek Dixon
modifications on SR 1010(E. Main St/W. Franklin St)from
Brewer Ln to Graham St. in Chapel Hill and Carrboro
U-5847 Intersection improvements at SR 1010(West Franklin St.) 5/31/2019 Sept.2019 $775,000 Planning and design activities underway, Chris Smitherman
50238.1.1 and SR 1771 (Merritt Mill Rd)/SR1927 (Brewer Lane)in bike/ped improvements to be completed
50238.2.1 Chapel Hill/Carrboro. under project 48283
50238.3.1
Page 1 DCHCMPO Jul.2019
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TIP/WBS# Description Let/Start CompletionDate Date Cost Status Project Lead
SS-4907CD Horizontal curve improvements on SR 1710(Old NC 10) 12/5/2019 Spring 2020 $261,000 Planning and design activities underway, Chad Reimakoski
47936.1.1 west of SR 1561/SR 1709 (Lawrence Road)east of ROW activities June/July 2019
47936.2.1 Hillsborough. Improvements consist of wedging pavement
47936.3.1 and grading shoulders.
W-5707C Revise pavement markings and overhead lane use signs for 12/19/2019 Apr. 2020 $395,000 No bids on most recent letting, Project on Chad Reimakoski
44853.1.3 removal of inside lane drop configuration on 1-40 Westbound hold until further notice
44853.3.3 in vicinity of US 15-501 interchange. Resurfacing 1-40 WB
47490 by use of contingency funds
I-3306A Widening 1-40 from I-85 in Orange Co.to Durham Co. line TBD TBD $88,100,000 Planning and design activities underway, Laura Sutton
34178.1.3 (US 15/501 Interchange) Public meeting 1/24/19, No schedule at this
34718.2.2 time other than CE document scheduled for
34178.3.3 3/29/19, Combined w/1-3306AC
P-5701 Construct Platform, Passenger Rail Station Building at 6/30/2021 FY2022 $7,200,000 PE funding scheduled 7/1/2020, Coordinate Matthew Simmons
46395.1.1 Milepost 41.7 Norfolk Southern H-line in Hillsborough with U-5848
46395.3.1
1-3306AC Interchange improvements at 1-40 and NC86 in Chapel Hill 10/19/2021 FY 2023 $16,500,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Laura Sutton
34178.1.6 Combined w/1-3306A
34178.2.5
434178.3.9
R-5821A Construct operational improvements including 6/21/2022 FY2024 $3,924,000 Planning and design activities underway, Chris Smitherman
47093.1.2 Bicycle/Pedestrian accommodations on NC 54 from SR coordinating with NC54 West Corridor Study
47093.2.2 1006 (Orange Grove Road)to SR 1107/SR 1937(Old
47093.3.2 Fayetteville Road).
U-5848 Extend SR 1006(Orange Grove Road)on new location with 3/21/2023 FY 2025 $5,326,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Laura Sutton
50237.1.1 Sidewalks and bike lanes from existing SR 1006 (Orange Coordinate with P-5701 and U-5845
50237.2.1 Grove Road)to US 70 Business in Hillsborough.
50237.3.1
Page 2 DCHCMPO Jul.2019
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT
TIP/WBS# Description Let/Start CompletionDate Date Cost Status Project Lead
1-5959 Pavement Rehabilitation on 1-85 from West of SR 1006 11/21/2023 FY 2025 $11,155,000 Funding approved 10/10/17, Coordinate with Chris Smitherman
45911.1.1 (Orange Grove Road)to Durham County line 1-5967, 1-5984 and 1-0305
45911.3.1
1-5967 Interchange improvements at 1-85 and SR 1009(South 1/16/2024 FY 2027 $20,700,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Laura Sutton
45917.1.1 Churton Street)in Hillsborough Coordinate with 1-0305 and U-5845
45917.2.1
45917.3.1
U-5845 Widen SR 1009(South Churton Street)to multi-lanes from 1- 1/16/2024 FY 2027 $49,751,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Laura Sutton
50235.1.1 40 to Eno River in Hillsborough Coordinate with U-5848 and 1-5967
50235.2.1
50235.3.1
1-5984 Interchange improvements at 1-85 and NC 86 in 11/18/2025 FY 2027 $16,488,000 Funding approved 10/10/17, Coordinate with Laura Sutton
47530.1.1 Hillsborough 1-0305 and 1-5959
47530.2.1
47530.3.1
U-6071 Intersection improvements at NC 54 and SR 1007 (Old 1/15/2026 FY 2027 $1,216,000 Project deleted per Draft 2020-2029 STIP Chris Smitherman
47496.1.1 Fayetteville Rd)in Carrboro (unfunded project)
47496.2.1
47496.3.1
1-5983 Widen 1-85 in Orange Co.from west of SR1713(Mt. Hermon 10/20/2026 FY2029 $53,460,000 Project deleted per Draft 2020-2029 STIP Laura Sutton
47529.1.1 Church Rd)to Durham Co. line and reinstate project 1-0305
47529.2.1
47529.3.1
1-0305 Widening of 1-85 from west of SR1006 (Orange Grove Road) 1/19/2027 FY2029 $133,400,000 Planning and design activities underway, Laura Sutton
34142.1.2 in Orange Co.to west of SR 1400 (Sparger Road)in Orange Project reinstated per Draft 2020-2029 STIP
34142.2.2 Co. (funded project)and delete project 1-5983
34142.3.2
Page 3 DCHCMPO Jul.2019
��oF KORrti�q90 Page 1 of 2
�P North Carolina Department of Transportation 07/23/2019
9r �� Active Projects Under Construction - Orange Co.
aQ.
�F�t ov raaNSP,,�
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
C202581 EB-4707A SR-1838/SR-2220 FROM US-15/501 IN S T WOOTEN Nordan,PE, $4,614,460.00 05/28/2019 02/15/2021 05/28/2019
ORANGE COUNTY TO SR-1113 IN CORPORATION James M
DURHAM COUNTY.
C203640 REPLACEMENT OF 4 BRIDGES IN HAYMES BROTHERS, Lorenz,PE,Kris $3,124,500.00 06/01/2015 11/01/2017 09/02/2015 04/29/2019 100.00 100.00
GUILFORD COUNTY AND 3 BRIDGES INC.
IN ORANGE COUNTY.
C203946 B-5348 BRIDGE#85 OVER PHIL'S CREEK ON DANE CONSTRUCTION Howell,Bobby J $984,596.98 02/01/2018 12/27/2018 02/01/2018 01/30/2019 99.00 92.33
SR-1005(OLD GREENSBORO ROAD). INC
C204025 1-5954 1-40/1-85 FROM EAST OF NC-54 IN APAC-ATLANTIC INC Howell,BobbyJ $9,699,053.68 04/01/2018 06/29/2019 04/29/2019 06/29/2019 96.00 40.48
GRAHAM IN ALAMANCE COUNTY TO THOMPSON ARTHUR
WEST OF SR-1114(BUCKHORN RD) DIVISION
IN ORANGE COUNTY.
C204078 B-4962 BRIDGE#46 OVER ENO RIVER ON CONTI ENTERPRISES, Howell,Bobby J $4,863,757.00 05/28/2019 12/28/2021 06/19/2019
US-70 BYPASS. INC
DG00393 SR 1101,SR 1118,SR 1119,SR 1124, RILEY PAVING INC Howell,Bobby J $1,084,520.40 04/02/2018 10/12/2018 06/18/2018 12/07/2018 100.00 99.97
SR 1125,SR 1127,SR 1128 SR 1130,
SR 1134,SR 1135,SR 1137,SR 1141,
SR 1143,ETC.
DG00395 BRIDGE#189 ON SR 1114 S T WOOTEN Howell,Bobby J $723,924.13 04/01/2018 01/01/2019 05/07/2018 02/07/2019 97.00 99.75
(BUCKHORN ROAD)OVER CANE CORPORATION
CREEK
DG00413 US 70 BUS,SR 1009,SR 1102,SR CAROLINA SUNROCK Howell,Bobby J $3,562,232.66 05/28/2018 11/01/2019 05/29/2018 11/01/2019 58.00 99.59
1129,SR 1239,SR 1352,SR 1716 AND LLC
SR 1841
DG00419 NC 86, 17 SECONDARY ROADS CAROLINA SUNROCK Howell,Bobby J $3,764,001.64 05/14/2018 11/01/2019 05/14/2018 11/01/2019 51.00 77.10
LLC
DG00435 22 SECONDARY ROADS WHITEHURST PAVING Howell,Bobby $846,340.66 04/01/2019 10/11/2019
CO INC
DG00444 R-5821B INTERSECTION IMPORVEMENTS AT FSC 11 LLC DBA FRED Howell,Bobby $1,039,900.00 07/16/2018 05/16/2019 08/13/2018 05/16/2019 100.00 99.94
THE INTERSECTION OF NC 54 AND SMITH COMPANY
SR 1006(ORANGE GROVE ROAD)
DG00445 R-5787BB INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT LITTLE MOUNTAIN Howell,Bobby J $319,319.80 06/25/2018 02/15/2020 08/06/2018 02/15/2020 100.00 92.94
CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS BUILDERS OF
INTERSECTIONS CATAW BA COUNTY
INC
DG00445 W-5707A INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT LITTLE MOUNTAIN Howell, Bobby J $319,319.80 06/25/2018 02/15/2020 08/06/2018 02/15/2020 100.00 92.94
CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS BUILDERS OF
INTERSECTIONS CATAW BA COUNTY
INC
DG00451 U-5854 SR 1008(MT.CARMEL CHURCH CAROLINA SUNROCK Howell,Bobby J $1,833,468.84 08/15/2018 04/30/2020 02/13/2019 11/30/2020 13.00 37.94
ROAD)AND SR 1913(BENNETT LLC
ROAD)ROUNDABOUT AND RELATED
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
DG00461 BRIDGE#031 ON SR 1010(E. M&J CONSTRUCTION Howell,Bobby J $2,456,272.12 11/12/2018 07/15/2019 03/15/2019 08/15/2019 54.00 19.64
FRANKLIN ST.)OVER BOLIN CREEK&CO OF PINELLAS
BOLIN CREEK TRAIL COUNTY INC
DG00462 BRIDGES 264,288,260,543 IN ELITE INDUSTRIAL Snell,PE,William$967,383.15 08/01/2019 01/01/2020
GUILFORD COUNTY AND BRIDGE 031 PAINTING INC H
IN ORANGE COUNTY
4
C i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ROY COOPER JAMEs H.TROGDON,III
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
TO: NCDOT Employees
FROM: James H. Trogdon,III,PE
Secretary
DATE: August 30,2019
SUBJECT: Complete Streets Policy uidance
Attached is the Department's updated Complete Streets Policy,adopted by the Board of
Transportation at the August meeting.This policy update is a result of nearly two years of careful
analysis,engagement with our partners and collaboration across units to understand and address
the challenges of delivering Complete Streets.Updating the Complete Streets Policy has been one
of my priorities since returning to the Department,and I am committed to ensuring the Policy is
implemented consistently across the state.
As we plan,design and construct the transportation network of the future,this policy update
represents the Department's ongoing commitment to safe,multi-modal transportation.The
attached Complete Streets Policy and Implementation Guide details my expectations for how
Complete Streets will be planned,prioritized,designed,constructed and maintained across the
state.My priority is to ensure that as a Department,we construct facilities that our communities
want,need and will use.
Effective immediately,Highway Division projects that have not yet completed an Environmental
Document will be expected to comply with the updated Policy. As we implement Complete
Streets,we will refine our guidance and the Complete Streets Technical Team formed to aid in
the development of the Policy update will continue to meet to oversee implementation.
cc: David Howard,Chief Deputy Secretary
Julie White,Deputy Secretary for Multi-Modal
Hanna Cockburn,AICP,Director of Integrated Mobility
Chris Werner,PE,Director of Technical Services,Division of Highways
Tim M.Little,PE,Chief Engineer
Division Engineers
Mailing Address: Telephone:(919)707-4685 Location:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Fax(919)733-1391 1 S WILMINGTON ST
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Customer Service(919)707-4670 RALEIGH NC,27601
1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NC 27601-1501 Website:www.ncdot.gov
OF NORTH C,q
� 90(v
COMPLETE STREETS NCDOT POLICY(#)
q IC
p A.09.0106
P
9 �hTOF TRANSQO/C
Business Category: Multi-Modal Business Area: Bicycle & Pedestrian Division
Approval Date: 8/8/2019 Last Revision Date: N/A Next Review Date: 8/8/20
Authority: Policy Owner:
Select all that apply: Bicycle & Pedestrian Division, Division
❑ N/A of Highways
❑x Requires Board approval
❑ Requires Federal Highways Administration(FHWA)approval
❑ Requires other external agency approval: Click here to enter external agency
nanne(s).
Definitions:
Complete Streets is North Carolina's approach to interdependent, multi-modal transportation networks that safely
accommodate access and travel for all users.
Policy:
Transportation, quality of life, and economic development are all undeniably connected through well-planned, well-
designed, and context-sensitive transportation solutions. To NCDOT, the designations "well-planned', "well-designed" and
"context-sensitive" imply that transportation is an integral part of a comprehensive network that safely supports the needs
of communities and the traveling public.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, in its role as steward over the transportation infrastructure, is
committed to:
• Enhancing safety for all transportation modes, in support of Vision Zero, a statewide program which aims to
eliminate roadway deaths and injuries using data-driven prevention strategies;
• Providing an efficient multi-modal transportation network in North Carolina such that the access, mobility, and
safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities are safely
accommodated;
• Caring for the built and natural environments by promoting sustainable development practices that minimize
impacts on natural resources, historic resources, businesses, residents, scenic and other community values,
while also recognizing that transportation improvements have significant potential to contribute to local, regional,
and statewide quality of life and economic development objectives;
• Working in partnership with local government agencies, interest groups, and the public to plan, fund, design,
construct, and manage complete street networks that sustain mobility through walking, biking, transit and driving.
This policy requires NCDOT planners and designers consider and incorporate multimodal facilities in the design and
improvement of all appropriate transportation projects in North Carolina. Routine maintenance projects may be excluded
from this requirement if an appropriate source of funding is not available. Consideration of multimodal elements will begin
at the inception of the transportation planning process and the decisions made will be documented.
The Department recognizes the types of roadway users and the way they interact with the transportation network is
evolving as transportation technologies such as ride share, connected and autonomous vehicles, and electric vehicles
become more prevalent. The Department will consider these evolving technologies and users in its planning and design
guidelines.
This policy sets forth the protocol for the development of transportation networks that encourage non-vehicular travel
without compromising the safety, efficiency, or function of the facility. The purpose of this policy is to guide existing
decision making and design processes to ensure that all users are included during the planning, design, construction,
funding, operation and maintenance of North Carolina's transportation network, and will not create barriers or hazards to
the movements of those users.
Scope:
This policy generally applies to all projects undertaken by NCDOT throughout the state.
There are many factors that must be considered when implementing the policy, e.g., number of lanes, design speeds,
intersection spacing, medians, curb parking, etc. The applicability of this policy should not be construed as conclusive.
Each facility must be evaluated for proper applicability. Notwithstanding the exceptions stated herein, all transportation
facilities funded by or through NCDOT, and planned, designed, or constructed on state-maintained facilities, must adhere
to this policy.
Approach:
The Department is committed to collaborate with cities, towns, and communities to ensure pedestrian, bicycle, transit and
evolving transportation technology options are included as an integral part of their total transportation vision. As a partner
in the development and realization of their visions, the Department desires to assist localities, through the facilitation of
long-range planning, to optimize connectivity, network interdependence, context sensitive options, and multimodal
alternatives. During the Comprehensive Transportation Planning process, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and other
multimodal usage shall be presumed to exist along and across certain corridors (e.g. between residential developments,
schools, businesses and recreational areas).
It is the policy of the Department of Transportation to fully replace existing Complete Streets facilities disturbed as a result
of a highway improvement project.
Planning and Design Guidelines:
The Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines were developed in 2012 to provide planners, designers and
decision-makers with a framework for evaluating and incorporating various design elements into the planning, design,
construction, and maintenance of the Department's transportation projects. The guidelines describe the planning and
project development procedures, including required documentation, to support the Complete Streets policy. In addition,
the guidelines describe how all roadway users will share the right of way safely and provide special design elements and
traffic management strategies to address unique circumstances.
Planning, implementation and design guidelines will be updated periodically to address changes in Departmental policies
and procedures and to reflect new transportation technologies and innovations.
The NCDOT Roadway Design Manual is intended to serve as the authoritative reference for Complete Streets design in
accordance with adopted guidelines of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and other
adopted or approved State and Federal guidelines and standards.
Exceptions to Policy:
It is the Department's expectation that suitable multimodal facilities will be incorporated in all appropriate new and
improved infrastructure projects. Exceptions to this policy will be considered where exceptional circumstances that
prohibit adherence to this policy exist. Such exceptions include, but are not limited to:
• Facilities that prohibit specific users by law;
• Areas in which the population and employment densities or level of transit service around the facility does not
justify the incorporation of a multimodal facilities;
• Emergency repairs that require immediate attention.
As exceptions to policy requests are unique in nature, each will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Each exception
must be approved by the Complete Streets Review Team consisting of the following or their designees:
• Complete Streets Program Administrator,
• State Traffic Engineer,
• State Roadway Engineer,
• Integrated Mobility Division Director, and
• Division Planning Engineer/Corridor Development Engineer.
Routine maintenance projects may be excluded from this requirement if an appropriate source of funding is not available.
Policy Distribution:
It is the responsibility of all employees to comply with Departmental policies. Therefore, every business unit and
appropriate private service provider will be required to maintain a complete set of these policies. The Department shall
periodically update departmental guidance to ensure that accurate and up-to-date information is maintained and housed
in a policy management system.
Related Documents:
This policy builds on current practices and encourages creativity for considering and providing multi-modal options within
transportation projects, while achieving safety and efficiency. Specific procedural guidance includes:
• Highway Landscape Planting Policy(dated 6/10/1988)
• Pedestrian Policy Guidelines—Sidewalk Location (Memo from Larry Goode, 2/15/1995)
• Board of Transportation Resolution: Bicycling &Walking in North Carolina, A Critical Part of the Transportation
System (adopted 9/8/2000)
• Bridge Policy (2000)
• Pedestrian Policy Guidelines (effective 10/1/2000, Memo from Len Hill, 9/28/2000)
• NCDOT Context Sensitive Solutions Goals and Working Guidelines (updated 9/8/2003)
• Aesthetics Guidance Manual (2015)
Revision History
Revision Date Revision Number Description
8/8/19 0 Approved
RESOLUTION FOR THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION IN
SUPPORT OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE NORTH
.�+ CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY THAT WILL ENHANCE
SAFETY AND PROVIDE AN EFFICIENT NETWORK OF ALL
TRANSPORTATION MODES
WHEREAS,The North Carolina Department of Transportation is a state agency created
(� in Article 8 of Chapter 143B of the North Carolina General Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the general purpose of the Department of Transportation is to provide
for the necessary planning, construction,maintenance and operation of an integrated
statewide transportation system for the economical and safe transportation of people
Oand goods provided by the law;and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation Complete Streets Policy evaluation
.N focuses on process improvements that ensures consideration and implementation of
an integrated statewide transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation's 2009 Complete Street Policy has
been updated to reflect this intent and purpose; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation's Complete Street Policy focuses on
actions to strengthen institutional support;
F--� NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
-- That the North Carolina Board of Transportation hereby adopts the 2019 amendments
(� to the Complete Streets Policy.
r--I
U
Chairman S cretary o ran poetation
AuZust 8,2019 August 8,2019
�"'� Date Date
f
completestreets
OF NORTp C4
09 North Carolina Department of Transportation
Complete Streets Implementation Guide
OFTRPNSQ
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Complete
Streets Implementation Guide (Guide) is designed to assist NCDOT
staff engineers, project managers and designers in implementing the
Complete Streets Policy as adopted by the NCDOT Board of
Transportation. This document provides comprehensive guidance for
incorporating a complete streets approach into NCDOT's planning,
programming, design, and maintenance processes.
The prime elements of this Guide are the following:
1 Planning
2 Project Development
3 Resurfacing and Maintenance Activities
4 Work Zone Accommodations
5 Related Policies
6 Cost Share
7 Design Guidance
8 Administration
This Guide will be updated periodically as processes and procedures are refined, with a comprehensive
review and update every five years, beginning in August 2024.
1 Planning
This section outlines the approach for ensuring Complete Streets elements are evaluated as a roadway
project is planned, prioritized and programmed. Each roadway project will include the preparation of a
Complete Streets Project Sheet as detailed below. The Project Sheet will identify planned multi-modal
facilities and document any exceptions considered in the course of project development.
1.1 Complete Streets Project Sheet (Prioritization 6.0)
For projects where a project sheet has yet to be developed as part of the CTP process, a Complete
Streets Project Sheet will be used to document the types of pedestrian, bicycle, public transit, and other
multimodal facilities to be evaluated in each highway project. This sheet will be submitted during the
Strategic Prioritization submittal process in conjunction with the needs statement required for
Prioritization.The Complete Streets Project Sheet will carry forward as a key document in the Project
Advancing Transportation through Linkages, Automation, and Screening(ATLAS)workbench, allowing
any personnel to access the project later in development.
1.2 Complete Streets Project Sheet(within the CTP)
Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTP) developed through NCDOT's Transportation Planning
Division identify projects to address network deficiencies for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users. Complete Streets Project Sheets are being introduced into the CTP process.The Project
Sheet outlines the recommended improvement, propose a typical cross-section for highway projects,
explains the identified need for the project, provide current and projected traffic volume and capacity,
identify high-level environmental constraints and provides Complete Street recommendations.These
sheets lay the foundation for Complete Streets facilities and serve as a starting point for projects
selected for Strategic Prioritization submittal and carry forward as a key document in the project
development phase.
1.3 Exceptions to Policy
The Complete Streets Project Sheet will capture requests and approvals of any exceptions to the
Complete Streets Policy. Documentation of exceptions will reference the reason for such action,
including, unique site constraints, prohibition of pedestrians or bicyclists on the facility or a lack of
existing or planned public transit service. Exceptions may be requested and considered any time
throughout the process through the Complete Streets Program Administrator in the Integrated Mobility
Division. Exceptions are automatically granted if requested by the local government.
A multi-disciplinary Complete Streets Review Team will review all requests for exceptions to the
Complete Streets Policy.The Review Team will consider the justification for the proposed exception as
detailed on the Complete Streets Project Sheet and decide whether to recommend approval of the
exception.
If the exception is not approved,the Review Team will initiate additional discussion with relevant
parties, including the Project Manager,to explore options and alternatives for including appropriate
multi-modal elements in the project. If necessary,the decision will be elevated to the Chief Deputy
Secretary and/or Secretary for a final decision.
The Complete Streets Review Team will consist of:
• Complete Streets Program Administrator,
• State Traffic Engineer or designee,
• State Roadway Engineer or designee,
• Integrated Mobility Division Director or designee, and
• Division Planning Engineer/Corridor Development Engineer or designee.
2 Project Development
The project development phase carries a project from concept to the specific street design to be
constructed.
The Complete Streets Project Sheet will carry forward with a project through the project development
phase. Project managers will use the Complete Streets Project Sheet early in project development to
assist with determining facilities to be included in preliminary project design alternatives.
The Complete Streets Project Sheet will be a 'key document' in the Project Advancing Transportation
through Linkages,Automation, and Screening (ATLAS) workbench, allowing all personnel working on the
project throughout the development process to refer to the information. Project ATLAS features a
workbench tool to organize technical reports and data needed during project delivery.As part of the
Workbench structure,the Project Manager will be responsible for documenting how complete street
elements are reflected in the project design.
2.1 Project Scoping
The Project Engineer shall coordinate with NCDOT's Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) on all
programmed highway projects.The Integrated Mobility Division will participate in scoping meetings and
provide a written summary memo identifying facility recommendations and design guidance as
appropriate.
2.2 Bridge Projects
The Complete Streets Project Sheet will be integrated into the Structures Management Planning Process
for bridge replacements and refurbishments. Until that step is complete, project managers will
communicate with the Integrated Mobility Division through scoping requests to incorporate complete
streets elements in bridge designs. This will occur for each bridge replacement project undertaken by
NCDOT.
Due to the long useful life of bridges, on bridges with shoulder approach sections, where:
■ a pedestrian need is identified through an adopted plan, sufficient deck space will be made
available on the replacement bridge for future construction of sidewalks.
■ a bicycle need is identified through an adopted plan, sufficient width for bike facilities will be
provided.
■ a multi-use path or sidepath need is identified through an adopted plan, sufficient width for the
appropriate facility will be provided on and/or below the structure.
2.3 Equal or Better Performance of Facility
Conditions often change between the time a project is added to the STIP and the when the project
development process begins that may support the incorporation of a different type of bicycle or
pedestrian improvement than shown in an adopted plan. NCDOT will review an alternative facility to the
bicycle and/or pedestrian facility type proposed in the adopted plan upon the written request of the
local representatives. An alternative facility will be evaluated by the Complete Streets Review Team
based on:
• purpose and need of the proposed facilities
• current or anticipated land use context of the project area
• traffic count data
• design speed
• crash history
• topographic and geometric features of the roadway
• safety
Project Managers will consult with the Complete Streets Program Administrator to request evaluation of
an alternative facility.The decision of the Complete Streets Review Team will be documented in the
Complete Streets Project Sheet.
3 Resurfacing and Maintenance Activities
3.1 Scheduled Resurfacing
Each year, a county-level resurfacing schedule is developed within each NCDOT Division. NCDOT Division
staff will meet with local agencies to review the scheduled roadways and identify locations to evaluate
Complete Streets improvements.These may include striping, markings and associated signage.
The following process shall be followed to review resurfacing projects for complete street
improvements:
• The Operations Program Management Unit will coordinate with the Integrated Mobility Division
to identify planned facilities within the project limits suitable for implementation in conjunction
with maintenance activities.
• Identified locations for Complete Streets improvements will be noted on the resurfacing list
distributed to each unit of local government.
• The local government concurrence with recommended Complete Streets improvements will be
provided to the local NCDOT Division in writing.
• Completed improvements will be incorporated into the Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Network (PBIN) and ATLAS upon completion.
3.2 Addition of Rumble Strips
Rumble strips (raised traffic bars), asphalt concrete dikes, reflectors, and other such surface
alterations, where installed on roadways without full access control, will be placed in a manner as
not to present hazards to bicyclists or interfere with existing on-road bicycle facilities. Rumble strips
shall not be extended across the shoulder of the roadway or other areas intended for bicycle travel.
4 Work Zone Accommodations
The continuity of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities will be maintained during construction and
maintenance activities. During the construction phase of a roadway project, NCDOT's Guidelines for the
Level of Pedestrian Accommodation in Work Zones will be followed.
5 Policy References
5.1 Eliminated Polices
The following policy documents are superseded by the Complete Streets Policy (2019):
• Complete Streets Policy(2009) and Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines (2012)
• Bicycle Policy(2009, update)
• Pedestrian Policy Guidelines (2001)
• Administrative Action to Include Local Adopted Greenway Plans in the NCDOT Highway Planning
Process (1994)
5.2 Related Policies
The following policy documents include elements related to Complete Streets implementation:
• Traditional Neighborhood Development Manual(2000)
• Bridge Policy(2000)
• Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways (2003)
• Exceptions to Maintenance Responsibilities on State Highway System Streets in Municipalities
(2003)
• Subdivision Roads:Minimum Construction Standards(2010, updated May 2016)
• Guidelines for Inclusion of Greenway Accommodation Underneath a Bridge as Part of a NCDOT
Project(2015)
6 Cost Share
6.1 Complete Street Cost Share
The table below illustrates the funding responsibilities for Complete Streets incorporating bicycle and
pedestrian and roadway public transportation facilities.
Complete Street Cost Share
Facility Type In Plan Not in Plan, but Need Betterment
Identified
Pedestrian Facility NCDOT pays full Cost Share Local
Bicycle Facility NCDOT pays full NCDOT pays full Local
Side Path NCDOT pays full Cost Share Local
Greenway Crossing NCDOT pays full Cost Share Local
Bus Pull Out NCDOT pays full Cost Share Local
Bus Stop (pad only) NCDOT pays full Cost Share Local
Bicycle and pedestrian and public transportation facilities that appear in a state, regional or locally
adopted transportation plan will be included as part of the proposed roadway project. NCDOT will fully
fund the cost of designing, acquiring right of way, and constructing the identified facilities.
Bridges will not be included in the total project construction cost for cost-sharing purposes. NCDOT is
responsible for the full cost of bridges.
Where an alternative facility requiring equal or lesser right-of-way is deemed to perform on an equal or
better basis with concurrence by the Integrated Mobility Division, NCDOT shall construct the alternative
facilities no cost share by the local jurisdiction.
6.2 Maintenance
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements within a municipal boundary are subject to local maintenance.A
local maintenance agreement will be executed prior to the completion of a construction project.
In instances where a local maintenance agreement is not executed to maintain a bicycle or pedestrian
facility, NCDOT will maintain the facility after construction if the bicycle or pedestrian facility lies within
NCDOT right-of-way.
6.3 Betterment
A roadway project betterment is defined as:
• A requested bicycle, pedestrian or public transportation improvement that exceeds the
recommendations appearing in a state or locally adopted plan requiring additional roadway
width and/or right-of-way
• Aesthetic materials and treatments, if this cost is determined to exceed the cost of standard
construction materials
• Landscaping in excess of standard treatments
• Lighting in excess of standard treatments
The additional costs associated with inclusion of these elements in a roadway project are the
responsibility of the local jurisdiction, executed through a local agreement.
6.4 Betterment Cost Share Formula
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities incidental to a roadway project where a need has been identified
through the project scoping process but not identified in a locally adopted plan may be included in the
project. Inclusion of these incidental facilities requires the local jurisdiction to share the incremental cost
of constructing the identified improvements.
NCDOT will estimate the incremental cost of proposed improvements. The percentage of the total cost
share for these improvements will be based on the table below according to the population of the
jurisdiction in the most recent annual certified estimated of population as determined by the state
demographer, and executed through a local agreement.
Betterment Cost Share
Municipal Population Cost Participation
NCDOT Local
> 100,000 80% 20%
50,000 to 100,000 85% 15%
10,000 to 50,000 90% 10%
< 10,000 95% 5%
7 Design Guidance
The NCDOT Roadway Design Manual will serve as the authoritative reference for Complete Streets
design. Cross-sections from the Manual will be used in stages of project planning, prioritization and
development.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guides will serve as
authoritative references for street design and will be used in coordination with the NCDOT Roadway
Design Manual.
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) guides will serve as supplemental
references for street design and will be used in coordination with the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual
and AASHTO guides.
8 Administration of the Policy
The Complete Streets Core Technical Team (CTT) will meet quarterly to oversee the implementation of
Complete Streets. The primary role of the CTT will be to review and maintain the Implementation
Guide, recommend updates and process improvements and establish performance metrics for
implementation.The CTT will direct the implementation of recommendations contained within the
NCDOT Complete Streets 2.0 Recommendations document.
The CTT is comprised of the following units.
• ADA/Title VI Office • Planning& Programming
• Integrated Mobility Division • Rail Division
• Chief Deputy Secretary's Office • Roadway Design Unit
• Division of Highways • Technical Services
• Environmental Policy Unit • Transportation Planning Division
• Mobility&Safety
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245-2575 Suite 201
(919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board
FROM: Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Transportation Planner
DATE: October 16, 2019
SUBJECT: NCDOT Corridor Updates — NC-54 West, S. Churton Street and
Orange Grove Road Extension
This memorandum is to provide the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
an update on some North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) corridors:
NC-54 West, S. Churton Street and Orange Grove Road Extension.
NC-54 West
On February 5, 2019, the BOCC approved a project within the NC 54 West corridor
from the Orange County/Alamance County line to Old Fayetteville Road as one of
County's transportation priorities for Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT)
6.0. This is a regional corridor involving multiple jurisdictions including:
• North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT);
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO);
• Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO);
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO);
• Alamance County; and
• Orange County.
The 20 mile corridor is a primary east-west route connecting Graham and Carrboro.
Orange County contains 10 miles of the corridor, of which 1.8 miles is in Carrboro's
Extra Territorial Jurisdiction. It extends around southern Carrboro and Chapel Hill and
goes onto NC-54 East, allowing commuters to continue to Durham, Cary, and Raleigh.
This regional corridor has gone through an extensive publicly-involved corridor study in
2018 with every local jurisdiction and MPO/RPO participating through its unique public
processes.
Due to the conclusions of the NC-54 West Corridor Study and the project's quantitative-
based success through the last prioritization process SPOT 5.0, NCDOT Division
submitted project H-140374-A, widen NC-54 West from Orange Grove Road to Old
Fayetteville Road, NCDOT was prepared to invest $83,000,000 in southern Orange
County if the MPO and RPO had put local input points on the project. NCDOT Division
did put its points on the project, but without local points from MPO and RPO; it didn't
scores well enough to get funded.
NCDOT has started a Feasibility Study to get a more detailed cost estimate for the
potential improvements along the entire corridor (SPOT ID H-141391 and H-140374-A)
from Graham to Carrboro in preparation for SPOT 6.0. With success in the SPOT
process, transportation network in southern Orange County could receive benefits
through a state funded project in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
FY 2023-2032.
Key highlights of NC-54 West corridor in Orange County are:
• March 2013, — TARPO CTP — NC-54 West from Orange Grove Road to Bethel
Hickory Grove Church Road, is identified as "needs improvement".
o West of Orange Grove Road to the Orange County line is identified as
"existing".
• August 2017, — DCHC MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) — NC-54
West from Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road to Old Fayetteville Road, is
identified as "Needs Improvement".
• November 2018, — VHB consulting completed the NC-54 West Corridor Study
with every jurisdiction having participated in the consultant's and DCHC MPO's
public process. All comments were addressed at the MPO's November 14 public
hearing following a 30 day public review period.
• February 2019, — Carrboro, through the DCHC MPO, has requested VHB to
review and confirm Phase 1 study's conclusions through a phase 2 study to
analyze future trends and transit alternatives as mentioned in phase 1, widening
impact on local roads, and other improvements not on NC-54 (e.g. widening
other roads or adding new roads as alternative improvements).
• April 2019, — TARPO requested a possible CTP amendment from NCDOT -
convert the "existing" to "needs improvement" based on the recommendations
from the NC-54 West study.
• May 2019, — DCHC MPO adopted the Regional Freight Plan identifying the entire
NC-54 corridor as a Strategic Freight Corridor.
• July 2019, — NCDOT started a Feasibility Study for a detailed cost estimate and
NCDOT Division submission in SPOT 6.0.
• November 2019, — Anticipated DCHC MPO Board public hearing and adoption of
NC-54 West Corridor Study. Upon completion, Orange County CTP will be
considered for possible amendment.
S. Churton Street and Orange Grove Road
Two of Hillsborough's FY 2018-2027 committed STIP projects are currently being
implemented. The following is an update on the projects:
• U-5845 - Widen South Churton Street in Hillsborough
0 1-40 to the Eno River
o Right-of-way 2022, Construction 2024 - $52.2 Million
• U-5848 - Extend Orange Grove Road
o South Churton Street to US-70 Business with sidewalk and bike lanes
o Right-of-way 2021, construction 2023 - $5.8 Million
NCDOT has begun final design and engineering as well as environmental analysis
through its consultant— Kimley-Horn — towards implementing these projects.
• January 8, 2019, — NCDOT hosted a public meeting on both projects.
o 4 design alternatives were proposed for Orange Grove Road extension.
o Proposed cross sections for both projects were also presented.
• March 11, 2019, — Hillsborough Board of Commissioners recommended the No
Build Alternative for Orange Grove Road extension.
• July 30, 2019, — NCDOT local officials meeting, four alternatives were
recommended for South Churton Street widening, extending the project to US-
70A intersection.
0 1 st— no bridge replacement, improve intersection.
0 2nd — bridge replacement and intersection improvements, no bike/ped.
0 3rd — bridge replacement and intersection improvements, with bike/ped.
0 4t" — bridge replacement and intersection improvements, with multi-use path.
o All four recommend a multi-use path on the east and a sidewalk on the west.
• The multi-use path and sidewalk are subject to NCDOT's current cost
share policy.
• August 2019, — Hillsborough Board of Commissioners decided the Town does
want improvements at the US-70A intersection but does not want the railroad
bridge replaced.
o Due to traffic volume and adequate bridge condition, DOT does not require
the bridge over railroad tracks to be replaced.
o As a separate matter, the railroad bridge will be under review as multiple
tracks are considered in the corridor.
o Should the Town want the railroad bridge replaced, DOT will require the Town
to pay for it.
Transportation Planning staff will continue to keep the OUTBoard apprised of these
corridors. Feel free to contact staff with any questions.