The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOUTBoard Agenda Packet - 091620AGENDA ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD Wednesday, September 16, 2020 OUTBoard Meeting – 6:30 pm GO TO MEETING Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/405258197 You can also dial in using your phone. United States: +1 (408) 650-3123 Access Code: 405-258-197 No. Page(s) Agenda Item 1. Call to Order 2. 3 – 6 Approval of Minutes August 19, 2020 OUTBoard Meeting 3. Consideration of Additions or Changes to Agenda 4. Transit Advisory Services(TAS)/Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) This section of the agenda is addressed jointly by the OUTBoard and supplemental staff from other County departments (Aging; DSS; Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; Health; and Child Support Enforcement) to address OCPT transit services. 4.a. OCPT Administrative Updates (TeLeishia Holloway, Allyson Coltrane, Percy Mahone) – Information provided through the meeting OUTBoard/TAS Action: Receive and review information, provide comments 4.b. TAS Comments/Questions (OCPT Staff) Opportunity for TAS members to offer transit related comments and ask questions regarding issues on the agenda 5. Regular OUTBoard Agenda 5.a. 7 - 10 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan Amendment (Nish Trivedi) Action: Recommend Attachment 1 to the BOCC for inclusion in the upcoming DCHC MPO CTP amendments. 6. Staff Report/Updates 6.a. 11 – 14 MPO/RPO and NCDOT (Nish Trivedi) Action: Receive the Update. 7. Information Items 8. Adjournment The next OUTBoard meeting date is October 21, 2020 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 (Subject to County COVID-19 Protocols) 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. D R A F T 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2 AUGUST 19, 2020 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 (Due to current public health concerns, this meeting was held virtually. 5 Members of the OUTBoard, staff and public participated remotely) 6 7 MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Menius, At-Large Representative (Chair); Jenn Sykes, At-Large Representative; Ed Vaughn, 8 Cedar Grove Township Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Eric Broo, At-Large 9 Representative; Johanna Birckmayer, At-Large Representative; Heidi Perry, At-Large Representative; Brantley Wells 10 (Vice Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Tony Blake, At-Large Representative; Roy Schonberg, Chapel 11 Hill Township Representative; 12 13 MEMBERS ABSENT: Amy Cole, At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham Township Representative; 14 Vacant, Eno Township Representative; 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tom Ten Eyck, Transportation/Land Use Planner; 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Day, TARPO 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER, DETERMINATION OF QUORUM AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS 21 Eric Broo called the meeting to order and roll call was taken 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24 MOTION by Art Menius to approve the February 19, 2020, OUTBoard Minutes. Seconded by Heidi Perry. 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 4: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 4A: ORANGE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP) – (NISH TRIVEDI) 32 Nish presented the item and reminded Board members that no action is required at this time. Action will be requested 33 at the September meeting. Key highlights from the presentation include the preliminary work started last year 34 following the MTP amendment, subcommittee meeting with all jurisdictions, and forthcoming schedule. The focus of 35 the amendment is highway projects in Orange County’s portion of DCHC MPO. 36 37 Heidi Perry: Freight, does that mean rail? I have never seen it considered part of complete street as part of 38 multimodal. Maybe it should be reworded. 39 40 Nish Trivedi: No, US 70 is considered a strategic freight corridor. I’ve received pushback from NCDOT and MPO and 41 they want to see multiple reasons and data to back up those reasons why these should be considered for multimodal. 42 That is why I am requesting your assistance to get them considered. I am adding freight because we are 43 experiencing lots of development around Hillsborough. The Planning Board is considering one major development 44 tonight and there are economic development involving lots of freight along US-70. 45 46 Tony Blake: Regarding the consideration tonight, is this area being considered? I was wondering if this is being 47 considered across other issues or is this going ahead. 48 49 Nish Trivedi: Yes, #9 is Old NC-86 around this new development proposal. It is an approved County Priority it as a 50 County priority. We are also keeping an eye on Davis Road. 51 52 Heidi Perry: I am in favor of modernization but confused, are we seeking widening? 53 3 D R A F T 2 54 Nish Trivedi: No, the first 13 are seeking your approval for complete street consideration so that they can have the 55 option for any multimodal improvements like sidewalk, side paths, and transit stops paid by NCDOT. Later, I will need 56 you to recommend we study US-70. 57 58 Heidi Perry: Why wouldn’t you say future projects should have Complete Street Policy applied? 59 60 Nish Trivedi: I am getting push back from MPO and NCDOT. They are considering it, but they are not pushing this 61 forward. Right now I’m trying to get local support, your support and BOCC support. If I can show local support, 62 perhaps they will push this forward. I am also showing you the data that goes with them. In your attachment, the first 63 13 sheets include that data that goes with these projects already in the CTP. I don’t want them to go ahead with their 64 amendment and these projects not get Complete Street consideration. 65 66 Heidi Perry: Simply confused by the wording. If they will be considered for Complete Streets great, just use Complete 67 Streets. 68 69 Heidi Perry: Can LOS be removed? 70 71 Nish Trivedi: It is standard practice for NCDOT and MPO because it is used to measure capacity for a road. It is like 72 a letter grade on a road to see if it will fail in the future. It is simply the division of Future Volume over the total 73 Capacity of the road. Due to development, certain corridors in the County will fail in the future. 74 75 Heidi Perry: I understand NCDOT’s use but if we are going to have more people or destinations, we should be 76 thinking more about how we move them without more vehicles on the road. It is tied to road widening. 77 78 Tony Blake: LOS is more about the quality of the road. It is also about how traffic backs up, delays, intersections, 79 signalization, it is used for lot of things. 80 81 Eric Broo: Downtown Chapel Hill took out a couple lanes and driving there was great. Even though LOS has gone 82 down, my enjoyment has gone up. I understand Heidi Perry’s point on LOS and widening. 83 84 Nish Trivedi: Just to clarify. Staff is not recommending any widening. We are not using LOS to widen the road, 85 mainly to show the future failure of the road and something needs to be done about it. 86 87 Eric Broo: When they consider LOS do they consider other modes or just vehicles? 88 89 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT has gotten to use LOS to measure safety of the road. They are working on the data and 90 clarifying it but have not published it. It is supposed to include other users, not just vehicular. 91 92 Eric Broo: NC-86 from Caswell to Chatham cuts through the heart of Chapel Hill. Do they see fright going through 93 the area? I hope truckers don’t take their freight through the campus. 94 95 Nish Trivedi: NC-86 is a strategic freight corridor and it does have some freight. The Chapel Hill has already 96 approved the Locally Preferred Alternative for the NS BRT. 97 98 Nish provided a summary of Environmental Justice Report focusing on County Level analysis. 99 100 Nish Trivedi: When a block group meets multiple county thresholds, it is a Community of Concern. The highlighted 101 areas are the block groups that meet 4 or more overlapping criteria and Communities of Concerns. These are areas 102 that need special focus on transportation improvements. Just to remind everyone, staff is not recommending 103 widening, adding additional lanes or addressing substandard conditions. We are mainly recommending regional 104 corridors like NC and US and part of Orange Grove Road and New Hope Church Road because they are school 105 areas. Like the Access Management Plan, we are recommending these corridors be considered for multimodal. 106 4 D R A F T 3 107 Ed Vaughn: I have a question about ID 20 – 23 – NC-86 between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Is there any way to 108 add Shared Use Path? It would also get access to Blackwood Farm Park. It would be a great way to connect the two 109 areas. 110 111 Nish Trivedi: We can but if that is what the OUTBoard recommends. As staff, we are not recommending anything 112 specific complete street option, only that all options be available for these corridors. We would need you as the board 113 to make that specific recommendation for NC-86. If you have any specifics like where you want bike lanes or 114 sidewalks, we will need that support to hopefully get NCDOT and MPO to change their minds. 115 116 Eric Broo: It would be nice to be able to ride that corridor safety, in our next meeting would we just have to take a 117 vote on what we want for these corridors. Is that correct? 118 119 Nish Trivedi: In your attachment 2, you will see the overall project list map and each individual project sheets. You 120 will either recommend BOCC approve or not approve this project and provide comments. In the next meeting, I will 121 request you approve attachment 1. If there are any other recommendations you would like to make, I would need you 122 to vote on it as a board. 123 124 Eric Broo: Would these other recommendations be considered a hindrance, if we were to recommend a specific 125 improvement, would that be considered favorable or hindrance in trying to get it approved in the amendment. 126 127 Nish Trivedi: We as a local jurisdiction do not have final say in the amendment process. The MPO Board does. All 128 we can do is show support. I do not know what you want to see in these corridors, I would need those 129 recommendations from you. If you recommend more than what staff is recommending, MPO may see this as local 130 support and they may move them forward but I cannot speak for the MPO Board or NCDOT. Right now, they have 131 given me a no and I’m trying to change that no. 132 133 Eric Broo: If we blanked approve this, will we have opportunity to make specific recommendations later? 134 135 Nish Trivedi: Yes, until a project gets committed in the future STIP, we will have more time to make 136 recommendations. Right now the CTP is a visionary document and it is changing. Only after SPOT does design 137 actually get involved. We will have more opportunities than. Right now I’m just trying to get you involved in the 138 process to help me change their mind. 139 140 Heidi Perry: Will you give us a statement we can support or modify when we see this again? It would make this go 141 faster if we had it. I think when you include Safety, you should include NC is a Vision Zero state. 142 143 Nish Trivedi: You can email me a draft or I can put something together. 144 145 Ed Vaughn: Where does the I-40 and NC-86 interchange fit into this? 146 147 Nish Trivedi: This interchange improvement has been delayed due to NCDOT funding issues as part of the I-40 148 widening. It is split into 3 projects. 149 150 Eric Broo – Nish will you put a statement together and bring it before us at the next meeting. 151 152 Nish Trivedi: I’ll put something together and get it to you for the next meeting. Reviewed the Cross Section, rural 153 areas will get the wide paved shoulder while urban areas like Hillsborough, Carrboro, Mebane, and Chapel Hill will 154 get curb and gutter. 155 156 Nish Trivedi: This item is for information and review tonight and will go back to the OUTBoard as part of the 157 September 16, 2020 OUTBoard/TAS meeting for recommendations 158 159 5 D R A F T 4 AGENDA ITEM 5: STAFF REPORTS/UPDATES 160 161 AGENDA ITEM 5A: MPR/RPO AND NCDOT UPDATES (NISH TRIVEDI) - 162 Nish provided MPO, RPO and NCDOT update, with the disclaimer that NCDOT project schedule is subject to change 163 due to state funding issues. 164 165 Heidi Perry: I’m confused by NC-54 Operation Improvements with bike/ped accommodations. Is this the project 166 before widening 54? What were the bike/ped accommodations? I think they put in trippers and signals. 167 168 Nish Trivedi: Yes, this is an old funded project in the previous STIP. This is adding traffic signals and improve the 169 function without widening. I don’t have all the details but I think this project was completed last year. But we can see 170 if there is any more information on it. 171 172 AGENDA ITEM 5B: BIKE SAFETY MATERIALS AND EVENTS (TOM TEN EYCK) - 173 Tom T provided a presentation on the item. 174 175 Eric Broo: What about unanticipated costs? 176 177 Tom Ten Eyck: They are not part of the approved County Budget, they are on us separately. We may pursue County 178 budget in the future but right now, they are on us to pay. This includes ongoing maintenance. 179 180 AGENDA ITEM 5C: MTSA STUDY ALONG ORANGE GROVE ROAD (TOM TEN EYCK) - 181 Tom T provided a presentation on the item, including schedule and process. Page 70, Orange County School Board 182 currently does not have any walkable schools zones in the district. Will provide the Grady Brown study to those 183 members who want it. Cedar Ridge Study is forthcoming. 184 185 Tom Ten Eyck will email the report to the Board via admin. 186 187 AGENDA ITEM 6: INFORMATION ITEMS 188 189 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT 190 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned 191 192 193 194 ____________________________________ Erik Broo, Chair 6 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 16, 2020 Action Agenda Item No. 5.a SUBJECT: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan Amendment DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Staff Recommendations Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, 919-245-2582 PURPOSE: To provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on Orange County’s portion of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Amendment. BACKGROUND: On August 19, Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) received a presentation on Orange County’s CTP, focusing on DCHC MPO CTP Amendment. This amendment seeks to coordinate potential highway improvement projects in Orange County to NCDOT’s new Complete Street Policy, to “encourage non-vehicular travel without compromising the safety, efficiency, or function of the facility”. This policy gives NCDOT the opportunity to consider paying for non-highway improvements as facilities that lie within improved highway projects through NCDOT’s new Cost Share (section 6 of the new Complete Street Implementation Guide): • In CTP – NCDOT pays full – pedestrian and on road bicycle facility, side path, greenway crossing, bus pull out, bus stop (pad only) • Not in CTP but Needs Identified – NCDOT pays full – on road bicycle facility o All other project types are based on a cost share by local jurisdiction using new percent cost-share based on population. o Needs Identified are non-highway projects in locally adopted plans (e.g. local bike/ped or transit plans) • Betterment – Local jurisdictions pay for all non-highway improvements. o Section 6.3 describes this as “A requested bicycle, pedestrian or public transportation improvement that exceeds the recommendations appearing in an adopted plan and/or exceeds the needs identified through the project development process” Staff requests OUTBoard review and recommend BOCC approve Attachment 1 and submit it to DCHC MPO for inclusion in the CTP Amendment project list. Below is summary of staff request: 7 • Highway projects #1 – 13 – Are currently in the CTP and requesting future highway improvements along these segments should consider all Complete Street opportunities. • Highway projects #14 – 26 – Staff requests these CTP amendments are included so that they may qualify for Complete Street consideration and all opportunities. o Cross Section 2A – 60’ right-of-way, 12’ travel lane, 5’ paved shoulder, rural areas o Cross Section 2E – 60’ right-of-way, 11’ travel lane, bike lane and sidewalk, urban areas o Complete Street forms would be submitted requesting bike lane, sidewalk, side path and/or transit be considered should such projects be submitted for future Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) process. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of people are exclusively using automobiles as their primary means of travel with US roadways nearly restored to pre-pandemic VMT levels. While the pandemic does have significant impact on NCDOT funding, development continues to occur in Orange County and surrounding areas, leaving it to local jurisdictions to plan for its future. At August 19, 2020 OUTBoard meeting, staff was requested to draft a unifying statement for all recommendations rather than separate statements for each project. The prepared drafts are below: Attachment 1, page 1 The OUTBoard recommends that the BOCC approve projects 1-13, which already are in the DCHC MPO CTP, to be considered for all Complete Streets opportunities. Attachment 1, page 1 contains the recommended cross-sections and multi-modal instruments and shall accompany our recommendation. Attachment 1, page 2 The OUTBoard recommends that the BOCC approve projects 14-26 to be added to the DCHC MPO CTP Amendment list and that they be considered for all Complete Streets opportunities. Attachment 1, page 2 contains the recommended cross-sections and multi-modal instruments and shall accompany our recommendation. Authorization to proceed with DCHC MPO CTP amendments is scheduled to go before the MPO Technical Committee in September and the DCHC MPO Board in October, which will formally initiate the public process. Staff anticipates the amendment will be adopted by December 2020. • Staff will submit BOCC action, when complete, to the DCHC MPO Board for consideration as part of its CTP Amendment. FINANCIAL IMP ACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff requests that the OUT Board recommend Attachment 1 to the BOCC for inclusion in the upcoming DCHC MPO CTP amendments. 8 Attachment 1Staff RecommendationsID ProjectFromToStatusProblem StatementCross Section1US 70N Churton StWest Hill Ave NNeeds Improvement Minimum 4G2US 70N Churton StUS 70ANeeds Improvement Minimum 4G3US 70I‐85/US 70 Connector West Hill Ave NNeeds Improvement Minimum 4G4US 70Mt Hermon Church Rd US 70ANeeds Improvement Minimum 4A5NC 86I‐85OLD NC 10Needs Improvement Minimum 4D6NC 86 NNC 57Cornelius StNeeds Improvement Minimum 4D7I‐85/US 70 connector I‐40/85US 70Needs Improvement Minimum 4A8NC 54Old Fayetteville Rd MPO Boundary Needs Improvement Minimum 2A9Old NC 86 Eubanks Rd I‐40 Needs Improvement Minimum 2A10 Eno Mtn Rd realignment Eno Mountain Rd Mayo St Recommended Minimum 2A11 Mt. Willing Rd I‐40/85 US 70 Needs Improvement None 2E12 Erwin Rd Sage Rd Whitfield Rd Needs Improvement Minimum 2E13 Homestead Rd Rogers Rd Old NC 86 Needs Improvement Minimum 2EStaff CommentsFuture improvements should include all Complete Street opportunities ‐ sidewalk, side path, bike lane, and/or bus stop pad per NCDOT's new Complete Street Policy and Implementation Guide. # 1 ‐ 8 Traffic along regional corridors (US and NC) will continue escalating resulting in poor level of service due to:* Increasing local development in the County and local jurisdictions; and* Regional growth in surrounding counties and neighboring cities. # 10 ‐ 13 Local jurisdictions may need to adopt local plans to address their portion of secondary roads per NCDOT's new Complete Street Policy.In CTPCurrent CTP Page 19 Attachment 1Staff RecommendationsID ProjectFromToStatusProblem StatementCross Section StatusProblem Statement Cross Section 14 US 70Ffland Cedar Grove Rd MPO BoundaryExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E15 US 70Efland Cedar Grove Rd I‐85/US 70 Connector ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E16 US 70 / US 70 BUS NC 751Pleasant Green Rd ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E17 US 70 BUSSparger RdNC 751ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E18 US 70ALawrence RdUS 70ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E19 US 70ALawrence RdElizabeth Brady Rd ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E20 US 70A/NC 86Elizabeth Brady Rd S Churton StExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E21 NC 86 I‐40 Whitfield Rd ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E22 NC 86 Whitfield Rd New Hope Church Rd. ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E23 NC 86 New Hope Church Rd. OLD NC 10 ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E24 NC 86 NColeman Loop (N) NC 57 ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E25 Orange Grove Rd Oakdale Dr Dimmocks Mill Rd ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2E26 New Hope Church Rd. I‐40 OLD NC 10 ExistingNoneADQNeeds Improvement Minimum 2A/2EStaff CommentsFuture improvements should include all Complete Street opportunities ‐ sidewalk, side path, bike lane, and/or bus stop pad per NCDOT's new Complete Street Policy and Implementation Guide. #14 ‐ 24 ‐Traffic along regional corridors (US and NC) will continue escalating resulting in poor level of service due to:* Increasing local development in the County and local jurisdictions; and* Regional growth in surrounding counties and neighboring cities.#25 ‐ 2 public schools, alternative freight route, increasing traffic, safety, etc.#26 ‐ School area, parks, access to Highway 10, alternative freight route, traffic, safety, etc.Not In CTPCurrent CTPRecommended CTP Amendment Page 210 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead W-5707K 48283 Remove and replace existing curb & gutter and sidewalk, add pedestrian signals, concrete island, and signal modifications on SR 1010 (E. Main St / W. Franklin St) from Brewer Ln to Graham St. in Chapel Hill and Carrboro 5/31/2019 Jul. 2020 $350,000 Construction - 100% complete, RTE final inspection pending Chris Smitherman Derek Dixon SM-5707H 48912.3.1 “To Pass Bicycles, 4 ft Min Clearance or Change Lane” sign installations on portions of no passing zones on SR 1107 (Hillsborough Road) and SR 1104 (Dairyland Road). Oct. 2019 Jun. 2020 $5,000 Signs installed 10/17/19 - 100% complete, RTE final inspection pending Dawn McPherson SS-6007C 48888.1.1 48888.3.1 Guardrail installation on NC 86 just north of SR 1839 (Alexander Drive). Oct. 2020 Apr. 2021 $50,400 Funds approved 9/5/19 but not released Chad Reimakoski Derek Dixon P-5701 46395.1.1 46395.3.1 Construct Platform, Passenger Rail Station Building at Milepost 41.7 Norfolk Southern H-line in Hillsborough 6/30/2021 FY2023 $7,200,000 PE funding scheduled 7/1/2020, Coordinate with U-5848 Matthew Simmons I-3306AB 34178.1.5 34178.2.4 34178.3.8 I-40 widening from NC86 to Durham Co. line (US 15/501 Interchange). Includes a portion of interchange improvements I-3306AC in Chapel Hill 3/15/2022 FY2024 $37,635,000 Planning and design activities underway, Environmental document completed 3/21/19 under I-3306A, LET combined with I-3306AC and W-5707C Laura Sutton I-3306AC 34178.1.6 34178.2.5 34178.3.9 Interchange improvements at I-40 and NC86 in Chapel Hill 3/15/2022 FY2024 $15,200,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Environmental document completed 3/21/19 under I-3306A, LET combined with I-3306AB and W-5707C Laura Sutton W-5707C 44853.1.3 44853.3.3 47490 Revise pavement markings and overhead lane use signs for removal of inside lane drop configuration on I-40 Westbound in vicinity of US 15-501 interchange in Chapel Hill. Resurfacing I-40 WB by use of contingency funds 3/15/2022 FY2022 $425,000 No bids on most recent letting, LET combined with I-3306AB and AC Chad Reimakoski SS-4907CD 47936.1.1 47936.2.1 47936.3.1 Horizontal curve improvements on SR 1710 (Old NC 10) west of SR 1561/SR 1709 (Lawrence Road) east of Hillsborough. Improvements consist of wedging pavement and grading shoulders. Jun. 2022 Nov. 2022 $261,000 Planning and design activities underway Chad Reimakoski NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT Page 1 DCHCMPO June 2020 MPO Board 9/9/2020 Item 20 Page 7 of 10 11 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT SS-6007E 49115.1.1 49115.3.1 All Way Stop installation and flashing beacon revisions at the intersection of SR 1005 (Old Greensboro Road) and SR 1956 (Crawford Dairy Road/Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road) Jun. 2022 Sept. 2022 $28,800 Funds approved 3/5/20 but not released Dawn McPherson R-5821A 47093.1.2 47093.2.2 47093.3.2 Construct operational improvements including Bicycle/Pedestrian accommodations on NC 54 from SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) to SR 1107 /SR 1937 (Old Fayetteville Road). 6/21/2022 FY2024 $3,194,000 Planning and design activities underway, coordinating with NC54 West Corridor Study Chris Smitherman I-3306AA 34178.1.4 34178.2.3 34178.3.7 I-40 widening from I-85 to NC86 in Chapel Hill 3/21/2023 FY2025 $88,000,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Environmental document completed 3/21/19 under I-3306A Laura Sutton I-5958 45910.1.1 45910.3.1 Pavement Rehabilitation on I-40/I-85 from West of SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) to West of SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) 11/21/2023 FY2025 $7,455,000 Funding approved 10/10/17 Chris Smitherman U-5845 50235.1.1 50235.2.1 50235.3.1 Widen SR 1009 (South Churton Street) to multi-lanes from I- 40 to Eno River in Hillsborough 7/16/2024 FY 2027 $39,390,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Coordinate with U-5848 and I-5967 Laura Sutton I-5967 45917.1.1 45917.2.1 45917.3.1 Interchange improvements at I-85 and SR 1009 (South Churton Street) in Hillsborough 10/15/2024 FY2027 $16,900,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Coordinate with I-0305 and U-5845 Laura Sutton I-5959 45911.1.1 45911.3.1 Pavement Rehabilitation on I-85 from West of SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road) to Durham County line 11/19/2024 FY2026 $11,155,000 Funding approved 10/10/17, Coordinate with I-5967, I-5984 and I-0305 Chris Smitherman I-5984 47530.1.1 47530.2.1 47530.3.1 Interchange improvements at I-85 and NC 86 in Hillsborough 11/18/2025 FY2027 $11,000,000 Planning and Design activities underway, Coordinate with I-0305 and I-5959 Laura Sutton I-0305 34142.1.2 34142.2.2 34142.3.2 Widening of I-85 from west of SR1006 (Orange Grove Road) in Orange Co. to west of SR 1400 (Sparger Road) in Orange Co. 10/17/2028 FY2032 $132,000,000 Planning and design activities underway, Project reinstated per 2020-2029 STIP (funded project) and delete project I-5983 Laura Sutton Page 2 DCHCMPO June 2020 MPO Board 9/9/2020 Item 20 Page 8 of 10 12 North Carolina Department of Transportation 6/8/2020 Active Projects Under Construction - Orange Co. Contract Number TIP Number Location Description Contractor Name Resident Engineer Contract Bid Amount Availability Date Completion Date Work Start Date Estimated Completion Date Progress Schedule Percent Completion Percent C202581 EB-4707A IMPROVEMENTS ON SR-1838/SR-2220 FROM US-15/501 IN ORANGE COUNTY TO SR-1113 IN DURHAM COUNTY. DIVISION 5 S T WOOTEN CORPORATION Nordan, PE, James M $4,614,460.00 5/28/2019 2/15/2021 5/28/2019 2/15/2021 0 1.98 C204078 B-4962 REPLACE BRIDGE #46 OVER ENO RIVER ON US-70 BYPASS.CONTI ENTERPRISES, INC Howell, Bobby J $4,863,757.00 5/28/2019 12/28/2021 6/19/2019 12/28/2021 24 26.36 DG00393 RESURFACE FOLLOWING SR'S: SR 1101, SR 1118, SR 1119, SR 1124, SR 1125, SR 1127,SR 1128 SR 1130, SR 1134, SR 1135, SR 1137, SR 1141, SR 1143, ETC. RILEY PAVING INC Howell, Bobby J $1,084,520.40 4/2/2018 10/12/2018 6/18/2018 12/7/2018 100 99.97 DG00435 AST RETREATMENT ON 22 SECONDARY ROADS WHITEHURST PAVING CO INC Lorenz, PE, Kris $846,340.66 4/1/2019 10/11/2019 43977 DG00445 R-5787BB W-5707A INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS LITTLE MOUNTAIN BUILDERS OF CATAWBA COUNTY INC Howell, Bobby J $319,319.80 6/25/2018 2/15/2020 8/6/2018 2/15/2020 100 92.94 DG00461 REHAB. BRIDGE #031 ON SR 1010 (E. FRANKLIN ST.) OVER BOLIN CREEK & BOLIN CREEK TRAIL M & J CONSTRUCTION CO OF PINELLAS COUNTY INC Howell, Bobby J $2,456,272.12 11/12/2018 7/15/2019 3/15/2019 11/26/2020 73.86 56.95 DG00462 REHAB. BRIDGES 264, 288, 260, 543 IN GUILFORD COUNTY AND BRIDGE 031 IN ORANGE COUNTY ELITE INDUSTRIAL PAINTING INC Snell, PE, William H $967,383.15 8/1/2019 1/1/2020 DG00478 RESURFACE PORTIONS OF 41 SECONDARY ROADS IN ORANGE COUNTY CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC Hayes, PE, Meredith D $3,270,144.99 7/8/2019 10/30/2020 12/9/2019 10/30/2020 19.8 60.89 DG00483 RESURFACE SR 1010 (MAIN STREET/FRANKLIN STREET) FROM SR 1005 (JONES FERRY ROAD) TO NC 86 (COLUMBIA STREET) CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC Howell, Bobby J $845,631.59 5/18/2019 8/7/2020 DG00485 U-5846 SR 1772 (GREENSBORO STREET) AT SR 1780 (ESTES DRIVE), CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT FSC II LLC DBA FRED SMITH COMPANY Howell, Bobby J $3,375,611.30 5/28/2019 3/1/2022 7/29/2019 6/10/2022 36 33.65 Page 1 of 1 MPO Board 9/9/2020 Item 20 Page 9 of 10 13 Contract # or WBS # or TIP #Description Let Date Completion Date Contractor Project Admin.STIP Project Cost Notes U-6192 Add Reduced Conflict Intersections - from US 64 Pitts. Byp to SR 1919 (Smith Level Road) Orange Co. FY 2027 TBD TBD Greg Davis (910) 773-8022 $45,640,000 Right of Way FY 2025 R-5825 Upgrade and Realign Intersection 11/8/2022 TBD TBD Greg Davis (910) 773-8022 $759,000 US 15-501 Chatham County - DCHC MPO - Upcoming Projects - Planning & Design, R/W, or not started - Division 8--August 2020 Route NC 751 at SR 1731 (O'Kelly Chapel Road) MPO Board 9/9/2020 Item 20 Page 10 of 10 14