The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04.15.2024 OUTboard ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT 600 Hwy 86 N · Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Phone (919) 245-2008 · Fax (919) 732-2137 orangecountync.gov/transportation AGENDA ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD Monday April 15th, 2023, 6:30 pm 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 OUTBoard meetings are held in person and open to the public. Any member of the general public who wishes to make public comment should email dweaver@orangecountync.gov and the comment will be read to the OUTBoard during the public comment portion of the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Consideration of Additions or Changes to Agenda 3. Public Comments 4. Approval of Minutes – March 2024 5. Regular OUTBoard Agenda a. SPOT 7 Local Input Points i. Action: Recommend Approval b. US70 Corridor i. Action: Recommend Approval 6. Staff Report/Updates a. MPO, RPO, and NCDOT Updates b. OCTS Update 7. Information Items 8. Adjournment - The next meeting – May 20th , 2024 It is the policy of Orange County Transportation Services to ensure that no person shall, on the ground of race, color, sex, age, national origin, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 18, 2024 6:30 pm 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attendance: Members Present 1 2 Jamie Crandell Eno Township 3 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township 4 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director 5 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager 6 Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township 7 Erik Legg Cheeks Township 8 Adam McGovern At Large 9 Micheal Hughes At Large 10 Joshua Mayo At Large 11 Amy Cole At Large 12 Sherry Appel At Large 13 Randy Marshall Bringham Township 14 15 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 16 The meeting was called to order and the roll taken. 17 18 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. None. 19 20 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 24 Corrections: Roy was not in attendance, Greg was in attendance, and Sherry and Hillsborough were misspelled. Future 25 minutes should have the names of people speaking and asking questions. S. Appel suggested striking the last line (78) as not 26 relevant, the explanation clarified road diet as an urbanized practice and the difference in road functional classification. 27 28 Motion: Randy Marshall with corrections Second: Amy Cole Vote: Unanimous 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda 31 32 5.a. Short-Range Transit Plan33 34 Nelson Nygaard presented the process, findings from the Existing Conditions report, and the public involvement 35 process. 36 37 S. Appel asked for copies of the presentation maps. They are in the report and copies could be provided. 38 39 R. Marshall: Advised that members are asked to provide comments, also wanted hard copies. N. Trivedi clarified that hard copies40 of the packet will be provided. 41 42 A. Cole: Can you explain a little more about the residential and the business square footage? Is it land and business square43 footage? What is the population density of those areas? NN: received information provided by Core Technical Team. N. Trivedi 44 clarified that it was building square footage per approved development. 45 46 A. Cole: So, it could be that a business has a large footprint but not that many employees based on the type of business it is, and 47 the same for housing, we could be talking about houses that are relatively large but are single-occupant. NN: We have maps for 48 future year population and jobs that look just at what is the projected job growth is over the next ten years; we’ve mapped that 49 density and it highlights some different areas than this map does because the region is growing so fast, a lot of the data is playing 50 catchup. 51 R. Marshall asked about paperwork and disability accommodations. N. Trivedi explained that the easiest way to request 52 medical-related transportation is through DSS, which coordinates with us and other transportation providers on behalf of 53 Medicaid clients. 54 55 S. Appel: As part of the planning, is there a look at accessibility, meaning how to access the system? NN: Yes, one of our 56 recommendations is to make information easier to find. The Department of Aging flowchart was used as an example and 57 included in the report. 58 59 J. Mayo: It looks like 36% on time. Did you identify some of the barriers there? N. Trivedi explained that on-time performance is 60 data we constantly track through Ecolane software. There have been fleet issues, and traffic issues, but that is a service we are 61 trying to improve. J. Mayo: The 36% is with the Rural Operating Assistance Program. N. Trivedi: yes, hopefully, one of the 62 recommendations to come out of this will address that. 63 64 S. Appel: Is there any way to determine what the age range is for the data like the Department of Aging clients, but if we are trying 65 to reach different communities, younger communities, or different language communities? Do we have any data that would tell 66 us who those users are? N. Trivedi: The users are evolving because of Medicaid expansion, we can pick up families with children, 67 and college students, so the data itself is evolving. NN: Using Census data, we can find out where a lot of these groups live but 68 tying it to specific rides is harder because of doing counts on the actual bus or going into confidential data so it’s more 69 complicated. 70 71 A. Menius: Do you see Demand Response as a service that could be expanded? NN: Yes, in the next slide we will look at the 72 mobility on demand. It has the broadest hours and the least restrictions. With demand response, you qualify by age or disability 73 for services based on medical or job need, with 48 hours in advance scheduling. 74 75 S. Appel: What would be a reasonable goal to say that we are maximizing the number of riders for Mobility on Demand? N. 76 Trivedi: Hopefully a recommendation will come out of this report. NN: And we would hope for something more than a few riders 77 per day, especially if there are five full vehicles on the road. Since our plan does look to 2030, we want to make sure we hit 78 baseline service and then keep going up from there. 79 80 J. Mayo: It looks like a lot of destinations are in urban areas. Do we know if a lot of those users are coming from rural areas that 81 aren’t going to be served by fixed routes? NN: That’s correct. 82 83 J. Crandell: Do we know if the same people repeatedly? NN: Yes . You do start to see that pattern, but you see it a lot more with 84 Demand Response. 85 86 G. Woloszczuk: What about private services? Is there a lower-cost option that might provide more flexibility? N. Trivedi : The 87 opposite has been discovered in this use. Contracting the service out has cost more. That is why a lot of these contracting 88 services are going in-house. NN: Sometimes we do see these services around the country, if they get too successful, they can 89 hurt themselves because there are not enough cars on the road and reliability, so it’s a delicate balance, but if there’s too much 90 demand there might be strategies of converting some of it to fixed route service. N. Trivedi: Wilson did that; they converted their 91 entire service to MOD. 92 93 G. Woloszczuk: I would feel more comfortable if we had some of the ROI (Return on Investment) projections N. Trivedi: Right 94 now, there’s confusion between demand response and MOD, so we need to clear up our message because while the services 95 are similar and both have “demand” in the name, they are supporting each other and not the same. A. Menius: Does Wilson 96 have any data that would be relevant to Greg’s query? NN: Yes, we can do a data pull. Nygaard then proceeded to discuss 97 engagement strategies. G. Woloszczuk pointed out issues with the website and Nygaard noted it as an action item. 98 99 S. Appel: Did anyone submit anything to the News of Orange? It’s now the news of Orange and Mebane and is a key vehicle for 100 getting people to know about things in both areas. N. Trivedi: We’ll reach out to them. S. Appel: Also, I assume Chapelboro and 101 the W Radio Station. N. Trivedi: I told our communications team who does all of the public engagement with news for Orange 102 County to use all available resources. S. Appel: If you provided a press release to the News of Orange and it’s clean and not too 103 long, they will run it verbatim. And you can do the same on Chapelboro’s website and the radio station. NN: Got it. 104 105 S. Appel: How many people so far have you had feedback from? NN: So far we’ve spoken to a lot of people at the pops-up, but 106 I’d have to ask our public engagement person how many people have responded to the survey so far. Closer to 100. There was 107 a question regarding using the Daily Tarheel for surveys. N. Trivedi explained that since Chapel Hill Transit was doing its own 108 SRTP, the County will participate when they do theirs. NN: explained that they want to get views from the whole County but be 109 careful of getting results from people in Chapel Hill who only take Chapel Hill Transit. 110 111 5.b. US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study 112 113 N. Trivedi presented the final study results. 114 115 G. Woloszczuk: Do we have any data on bike lane usage? I was almost run over on the sidewalk. N. Trivedi: Near misses don’t 116 get reported. Hillsborough and Mebane Bike-Ped data fed this plan. Orange County hasn’t done it yet but will be doing one next 117 year. This plan addresses our data gap. 118 119 R. Marshall: How is 70 classified, is it a thoroughfare or? N. Trivedi: Federal Highway. It is considered a Federal Highway like I-120 40. I can get you documentation on this. R. Marshall: So who officiates in terms of access? Are there Federal officials who 121 determine if you can add a business driveway or other things? N. Trivedi: NCDOT and federal agencies. 122 123 R. Marshall: Are we trying to be more of a Complete Streets project or get people from Durham to Mebane? N. Trivedi: I’m about 124 to cover that in the recommendations. Recommendations include reducing the speed in specific areas including the urbanized 125 areas. 126 127 G. Woloszczuk asked how reducing speed would reduce accidents. J. Mayo: Reduced speed and multilane seem like a tough 128 combination to work like in MLK, even with development on both sides, folks are going well over 35. I have concerns about the 129 lack of future demand shown in the document. I don’t think I saw anything in future traffic numbers that will justify four lanes. 130 131 S. Appel: The railroads own a lot of the rideway to the South of 70 from the last part of Hillsborough all along to Mebane; have 132 they been engaged in this process, this vision? N. Trivedi: Yes. NCDOT (IMD and Railroad) is part of the Core Technical Team and 133 has been from the beginning. We will forward these comments as part of the public engagement portion to the consultant. 134 135 J. Mayo: How does that play into the SRTP, especially given that the existing conditions highlight that the Oange-Alamance 136 Connector may be better served by demand response? N. Trivedi: Or reorganizing that fixed route for better service because this 137 plan’s transit recommendations will feed into that plan as this is locally adopted. J. Mayo: So, the 70 plan would feed the SRTP 138 recommendation? N. Trivedi : Yes. J. Mayo: Even though the Transit experts are on the SRTP? N. Trivedi: That’s something we can 139 discuss when we get to the SRTP recommendations as one document feeds the other. Further recommendation slides were 140 shown, and both Durham and GoTriangle SRTP informed this process. 141 142 A. Cole: You presented this last month, N. Trivedi. Last month we were asked to submit our comments. N. Trivedi : I presented 143 the recommendations, and I gave you the whole document, and you had a month to review this. A. Cole: If you weren’t here 144 that’s one thing, but we were given a presentation last month, and we were asked to provide comments. I also feel like you did 145 your due diligence, in giving us the time that we wanted to provide feedback. You provided last time where those heavy traffic 146 areas are, and I didn’t see that in this report today but what I’m not clear on is the true goal of widening 70 besides those five key 147 things we’re talking about at the beginning which are completely contradictory to the plan of 70. We talked about preserving 148 nature, and rural communities, and then we talked about what we want to do to widen roads but those are very contradictory to 149 me. So, I don’t understand what our true goal is. Whether or not it’s to get people off 70 or to make it easier for people to drive on 150 70. And we have a parallel road which is I-85 which is expected to be widened by the time frame of what we’re proposing to 151 widen 70. So, either our goal is to get people off of one, or off of the other. And if the goal is to get people off 70 and on to 85, then 152 I don’t think we need to widen it if we want to make it into a rural space with the bike-ped stuff. If you keep it as is and make it a 153 rural area preserving nature and putting bike paths on there, people are more likely to use it for those means. But if you’re 154 widening it, I think you’re reducing the likelihood of that going to happen, and I just don’t understand why we’re trying to widen 155 both of those roads. I’m missing something. N. Trivedi: If you look at the existing conditions report, we reviewed it last year, it 156 showed streetlight and modeling data analysis, that 85 wasn't the commuting pattern for the corridor. A. Cole: But if it was 157 widened. N. Trivedi: Data analysis-wise, the study uses the adopted TRM, which includes I-85 widening. Future growth will 158 continue along the corridor itself, affecting local commuting between Mebane and Hillsborough and Durham. A. Cole: So, when 159 you analyzed the traffic density, do we have the parallel data to show how densely populated I-85 was at that same time? It’s 160 congested. If you’re a local person, you’re going to get off and take 70. Do we have the data that says 85 traffic is congested at 161 the same time as 70? N. Trivedi : It is the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) data that shows the future impact of population and 162 employment growth impact on the transportation infrastructure. This data is adopted with the MTP and used by all consultants 163 for all traffic studies. The triangle model showed that even with 85 widened, US 70 still needed to be widened because more 164 people and future businesses are going to keep using US 70. and the development on 70, whether it’s Mebane, Efland, 165 Hillsborough or west Durham, growth of 70 itself that will cause increased traffic on 70. As development grows, we want this 166 plan approved so we can use it as a locally adopted collector street plan to request developers address the impact their growth 167 will cause US 70. It’s not just that it will be a future State project, the developers themselves will be causing the growth and the 168 traffic. 169 170 S. Apple. What if the Orange County Commission does not approve this plan, can we still require developers to make 171 improvements? N. Trivedi: Without this locally adopted plan, there is no basis to require any improvement by Developers. S. 172 Apple: Even though this is a “Visionary Report”? N. Trivedi: It becomes a locally adopted plan. That local adoption gives us the 173 authority through the Unified Development Ordinance. Without adoption, there is no authority. 174 175 S. Appel: And it could also be that there are parts I would feel comfortable with, some parts that I think are good and are needed 176 for Orange County to be able to constrain Developers or require developers to do things but there are parts of it that I don’t feel 177 comfortable with. N. Trivedi : Please understand without approval, without it being a locally adopted plan, there is no imposing 178 on a Developer or asking a Developer or requesting a Developer-S. Appel: But can we take parts of this plan out, or is it all or 179 nothing? N. Trivedi : You can make the recommendations as you see fit. Staff and TAS have recommended approval. Mebane has 180 approved their portion and endorsed the plan. If you are piecemealing, and taking things away, such as suggesting the bike-ped 181 component without the highway component, you’re telling the County Commissioners to pay for it. Because if you’re saying the 182 bike -ped is good but the widening is not, then Complete Streets no longer applies. 183 184 G. Woloszczuk: To Amy’s point about the purpose, my daughter lives near New Bern, and you can go 70 miles an hour, and it is 185 restricted, so what’s the problem we’re trying to solve? The more I think about it, the more I’m unsure what problem we are 186 trying to solve. One minute it’s school traffic, then it’s nature walks. N. Trivedi: That is why the consultant is providing a 187 combination of short-, mid-, and long-term improvements for the full multimodal corridor. 188 189 J. Mayo : Looking at the Goals and Objectives that we’ve got up front, it serves Mobility, but I don’t think it serves placemaking, 190 for safety or natural environment to widen 70. I think especially in this part of Orange County and Alamance County 70 doesn’t 191 need to be the controlled access highway. That’s 85’s job and it’s right there. I think the goal should be to make the urban parts 192 of 70 in Hillsborough and Mebane safer and add some of that to Efland as well. The focus on mobility and adding lanes would 193 lead me to not approve this Study. 194 195 S. Appel: Regarding the environmental issues, I’ve been consciously looking at the rights-of-way and the trees along the corridor, 196 and heavily forested. She indicated that she was worried about the Federally contracted work/maintenance concerning 197 Stormwater control and the replacement of trees. She cited an example at the bridge at Riverside Drive. Overall concerned with 198 widening the roads would lead to a reduction in tree cover. 199 200 R. Marshall: Is it fair to say that there seem to be items in this plan that appear to be at cross purposes to each other? N. Trivedi: 201 advised starting at section 5.1.1.1 which addresses the goals and how they are mapped out. A. Cole requested that each item 202 be explained how it worked toward the goal with data from the consultant. Other members agreed that they needed the data 203 explained to support the mapping and to show the how. Members advised they needed the study to connect the dots for them. 204 Mortality rate concerns from road widening were mentioned. N. Trivedi advised that the AASHTO showed a four-lane divided 205 highway has a reduced crash rating over a two-lane undivided. This was presented in the NC 54 corridor study. R. Marshall 206 wondered if pedestrian accidents were higher in four lanes. 207 208 Motion: A. Cole - Consultant provides a clear indication of how they plan recommendations to help meet the goal with data. A 209 friendly amendment suggested tabling action until members get the consultants' corrections back. N. Trivedi: For clarity, the 210 motion is tabling the item until the consultant can come back and demonstrate data-wise how the recommendations help meet 211 the goals. A Cole: I’m good with that. S. Appel suggested they make a motion to disprove the study as presented because the 212 goals are contradictory, and the recommended plan does not align with the goals. J. Mayo seconded the motion. 213 214 Due to confusion in two motions, N. Trivedi promised to get the consultant to meet with OUTBoard to address all the issues 215 identified in today’s meeting. 216 217 AGENDA ITEM 6: STAFF REPORT/ UPDATES 218 219 6.a. MPO, RPO, & NCDOT Updates 220 N. Trivedi advised members this was contained in the packet. R. Marshall asked about the NC-54 to Westbrook Drive in 221 Carrboro project on 15-501 if it was on the bypass. N. Trivedi: confirmed. J. Mayo advised it was due to apartment projects that 222 were built with no other access to transit. R. Marshall requested a list of DOT administrative items which N. Trivedi advised he 223 would provide. 224 225 6.b. OCTS Updates 226 Staff will provide the HMIP plan 227 228 AGENDA ITEM 7: 229 230 FY25 WORK PROGRAM 231 N. Trivedi advised this is contained in the meeting packet and going to the BOCC for approval in April. The annual work program 232 for transit tax also waiting for approval and is the last thing in your packet is the NCDOT report. 233 234 Public Involvement Strategies 235 No update 236 237 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 238 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2024. 239 ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT 600 Hwy 86 N · Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Phone (919) 245-2008 · Fax (919) 732-2137 orangecountync.gov/transportation Item 5.a. Subject: Strategic Prioritization of Transportation 7.0 Attachment: Att. 1 – SPOT 7 Schedule and Project List Att. 2 – MPO/RPO LIP PURPOSE: Receive presentation on Orange County Strategic Prioritization of Transportation. BACKGROUND: Biennially, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a ten year Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that funds and schedules transportation projects throughout the state for all modes. The STIP implements Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organizations (MPO/RPO) adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The CTP and MTP are used by MPO/RPO to determine which projects are submitted for considered in the STIP using the Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) process. Methodology North Carolina General Statute Chapter 136 Article 14B governs the methodology and addresses multi-modal transportation needs, ensure regional balance, and prioritize projects based on technical criteria. The goal is to produce a project priority ranking which satisfies local and regional goals. All public involvement for this process is conducted in accordance with the MPO/RPO adopted Public Involvement Policy. SPOT P7.0 Schedule and Process Between spring and fall 2023 MPO/RPOs across the state submitted their limited number of projects – based on their population and total centerline miles – to North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for inclusion in SPOT 7.0. The projects were approved by their respective Boards and submitted in accordance with NCDOT process and schedule (Attachment 1). Next step is the local input point process as approved by the MPO and RPO (Attachment 2). FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this item: • GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND INEQUITY The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color; religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or eco nomic status. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs, and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Goal impact is applicable to this item: • CLEAN OR AVOIDED TRANSPORTATION Implement programs that monitor and improve local and regional air quality by: 1) promoting public transportation options; 2) decreasing dependence on single-occupancy vehicles, and 3) otherwise minimizing the need for travel. ACTION: Receive information 2022 20232024 2025O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F MP7.0P7 WorkgroupProject Submittal and ScoringLocal Input Points and ProgrammingDraft 2026-2035 STIPP7 ScheduleJun: BOT Approves P7 MethodologyOct: Workgroup KickoffFixed DatesJul - Oct: Project Submittal WindowJul 10: SPOT Online Go-liveJan - Feb: Program Division NeedsMar: Draft 2026-2035 STIP Released at BOT (Final STIP approval in Sep. 2025)Nov - Apr: Data Review and ScoringEnd of May: Quantitative Scores & Statewide Mobility Programmed Projects ReleasedJune - Aug: Regional Impact Local Input Point AssignmentOct - Dec: Division Needs Local Input Point AssignmentEnd of Sep: Regional Impact Total Scores & Programmed Projects ReleasedMar: Partner Data ReviewMay: Program Statewide MobilitySep: Program Regional ImpactPartner InputSchedule Revision – September 8. 2023Dates set per P7 Workgroup in October 2022Oct 27: SPOT Online closes for project submittalOther Key DatesJul 21, 2023: Carryover Modifications and Deletions dueOct. 27, 2023: Area-Specific Weights dueMay 1, 2024: Deadline for SPOT Office approval of LIP Assignment Methodologies BGMPO Submission Number (Pending TAC Approval) SPOT ID Express Design SPOT ID Submitter Project Category Route From / Cross Street To Specific Improvement Type Cost Statewide Mobility Quantitative Score (Out of 100) Regional Impact Quantitative Score (Out of 70) Division Needs Quantitative Score (Out of 50) 1 H230379 (H190403) H191528 Burlington Regional Impact NC 49 Plaza Drive NC 54 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor $ 5,424,000 0.00 55.31 40.01 2 H230329 (H191089)Burlington Regional Impact US 70 South Main Street 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 51.03 37.73 3 H230380 (H190453) H191529 Burlington Regional Impact NC 49 NC 54 Anthony Rd 11 - Access Management $ 9,031,000 0.00 49.83 35.44 4 H230565 (H185327)Graham Regional Impact NC 87 Swepsonville Saxapahaw Rd/NC 87/Nicks Street 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 46.88 34.74 5 H230393 (H191377)Graham Regional Impact NC 49 (NC 49, NC 54)West Elm Street 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 45.98 33.72 6 H230566 (H184678)BGMPO Regional Impact Jimmie Kerr Road / Trollingwood Road (NC 49) US 70 Green Level Church Road (SR 1747)16 - Modernize Roadway $ 21,592,000 0.00 43.41 32.55 7 H230572 (H172028)Burlington Division Needs SR 1158 (Huffman Mill Road)Garden Road 10 - Improve Intersection $ 1,752,000 0.00 0.00 35.76 8 H230360 (H190623)Burlington Division Needs Main Street Ext.West Front Street East Webb Avenue 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 2,381,000 0.00 0.00 33.50 9 H230578 (H171117)Graham Division Needs N. Main Street SR 2396 W. Parker Street 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 0.00 32.56 10 H230368 (H190367)Burlington Division Needs SR 1308 (Garden Road)Boone Station Drive 10 - Improve Intersection $ 3,504,000 0.00 0.00 31.54 11 H230066 Mebane Division Needs Lowes Boulevard Ext.Lowes Boulevard Trollingwood- Hawfields Rd/NC 119 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 16,128,000 0.00 0.00 30.20 12 H230328 (H191781)Burlington Regional Impact NC 62 Anthony Road Kirkpatrick Road 21 - Realign Multiple Intersections $ 10,705,000 0.00 39.68 30.01 13 H230097 (H190583)Gibsonville Regional Impact US 70 (South Church Street)Ashley Woods Dr. 10 - Improve Intersection $ 1,752,000 0.00 39.41 29.75 14 H230580 (H184087)H184087 Village of Alamance Regional Impact NC 62 NC 62/Bellemont Alamance Road (SR 1136)/Friendship Patterson Mill Road (SR 1130) 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 37.61 28.00 15 H230071 (H190576)Mebane Regional Impact US 70 Moore Street & Woodlawn Rd 21 - Realign Multiple Intersections $ 3,611,000 0.00 36.98 26.53 16 H230331 (H191012)H171172 Burlington Regional Impact NC 49 (Maple Avenue)Henry Road I-40/85 16 - Modernize Roadway $ 8,129,000 0.00 35.09 29.62 HIGHWAY PRELIMINARY SCORES PER P7.0 TESTING SHEET Burlington - Graham MPO Draft P7.0 Project List October 2023 Page 1 17 H230068 Mebane Division Needs Cameron Lane Ext.Cameron Lane Holmes Lane (SR 2129) 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 10,595,000 0.00 0.00 29.20 18 H230395 (H190265)Graham Division Needs SR 2424 BUS (Maple St)North Main Street Gilbreath Street 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor $ 10,849,000 0.00 0.00 29.19 19 H230576 (H140354)Burlington Regional Impact US 70 Tarleton Avenue Fifth Street 16 - Modernize Roadway $ 11,123,000 0.00 33.57 29.12 20 H230027 (H140343)Elon Division Needs SR 1301 (S. Williamson Avenue ) Town Limits with Burlington Trollinger Avenue 16 - Modernize Roadway $ 13,076,000 0.00 0.00 28.35 21 H230332 (H191007)Burlington Regional Impact NC 62 Ext.NC 62 O'Neal Street 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 16,591,000 0.00 30.10 22.77 22 H230581 Village of Alamance Regional Impact NC 62 Anthony Rd Bellemont Alamance Rd 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 81,351,000 0.00 29.00 23.23 23 H230057 Haw River Division Needs SR 1928 (North Wilkins Road) Trollingwood Road (SR1928) and Stone Street 10 - Improve Intersection $ 10,849,000 0.00 0.00 26.99 24 H230374 (H191534)H184226 Burlington Division Needs SR 1148 (Anthony Road)Industry Drive 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 0.00 26.49 25 H230104 (H190586)Gibsonville Division Needs SR 1309 (Westbrook Ave) University Dr.Railroad Avenue 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor $ 1,752,000 0.00 0.00 26.40 26 H230364 (H140343)Burlington Division Needs SR 1301 (St Marks Church Road)Boone Station Drive US 70 (Church St) Elon City Limit 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 27,118,000 0.00 0.00 24.53 27 H230467 (H190350)Orange County Division Needs SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) I-85/I-40 Interchange West Ten Road (SR- 1144)1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 30,303,000 0.00 0.00 23.06 28 H230126 Graham Regional Impact NC 49 (E. Elm Street )Parker Street E Harden Street (NC 54) 24 - Implement Road Diet to Improve Safety $ 12,825,000 0.00 26.31 20.69 23 H230372 (H184224)H184224 Burlington Regional Impact US 70 (Church Street) Springwood Church Road 10 - Improve Intersection $ 7,007,000 0.00 24.87 19.40 30 H230128 Graham Division Needs SR 2424 (Maple Street) Gilbreath St & Maple St 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,256,000 0.00 0.00 18.92 31 H230046 Haw River Division Needs SR 1928 (North Wilkins Road ) Highway 70 and Trollingwood Road Bason Road (SR 1927)/Roxboro Street 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 51,458,000 0.00 0.00 18.12 32 H230461 (H190349)Orange County Regional Impact US 70 Buckhorn Road MPO Boundary 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 141,560,000 0.00 22.33 18.05 33 H230134 Graham Division Needs SR 2309 (Rogers Rd)Lacy Holt Road 10 - Improve Intersection $ 10,849,000 0.00 0.00 17.23 34 H230130 Graham Division Needs SR 2424 (Maple St)W McAden St Bridge over I-40 24 - Implement Road Diet to Improve Safety $ 13,607,000 0.00 0.00 15.96 35 H230043 Haw River Division Needs SR 1928 (Jimmie Kerr Road) SR 1928 (Jimmie Kerr Road) at I40 interchange Stone Street intersection (SR1935/1936) and Trollingwood Rd. (SR 1928) 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 155,270,000 0.00 0.00 15.49 36 H230094 (H190587)Gibsonville Division Needs Railroad Avenue Intersection/Alaman ce Street Alamance St & E. Railroad Ave./Springwood Ave./Burke St 10 - Improve Intersection $ 5,424,000 0.00 0.00 14.63 Page 2 37 H230474 Orange County Division Needs Mebane Oaks Road Improvements NC 54 Old Hillsborough Rd 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor $ 201,176,000 0.00 0.00 14.12 38 H230366 (H129024)H129024 Burlington Regional Impact NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road)Maple Avenue Mebane Street 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 58,144,000 0.00 16.99 12.95 39 H230579 (H190320) (H184227) Whitsett Division Needs SR 3064 (Whitsett Park Road)NC 61 Springwood Church Road 16 - Modernize Roadway $ 11,840,000 0.00 0.00 11.87 40 H230133 Graham Division Needs SR 2396 (Parker Street)E. Elm St N. Melville St 24 - Implement Road Diet to Improve Safety $ 18,165,000 0.00 0.00 14.20 41 H230388 (H190630)Burlington Division Needs SR 3069 (Ingle Dairy Road) Ext.Ingle Dairy Road NC 61 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 24,082,000 0.00 0.00 2.13 42 H230073 Mebane Division Needs SR 1146 (Mattress Factory Road)Industrial Drive E Washington Street 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 22,157,000 0.00 0.00 9.85 43 H230573 (H190376)Burlington Division Needs SR 1213 (Grand Oaks Blvd (A&B))NC 62 Monroe Holt Road 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 58,596,000 0.00 0.00 5.82 44 H230074 Mebane Division Needs SR 1301 (Oakwood Street )E Oakwood Street Mattress Factory Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 26,004,000 0.00 0.00 5.09 45 H230075 Mebane Division Needs SR 1306 (Lebanon Road) Saddle Club Road (SR 1346) Frazier Road (SR 1310)1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 115,769,000 0.00 0.00 4.55 46 H230194 (H185328) Alamance County Division Needs SR 2146 (Saxapahaw Bethlehem Church Road) Pine Avenue Moores Chapel Cemetery Road 24 - Implement Road Diet to Improve Safety $ 18,126,000 0.00 0.00 3.83 47 H230084 Mebane Division Needs SR 1384 (Mace Road) Ext.Mace Road Lebanon Road 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 8,338,000 0.00 0.00 2.96 48 H230375 (H190386)Burlington Division Needs Rural Retreat Ext.Rural Retreat Springwood Village Drive 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location $ 23,411,000 0.00 0.00 1.15 49 H230470 (H190449)Orange County Division Needs SR 1306 (Lebanon Road) Mill Creek Road (SR-1345) Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR-1004) 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor $ 3 0.00 0.00 N/A 50 H231017 (H190570)Mebane Division Needs SR 1007 (Mebane Oaks Road) Mebane Oaks Road (I-5711) Old Hillsborough Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway $ 21,029,000 0.00 0.00 N/A Submission Number SPOT ID STIP ID Route From To Specific Improvement Type Cost Statewide Mobility Quantitative Score (Out of 100) Regional Impact Quantitative Score (Out of 70) Division Needs Quantitative Score (Out of 50) 1 H230394 (H191385)BGMPO Regional Impact NC 87 Albright Swepsonville- Saxapahaw Road 16 - Modernize Roadway $ 43,960,000 0.00 45.69 38.34 2 H230464 (H190452)Orange County Division Needs I-40/85 Mattress Factory/West Ten Mebane Oaks Road 22 - Construct Auxiliary Lanes or Other Operational Improvements $ 63,790,000 56.77 33.76 23.98 3 H230371 (H190362)H184223 Burlington Statewide Mobility I-85 Tucker Street 9 - Convert Grade Separation to Interchange $ 68,105,000 4.43 5.67 3.99 Submission Number SPOT ID STIP ID Route From To Specific Improvement Type Projects Evaluated but not Subject to Submission by BGMPO CARRYOVER - Projects that automatically carry over from P6.0 for evaluation in P7.0 and are NOT included in 18 new project submittal list. SPOT Office released new carryover project list 9/14/23. Page 3 1 H090203 R-2910 US 70 (Church Street) SR 3056 (Rock Creek Dairy Road) in Guilford County University Drive in Alamance County 1 - Widen Existing Roadway 2 H141429-A NC 119 NC 54 Kimrey Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway 3 H141429-B NC 119 Kimrey Road Trollingwood- Hawfields Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway 4 H171028 U-6115A NC 54 (East Harden Street)Riverbend, Johnson SR 1945 (Riverbend Road) / SR 2431 (Johnson Street) 10 - Improve Intersection 5 H171030 U-6115C NC 54 (East Harden Street) SR 2106 Woody Drive 10 - Improve Intersection 6 H171105 U-6115D NC 54 (East Harden Street)Woody Drive Whittmore Road 16 - Modernize Roadway 7 H171125 U-6115B NC 54 (East Harden Street)I-40, I-85 10 - Improve Intersection 8 H171633 U-6183 NC 49 (Roxboro Road) SR 1928 (North Wilkins Road), SR 1927 (Bason Road) 10 - Improve Intersection 9 H171193 U-6214 SR 1454 (East Haggard Avenue)University Drive 10 - Improve Intersection 10 H171985 U-6114 NC 62 (Alamance Road) SR 1155 (Hatchery Road) / Bonnie Lane 10 - Improve Intersection 11 H172025 I-6009 I-40 / I-85 SR 1158 (Huffman Mill Road)8 - Improve Interchange 12 H172275 U-6184 NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) SR 1445 (South O'Neal Street)10 - Improve Intersection 13 H172286 I-6059 I-40, I-85 SR 1981 (Trollingwood- Hawfileds Road) 8 - Improve Interchange 14 H171966 U-6182 NC 87 (Webb Avenue) SR 1515 (Flora Avenue)10 - Improve Intersection 15 H190629 I-40 Westbound Ramp Terminal University Drive 10 - Improve Intersection 16 H191526 US 70 (Church Street)NC 62 O'Neal Street 25 - Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor 17 H192179 NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road) SR 1154 (Tucker Street)10 - Improve Intersection Submission Number SPOT ID STIP ID Route From To Specific Improvement Type 1 H230577 (H184680)H184680 Division 7 Regional Impact NC 87 (Webb Ave) US 70 (N. Fisher Street) NC 87/100 16 - Modernize Roadway 2 H230396 (H191598)Division 7 Regional Impact NC 54 NC 119 Mebane Oaks Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway 3 H230389 (H172117)Division 7 Regional Impact US 70 NC 49 (East Main Street / Roxboro Road) SR 1928 (Trollingwood Road / North Wilkins Road) 1 - Widen Existing Roadway Division 7 Projects to Submit on Behalf of BGMPO Page 4 4 H230567 (H190399)H190399 Division 7 Division Needs SR 1446 (Rockwood/O'Neal Avenue ) Arbor Drive Webb Avenue 5 - Construct Roadway on New Location 5 H230059 (H190575)Division 7 Division Needs NC 62 (Alamance Road)Kirkpatrick Bonnie Lane/Hatchery Road 1 - Widen Existing Roadway 6 H230059 (H190575)Division 7 Division Needs Jimmy Kerr Cherry Lane 10 - Improve Intersection Page 5 SPOTID Submitter Funding Category Project From Specific Improvement Type Estimated Total Project Cost Division Needs Quantitative Score (Out of 50) 1 A230410 (A151063) Alamance Aviation Authority BUY - Burlington - Alamance Regional Airport: Aviation Terminal Building and Terminal Area Development Location of new terminal to be determined. Project is within BGMPO and City of Burlington 1305 - GA Terminal Bldg: New Construction $ 25,000,000 TBD SpotID Submitter Funding Category Project From Specific Improvement Type Estimated Total Project Cost Division Needs Quantitative Score 1 R230091 Mebane Division Needs New Amtrak/light rail station in Downtown Mebane to provide commuter services A new station will relieve commuter needs between Mebane and surrounding urban areas. 4 - Passenger rail station improvement or construction (point) $ 10,000,000 TBD 2 R230408 (R190351)Mebane Division Needs The intersection of Buckhorn Road and the railway. Between E Washington Street and S Frazier Road. East of Frazier Road of a realigned SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) 3 - Highway-rail crossing improvement (point) TBD TBD 3 R230409 (R190451)Orange County Division Needs Mattress Factory Road E Washington Street US 70 TBD TBD 4 R230586 Rail Division Division Needs NS Main Line, NCRR NC Line, and the S Line Division5,7,9,10 Western to Eastern BGMPO Boundary 5 - Passenger service TBD TBD 5 R230587 Rail Division Division Needs Winston-Salem to Raleigh on the NC Line and K Line Division 5,7,9 Western to Eastern BGMPO Boundary 5 - Passenger service TBD TBD SpotID Submitter Funding Category Project From Specific Improvement Type Estimated Total Project Cost Division Needs Quantitative Score 1 T230413 Burlington Division Needs Purchase seven fixed route expansion buses 6 - Facility - Stop/Shelter $ 4,725,000 TBD 2 T230414 Burlington Division Needs Purchase 25 bus shelters 9 - Facility - Maintenance $ 825,000 TBD 3 T230412 Burlington Division Needs Construct transit operations and maintenance facility 2 - Mobility (Route Specific) Headway Reduction $ 2,500,000 TBD 4 T230415 Burlington Division Needs Provide expanded transit services through headway reduction on five routes, plus paratransit 5 - Facility - Passenger Station $ 1,800,000 TBD 5 T230416 Burlington Division Needs Construct transit transfer facility 7 - Facility - Park and Ride $ 6,750,000 TBD 6 T230411 (T190598) Mebane Division Needs Mebane Park and Ride Lot Final location to be determined but generally in the vicinity between I-40 and Mebane Oaks Road 4 - Demand Response TBD TBD 7 T231030 Alamance County Transportation Authority Division Needs ACTA Deviated fixed route and demand response expansion vehicles 4 - Demand Response $ 1,111,600 TBD 8 T231031 Alamance County Transportation Authority Division Needs ACTA Deviated fixed route and demand response expansion $ 605,000 TBD PUBLIC TRANSIT AVIATION RAIL BGMPO DRAFT P7.0 NON-HIGHWAY PROJECT LIST October 2023 TARPO's Draft Recommended Prioritization 7.0 List for New Submittals (Highway, Bike/Ped Aviation) 8/10/2023 County County Mode SPOT ID Route / Facility / Project Name From / Cross Street / Location To / Cross Street Description Notes 101 CHATHAM Bike/Ped B192447 SR 1006 (North Second Avenue) / Cottage Grove Avenue 4th Street W. 11th Street Construct sidewalk on west side of street. From E. 4th St. to W. 11th St. 102 CHATHAM Bike/Ped B192452 SR 1107 (East Third Street) / North Avenue N. 2nd Ave.Mountaire Sidewalk Construct sidewalk on north side of East Third Street. From N. 2nd Ave. to terminus of Mountaire Sidewalk project (south of North Ave) 103 CHATHAM Bike/Ped B192453 SR 1107 (East Third Street) / North Tenth Avenue 4th Avenue E. Raleigh St. Construct sidewalk along south side of East Third Street, and along one side of North Tenth Avenue. From 4th Ave. to E. Raleigh St. 104 CHATHAM Bike/Ped B192837 East Fourth Street/Pine Glade Avenue N. 5th Ave.E. 11th St. Construct sidewalk on north/east side of street. From N. 5th Ave. to E. 11th St. 105 CHATHAM Bike/Ped New US 15/501 US 64 Business Signalized Pedestrian crossings at traffic circle at US 15/501 and US 64 Bus 106 CHATHAM Bike/Ped New Various Five (5) Intersection Pedestrian Crossing Improvements. Three On Us 64 Bus At Mcclenahan St, Small St, Martin Luther King Drive, And Two On Us 15/501 At Chatham St, Pittsboro Elementary School Rd 107 CHATHAM Bike/Ped B192901 Fir Avenue/West Elk Street West Third Street West Elk Street Construct sidewalk on Fir Avenue from West Third Street to West Elk Street, and on West Elk Street from Fir Avenue to West Raleigh Street. 108 CHATHAM Bike/Ped New Martin Luther King Dr & US 64 Bus E US 64 Business End of Martin Luther King Multi-Use 10-Ft Pedestrian Path To Replace Existing Sidewalk On Martin Luther King Drive And Us 64 Bus East To Connect Chatham Park And The Downtown District 121 LEE Bike/Ped B171472 SR 1515 (Third St) SR 1560 (Weatherspoon St) NC 87 (Horner Blvd) Install median refuge islands at six intersections. Add sidewalks at railroad crossing (sidewalk gap), including rail ROW. Add sidewalk curb ramps at multiple locations if needed. 3 - On-Road Designated Bicycle Facility (Bicycle) 122 LEE Bike/Ped B192478 SR 1415 (Seventh Street) SR 1560 (Weatherspoon Street) SR 1514 (Bragg Street) Construct sidewalks on both sides. Install median refuge islands at six intersections. 7 - Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian) 123 LEE Bike/Ped B192481 Hill Avenue US 1 Business (Hawkins Avenue) US 421 Business/NC 87 (Horner Boulevard) Construct sidewalk and install bike lanes while allowing off street parking if possible. 7 - Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian) DRAFT- Subject to Change 1 TARPO's Draft Recommended Prioritization 7.0 List for New Submittals (Highway, Bike/Ped Aviation) 8/10/2023 County County Mode SPOT ID Route / Facility / Project Name From / Cross Street / Location To / Cross Street Description Notes 124 LEE Bike/Ped B192484 SR 1514 (Bragg Street)OT Sloan Park Entrance McIver Street Road Diet, add bike lanes. Construct sidewalks or sidepath. 7 - Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian) 125 LEE Bike/Ped B192698 Wicker Street US 1 Business/NC 42 (Carthage Street) US 421 Business/NC 87 (Horner Boulevard) Perform road diet to add bicycle lanes. Construct sidewalks or sidepath. 2 - Off-Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle) 126 LEE Bike/Ped B192713 SR 1009 (Carbonton Road) US 1 Business/NC 42 (Carthage Street)Currie Drive Construct sidepath 2 - Off-Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle) 127 LEE Bike/Ped S Main Street Broadway Elementary Stevens Avenue Sidewalk 128 LEE Bike/Ped Little Buffalo Creek Greenway Charlotte Avenue Sanford City Hall Greenway 140 MOORE Bike/Ped B171838 Pee Dee Road Greenway Pine St NC 22 (Central Dr)Construct sidepath 141 MOORE Bike/Ped B171644 NC 2 (Midland Road)SR 1843 (Airport Road) SR 1847 (Dr Neal Road)Construct greenway sidepath along road 142 MOORE Bike/Ped B171638 SR 1843 (Airport Road)NC 2 (Midland Road) Existing Forest Creek Greenway Construct greenway sidepath along road 143 MOORE Bike/Ped B171859 SR 1326 (Mikes Place) SR 1203 (Johnson Street) SR 1311 (Magnolia Drive)Construct sidewalk 144 MOORE Bike/Ped B192517 Rockingham Street NC 22 (McNeill Street) Carthage Elementary School Construct sidewalk 145 MOORE Bike/Ped B171839 NC 22 (Central Drive) SR 1848 (Pee Dee Road) Reservoir Park/Mill Creek Greenway Construct greenway sidepath along road 146 MOORE Bike/Ped EB-6005 Aberdeen Downtown Pedestrian Improvements Multiple Construct pedestrian improvements at five intersections and one mid-block location in downtown Aberdeen including stamped crosswalks curb ramps and necessary sidewalk improvements. DRAFT- Subject to Change 2 TARPO's Draft Recommended Prioritization 7.0 List for New Submittals (Highway, Bike/Ped Aviation) 8/10/2023 Key County Mode SPOT ID Route / Facility / Project Name From / Cross Street / Location To / Cross Street Description 101 CHATHAM Highway New US 64 Bypass West Third Street US 421 Construct a four lane median devided freeway facility on new locations with interchanges at US 64, Old US 421 and US 421. 102 CHATHAM Highway New 2nd Avenue Corridor Improvements Fayetteville St. Greensboro Ave. Road Diet incl. median and bike/ped improvements 103 CHATHAM Highway New Pittsboro-Moncure Road (SR 1012) US 15/501 US 1 Modernization with intersection improvements at NC 87 and US 15/501 104 CHATHAM Highway New US 1 Vicinity of 540 Near Tramway (controlled access begins) Bring up to Interstate standards 105 CHATHAM HIghway H190140 US 64 East of US64 Business Interchange West of NC 751 Construct Reduced Conflict Intersections along the US64 Corridor in the vicinity of Lake Jordan 107 CHATHAM Highway New US 421 Ike Brooks Construct a Reduced Conflict Intersection 121 LEE Highway H150159 NC 78 (Tramway Rd) US 1 SR 1001 (Lemon Springs Road)Widen to multilane divided facility 122 LEE Highway H170749 US 1 NC 42 (Wicker Street) Construct single roundabout at intersection of US 1 on/off ramps for southbound direction and NC 42 (western intersection). 123 LEE Highway H185128 SR 1415 (Colon Road) US 1 US 15/501 Widen existing roadway from 2 lanes to 4 lanes from US to Deep River Road and extend road as 2 lanes on 4 lane ROW on new location from Deep River Rd to US 15-501. 124 LEE Highway H185128 SR 1415 (Colon Road) US 421 Bypass US 1 Widen to multilanes 125 LEE Highway H191933 SR 1580 (Ashby Road) US 421 Business (Horner Boulevard) NC 42 (Broadway Road) Reroute Ashby Road to NC 42 (Broadway Road) 126 LEE Highway New Rod Sullivan Road SR 1423 (Farrell Road) Railroad Bridge on Rod Sullivan Road Reroute Rod Sullivan Road 142 MOORE Highway H192131 NC 211 Rattlesnake Road, Gun Club Drive Convert to superstreet intersections along corridor TARPO's Draft Recommended Prioritization 7.0 List for New Submittals (Highway, Bike/Ped Aviation) 8/10/2023 143 MOORE Highway H171727 US 1 NC 2 (Midland Road) SR 1853 (Camp Easter Road)Widen to multilanes 144 MOORE Highway H185146 US 15, US 501 NC 73 NC 24/27 Widen to multilanes 145 MOORE Highway H185147 US 501, US 15 NC 24/27 in Carthage US 1 near Tramway Widen to Multi-Lanes 141 MOORE Highway H171781 New Route - NC 211 SR 1112 (Roseland Road) NC 211 (Raeford Road)Improve intersection, add turn lanes 147 MOORE Highway R-5827 US 501, US 15 US 401 US 1 Widen NC-54 with additional lanes and multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each intersection. 161 ORANGE HIghway H185160 NC-54 Mebane Oaks Road (SR-1007) Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) Widen NC-54 from Mebane Oaks Road (SR- 1007) to Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) and Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) / Inside DCHC with additional lanes and multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each 162 ORANGE Highway H185159 Old NC-86 (SR-1009) I-40 Eubanks Road (SR- 1727) Modernize Old NC-86 (SR-1009) from 1-40 to Eubanks Road (SR-1727) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes at Davis Road (SR-1129), and New Hope 163 ORANGE Highway H185154 Orange Grove Road I85 Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR-1106) from 1-85 to Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Ode Turner Road (SR-1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134), Crossroad Church Cemetery Road (SR-1131), Davis Drive (SR-1129), Kimbro Road (SR-1128) and Dodson Crossroads (SR- TARPO's Draft Recommended Prioritization 7.0 List for New Submittals (Highway, Bike/Ped Aviation) 8/10/2023 164 ORANGE Highway H185158 Mebane Oaks Road NC 54 I85 Modernize Mebane Oaks Road with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough Road Road (SR-2126), Hebron Church Road (SR-1139), Yarborough Road (SR- 1138), Oak Grove Church Road (SR-1117), Jones Road (SR-1123), S Jim Minor Road (SR- 2135), Nicks Road (SR-1119), Bradshaw Quarry 165 ORANGE Highway H185157 Dodson Crossroad (SR- 1102) Orange Grove Road (SR-1006)NC-54 Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102) from Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1106), Borland Road (SR-1126), Arthur Minnis Road (SR-1115), and 167 ORANGE Highway H111162 Old Greensboro Road (SR- 1005) Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942) Alamance County Modernize Old Greensboro Road (SR-1005) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942), Hatch Road (SR-1944), Neville Road (SR-1945), Carl Durham Road (SR-1950), White Cross Road (SR-1951), Wildcat Creek Road (SR-1953), 24 SPOT 7Highway Submittal ListPage 1 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SITJurisdiction SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)A1Townwide Signal System Upgrade ‐ Chapel Hill/CarrboroN/AN/APlan and implement an improved signal system for the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro including transit signal priority.Statewide Mobility13 ‐ Citywide Signal SystemChapel Hill N/A PendingA2Townwide Signal System Upgrade ‐ HillsboroughN/AN/APlan and implement an improved signal system for the Town of Hillsborough including consideration for transit signal priority.Statewide Mobility13 ‐ Citywide Signal SystemOrange County/Town of HillsboroughN/A PendingA3NC 98 (Holloway Street)SR 1919 (Lynn Road)SR 1815 (Mineral Springs Road)Install a median to manage access and improve safety, as well as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodations.Regional Impact11 ‐ Access ManagementCity of Durham H190419 N/A, 42, 35.15A4Cornwallis Rd / NC 55 Intersection ImprovementsCornwallis Rd / NC 55 Intersection‐Improve intersection to enhance safety and provide multimodal accommodationsRegional Impact10 ‐ Improve IntersectionCity of Durham N/A PendingA5SR 1006 (Orange Grove Road)SR 1148 (Eno Mountain Road)SR 1192 (Mayo Street)Create two roundabouts along Orange Grove Road, one at Eno Mountain Road and one at Mayo Street.Division Needs25 ‐ Improve Multiple Intersections along CorridorHillsborough, Orange CountyH192437 N/A, N/A, 21.47A6Orange Grove Road (SR‐1102) Widening with Bicycle and Pedestrian ImprovementsPatriot's Pointe DriveNew Grady Brown School Road (SR‐1221)Construct one additional lane between Patriot's Pointe Drive and New Grady Brown School Road (SR 1221) to include both pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the roadway. The 1‐40 bridge would be widened to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle amenities and one additional travel lane.Division Needs1 ‐ Widen Existing RoadwayOrange County N/A PendingA7US 501 (Roxboro Road)Omega RoadUS 501 Bypass (Duke Street)Construct median as an access management facility, with bicycle and pedestrian facilities and transit stop improvements.Regional Impact11 ‐ Access ManagementCity of Durham H170126 N/A, 46.91, 38.56A8US 70 Business (Hillsborough Road)SR 1314 (Neal Road)Install a one‐lane roundabout.Regional Impact10 ‐ Improve IntersectionCity of DurhamH190418N/A, 46.99, 37.04A9US 15/501 Upgrade (modernization)I‐40US 15/501 BusinessUpgrade US 15/501 in Durham to a boulevard from I‐40 to US 15/501 Business. Intersection improvement at Mount Moriah. Extend Danziger Drive over I‐40. Add priority transit infrastructure.Regional Impact16 ‐ Modernize RoadwayCity of Durham N/A PendingA10 NC 98SR 1811 (Sherron Road / Patterson Road)Per the NC 98 Corridor Study, construct a quadrant road at this intersection to reduce congestion and create travel time savings.Regional Impact10 ‐ Improve IntersectionCity of Durham H192687 N/A, 45.87, 37.93A11 NC 98Ganyard Farm Nichols FarmConstruct a median for access management, as well as sidewalks and/or a shared use path and transit accommodationsRegional Impact11 ‐ Access ManagementDurham County N/A PendingA12US 501 (Roxboro Road)SR 1004 (Old Oxford Road)NC 55 (Avondale Drive)Construct median along section with potential turn lanes at Lavender Avenue, Bon Air Avenue, and Murray Avenue. Fill in sidewalk gaps, provide streetscape amenities, and install bus stop improvements.Regional Impact11 ‐ Access ManagementCity of Durham H170375 N/A, 48, 43.29A13New Route ‐ Northern Durham ParkwayUS 70Sherron ParkwayConstruct roadway on new location and widen Northern Durham Parkway from US 70 to Sherron Road to provide four lanes with a median with bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities as appropriate.Division Needs5 ‐ Construct Roadway on New LocationDurham City/ County H171433 N/A, N/A, 28.35SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Highway Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Project Submissions (DCHC MPO is allotted 24)*Page 2 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SITJurisdiction SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Highway Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023A14NC 751 (Hope Valley Road)NC 54Southpoint Auto Park BlvdWiden to four lanes with a median with bicycle pedestrian and transit facilities as appropriate.Regional Impact1 ‐ Widen Existing RoadwayCity of Durham H111011 N/A, 36.68, 32.65A15 NC 751Renaissance PkwySR 1731 (O'Kelly Chapel Road)Widen NC 751 to four lanes divided and improve the intersection with Fayetteville Road. Include a sidepath for bike/ped use.Regional Impact1 ‐ Widen Existing RoadwayCity of Durham H190420 N/A, 42.86, 38.75A16Village Way/15‐501 Intersection Improvements15‐501Village WaySafety improvements at the intersection of 15‐501 and Village WayRegional Impact10 ‐ Improve IntersectionChatham County N/A PendingA17NC 86 Improvements North of HillsboroughUS 70 Bypass NC 57Widen NC 86 from US 70 Bypass to north of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass and NC 57.Regional Impact25 ‐ Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor Orange County N/A PendingA18I‐85/NC 86 Interchange ImprovementsI‐85NC 86Reconstruct interchange at 1‐85 and NC 86.Regional Impact8 ‐ Improve InterchangeOrange County N/A PendingA19Mangum St / Roxboro St Two Way ConversionE Markham Ave Holloway StConvert Mangum St & Roxboro St from one way to two way streets with multimodal accommodations on one or both streetsDivision Needs16 ‐ Modernize RoadwayCity of Durham N/A PendingA20 US 70Buckhorn Rd (SR‐1114)Durham County lineWiden US‐70 and improve intersections from Buckhorn Road (SR‐1114) to Durham County with NCDOT standard street cross‐section 4G (110' row, 17.5' median, 11' travel lanes, 5' bike lane, c&g, and sidewalk), add turn lanes and safety improvements at NC‐86, St. Mary's Road (SR‐1002), Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR‐1004), Frazier Road (SR‐1310), Richmond Road (SR‐1312), Brookhollow Road (SR‐1324), Faucette Mill Road (SR‐1328), Miller Road (SR‐1555), Lawrence Road (SR‐1561), Palmers Grove Church Road (SR‐1562), Pleasant Green Road (SR‐1567), Orange High School Road (SR‐ 1588), and N Scotswood Boulevard (SR‐2300).Regional Impact25 ‐ Improve Multiple Intersections along Corridor Orange County N/A PendingA21Duke University Rd / Academy Rd / Cameron Blvd Intersection ImprovementsDuke University Rd / Academy Rd / Cameron Blvd‐Improve intersection to enhance safety and provide multimodal accommodationsDivision Needs19 ‐ Improve Intersection on Local (Non‐State) RoadwayCity of Durham N/A PendingA22Mt. Carmel Church Road/15‐501 Intersection ImprovementsMt. Carmel Church RoadCulbreth RoadConstruct safety improvements at the intersection of Mt. Carmel Church Road, Culbreth Road, and 15‐501.Division Needs10 ‐ Improve IntersectionChapel Hill N/A PendingA23 NC 10 Improvements NC 86US 70 BusinessModernize NC 10 from NC 86 to US 70 Business with NCDOT standard street cross‐section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Lawrence Road (SR‐1561) New Hope Church Road (SR‐1723), University Station Road (SR‐1712), Mt. Harmon Church Road (SR‐1339) and US 70 Business.Regional Impact16 ‐ Modernize RoadwayOrange County N/A PendingPage 3 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SITJurisdiction SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Highway Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023A24Orange Grove Road Extension/ NC 86 ConnectorOld NC 86/S. Churton StreetNC 86Extend Orange grove road from Old NC 86 (S. Churton Street) to NC 86 with multimodal accommodations and taking into consideration the new Hillsborough Train Station.Regional Impact5 ‐ Construct Roadway on New LocationOrange County N/A Pending Page 4 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SIT Jurisdiction SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)P7.0 Submitter B1 NC 54Mebane Oaks Road (SR‐1007)Old Fayetteville Road (SR‐1107)Widen NC‐54 from Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR 1951)/ Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR‐1107)/ Inside DCHC with additional lanes and multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each intersection.Regional Impact1 ‐ Widen Existing RoadwayOrange County H185160 N/A, 39.08, 32.18 TARPOB2 SR 1009 (Old NC 86) I‐40SR 1727 (Eubanks Road)Modernize roadway including wider lanes and paved shoulders. Improve multiple intersections in corridor by adding turn lanes.Division Needs 16 ‐ Modernize Roadway Orange, Alamance H185159 N/A, N/A, 33.59 TARPOB3 Orange Grove Road I‐85Dodson Crossroad (SR‐1130)Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR‐1106) from 1‐85 to Dodson Crossroad (SR‐1007) with NCDOT standard street cross‐section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Ode Turner Road (SR‐1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR‐1134), Crossroad Church Cemetery Road (SR‐1131), Davis Drive (SR‐1129), Kimbro Road (SR‐1128) and Dodson Crossroads (SR‐1102).Division Needs 16 ‐ Modernize Roadway Orange County H185154 N/A, N/A, 24.2 TARPOB4Dodson Crossroad Improvements (SR‐1102)Orange Grove Road (SR‐1006)NC 54Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR‐1102) from Orange Grove Road (SR‐1006) to NC‐54 with NCDOT standard street cross‐section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR‐1106), Borland Road (SR‐1126), Arthur Minnis Road (SR‐1115), and Dairyland Road (SR‐1177).Division Needs 16 ‐ Modernize Roadway Orange County H185157 N/A, N/A, 24.2 TARPOB5SR 1005 (Old Greensboro Road)NC 87 in Alamance CountySR 1942 (Jones Ferry Road)Modernize roadwayDivision Needs 16 ‐ Modernize Roadway Orange, Alamance H111162 N/A, N/A, 26.05 TARPOB6 I‐40I‐540NC 147Add service roads to reduce weaving, per recommendations in the HNTB study.Statewide Mobility22 ‐ Construct Auxiliary Lanes or Other Operational ImprovementsDurham County H192764 62.03, 36.75, 31.14 Division 5B7 US 15US 15 Business NC 751Add travel lanes to 15/501. Include 3 NB through lanes (perhaps 2 lanes plus 1 choice lane) for NB vehicles traveling through the Business/Bypass interchange. If needed, include improvements at/between Erwin Road to the west of 15‐501 and Erwin Road to the east of 15‐501.Statewide Mobility1 ‐ Widen Existing RoadwayDurham County H192573 71.46, 44.45, 32.23Division 5B8 US 501 (Duke Street) I‐85SR 1407 (West Carver Street)Convert to 4‐lane SS. Minimize median width and ROW in residential areas. Sidepath may be desired in some areas where ROW is available.Regional Impact4 ‐ Upgrade Arterial to SuperstreetDurham County H193151 N/A, 48.14, 42.53 Division 5B9 NC‐540US 1I‐40 (East)Implement Managed Freeways ImprovementsStatewide Mobility12 ‐ Ramp MeteringDurham County, Wake CountyH192814 Pending CAMPOUpdated 8/17/2023 5:00PMSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Highway Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Projects Potentially Submitted by Others**Note: DCHC is allowed (24) submittals per mode for SPOT 7.0. Carryover projects already in the STIP are not included in this submission.Page 5 of 5 SPOT 7Transit Submittal ListPage 1 of 6 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street Description Project Category County Location SPOT IDPreliminary Score (R, D)A1GoTriangle Route 800 Headway ReductionUNC Hospital in Chapel Hill to the Regional Transit Center in RTP/Durham. Serves UNC campus and Southpoint.Purchase two vehicles to decrease the headways to 15 minutes on the Route 800 from UNC to Southpoint, and construct stop and access improvements including transit priority infrastructure. Improve existing facility at Southpoint Transit Center with shelters, bus pullouts, and designated park‐and‐ride lot.Regional Impact Durham, Orange T192949 61.71, 45A2Durham‐Chapel Hill BRTBRT service from North Carolina Central University in Durham to UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill. Using primarily the 15/501 corridor.BRT service using 10 buses primarily on dedicated lanes. Starting from North Carolina Central University in Durham, stopping at Durham Station in Downtown Durham, Duke University, South Square, Patterson Place, Easttowne, Downtown Chapel Hill, UNC campus, and UNC Hospital, following proposed 400 route. Extend to Carrboro. Regional Impact Durham, Orange T192845 55.07, 39.86A3GoTriangle DRX Route ExpansionDRX route serves Durham to Raleigh via Durham Station in Downtown Durham and Raleigh Union Station in Downtown Raleigh.Purchase two additional vehicles to reduce peak‐hour service headways to every 15 minutes.Regional Impact Durham, Wake T171711 54.43, 40.86A4Durham ‐ Chapel Hill ‐ Arterial BRTArterial BRT service from North Carolina Central University in Durham to UNC Hospital in Chapel Hill. Using primarily the 15/501 corridor.Arterial BRT service using 10 buses primarily on dedicated lanes. Starting from Durham Tech, North Carolina Central University in Durham, stopping at Durham Station in Downtown Durham, Duke University, South Square, Patterson Place, Easttowne, Downtown Chapel Hill, UNC campus, and UNC Hospital, following proposed 400 route. Extend to Carrboro. Regional Impact Durham, Orange T192955 54, 39.86A5 Durham‐Cary BRTBRT service from Duke University to downtown Cary, via downtown Durham, NCCU, Durham Tech, RTP, and Morrisville.BRT, using a combination of dedicated lanes and mixed traffic with Transit Signal Prioritization (TSP), from Duke University to downtown Cary. The portion in Wake County will follow the previously funded Morrisville‐Clayton BRT line.Regional Impact Durham, Wake T192850 50.5, 36A6Commuter Rail Transit West Durham to AuburnCRT service from the West Durham station, which is along Main Street in Durham between Fifteenth Street and Hillsborough Road, and the Auburn station in Garner.Construct commuter‐rail transit service adjacent to and/or within the existing NCRR corridor extending from West Durham to Auburn station in Garner via RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh. Provide 5 trains each direction during the morning rush hour, 5 in the evening rush hour and 1 train each direction in the off‐peak AM and PM (a total of 12 trains each direction). The peak services will operate at one‐hour intervals (e.g. leave origin station at 6:00 am 7:00 am 8:00 am etc.). A total of eight locomotives and 32 coaches will be purchased.Regional Impact Durham, Wake T171692 44.43, 31A7ODX Route Headway ReductionDurham Station in Downtown Durham to Efland‐Cheeks Community Center in Orange County. Serves Duke University, Durham Tech Orange Campus, downtown Hillsborough, and Mebane in Alamance County.Purchase one additional vehicle to support headway reduction to 30 minutes during peak service hours on the ODX route.Regional Impact Durham, Wake T171722 33.86, 27.71A8Fayetteville Street Transit Emphasis CorridorFayetteville Street from Lakewood Avenue to Riddle Road in Durham.Improve ridership along the Fayetteville Street corridor, particularly for GoDurham Routes 5 & 5K, by installing sidewalks, improved stop infrastructure such as landing pads, shelters, lighting, etc., as well as crosswalks, signage, and bus pullouts where appropriate.Division Needs Durham T193154 N/A, 46.5A9Chapel Hill Road Transit Emphasis CorridorChapel Hill Road in Durham from Chapel Hill Street to Pickett Road.Improve transit ridership along the Chapel Hill Street corridor by installing sidewalks, improved stop infrastructure such as landing pads, shelters, lighting, etc., as well as crosswalks, signage, and bus pullouts where appropriate. Includes expansion of route 10.Division Needs Durham T193158 N/A, 44.79SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Transit Submittal ListProject Submissions (DCHC MPO is allotted 24)*August 23, 2023Page 2 of 6 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street Description Project Category County Location SPOT IDPreliminary Score (R, D)SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Transit Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023A10Village Neighborhood Transit CenterVillage Shopping Center, near the intersection of Raynor Street and Miami Boulevard.Design and construct a Neighborhood Transit Center (NTC). This will include shelters, landing pads, bus pullouts, and information and ticket kiosks. Park‐and‐ride facilities will also be available.Division Needs Durham T150449 N/A, 44.14A11GoTriangle Route 100X arterial / highway BRTDurham Station to Moore Square Station via NCCU/Durham Tech, Regional Transit Center and NCSUConstruct Transit Center to connect with arterial BRT and 100x expansion as well as downtown TEZ on Mangum and Pettigrew, and RTC to/from I‐40Division Needs Durham T192633 N/A, 41.14A12 Fayetteville Street BRTDurham Station to Southpoint via Fayetteville Street. Essentially follow the existing GoDurham Route 5.Run a BRT service along Fayetteville Street in Durham from Durham Station in downtown to the Southpoint Transit Center. Complements existing GoDurham Route 5 service.Division Needs Durham T192943 N/A, 35.86A13North‐South BRT w/ HillsboroughNorth‐South BRT from Eubanks park‐and‐ride to Southern Village; includes express service to Hillsborough.North‐South BRT from Eubanks park‐and‐ride to Southern Village; includes express service to Hillsborough. (updated costs)Division Needs Orange T192656 N/A, 35.86A14 Holloway Street BRTDurham Station in downtown Durham to the Village Transit Center in east Durham. Utilize Holloway street primarily for this route.Upgrade the GoDurham Route 3 to a BRT line with Traffic Signal Prioritization (TSP) and queue jumps where applicable. Upgrade stops along the way consistent with BRT aspect of the route. Purchase four new vehicles and increase the service hours to run the service.Division Needs Durham T192853 N/A, 30.72A15Downtown Durham Transit Emphasis Zone (TEZ)Downtown Durham at Pettigrew, Ramsuer, Roxboro, and Mangum streetsImprove bus speed and reliability at TEZ that connect with Liberty Street transit lanes and routes 2, 3, and 9. Regional Impact Durham, Wake N/A PendingA16GoTriangle ODX Headway Reduction & Hillsborough RTCDurham Station in Downtown Durham to Efland‐Cheeks Community Center in Orange CountyReduce headways on route ODX, and upgrade stop and transfer point infrastructure. Includes Construction of Hillsborough Regional Transfer CenterRegional Impact Durham, Orange N/A PendingA17Central Durham BRT ‐ Route 100XDuke to Downtown to NCCU / Durham TechAdd BRT service from Duke to Downtown Raleigh via NCCU/Durham Tech, Regional Transit Center, and NCSURegional ImpactDurham, Wake, JohnstonN/A PendingA18Route 2 headway reductionDurham Station in Downtown Durham to Brier Creek in Wake County.Provide stop improvements along route 2 and reduce headway.Regional Impact Durham, Wake N/A PendingA19 200 / Holloway TEC RaleighAdd new Regional route connecting Raleigh to Durham and provide infrastructure improvements for Holloway Transit Emphasis Corridor (TEC).Regional Impact Durham, Wake N/A PendingA20 GoDurham Route 9Durham Station in Downtown Durham to Riverview Shopping Center in northern Durham Upgrade route 9 through by purchasing vehicles and expanding service, as well as providing transit amenities and infrastructure for Dearborn Drive Transit Emphasis Corridor (TEC).Division Needs Durham N/A PendingA21 GoDurham Route 4Durham Station in Downtown Durham to North Duke Crossing. Route serves Duke Regional HospitalUpgrade route 4 through by purchasing vehicles and expanding service, as well as providing transit amenities and infrastructure for Roxboro Road Transit Emphasis Corridor (TEC).Division Needs Durham N/A PendingA22 Route 3 ExpansionDurham Station in downtown Durham to Holloway StreetProvide improvements/expand along routes 3 / 3V, East Durham Crosstown, and transfer pointsDivision Needs Durham N/A PendingA23North Durham CrosstownDuke Regional Hospital to Duke/VA Medical CenterProvide improvements along North Durham Crosstown route, stops, and transfer points. Division Needs Durham N/A PendingA24North‐South Bus Rapid TransitEubanks Park and Ride to Southern Village Park and RideProvide high quality bus rapid transit service from Eubanks park‐and‐ride in Chapel Hill to Chatham Park in Pittsboro via NC 86 and US 15‐501. Serve downtown Chapel Hill, UNC campus, UNC hospital, Southern Village, Fearrington Village, and Pittsboro.Division Needs Orange T192652 PendingPage 3 of 6 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location(or Previous Submitter)SPOT IDPreliminary ScoreP7.0 SubmitterB1Durham to Triangle Town Center BRTBRT service along NC 147, NC 54, Western Blvd, and Capital Blvd serving Durham, RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from Durham to Triangle Town Center. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary and downtown Raleigh to Triangle Town Center. Project includes 25 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192910 55.79, 39.29Capital Area MPOB2Durham to Clayton BRTBRT service along NC 147, NC 54, Western, Wilmington, US 70 BUS serving downtown Durham Morrisville, Cary, Raleigh, Garner, Clayton and RTP.Construct infrastructure and service from downtown Durham to Clayton. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary. Project includes 28 vehicles. Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192900 54.79, 37.86Capital Area MPOB3Durham to North Hills BRTBRT service along NC 147, NC 54, Western, and Wake Forest Rd serving Durham, RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from downtown Durham to North Hills. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary and downtown Raleigh to North Hills. Project includes 24 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192907 51.71, 36.14Capital Area MPOB4Chapel Hill to North Hills BRTBRT service along NC 54, Western Blvd, and Wake Forest Rd serving Chapel Hill, RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from Chapel Hill to North Hills. New BRT lanes from Chapel Hill to Cary and downtown Raleigh to North Hills. Project includes 31 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192908 50.79, 34.71Capital Area MPOB5Chapel Hill to Triangle Town Center BRTBRT service along NC 54, Western Blvd, and Capital Blvd serving Chapel Hill, RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from Chapel Hill to Triangle Town Center. New BRT lanes from Chapel Hill to Cary and downtown Raleigh to Triangle Town Center. Project includes 33 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192912 50.21, 34.43Capital Area MPOB6RTP Hub to Triangle Town Center BRTBRT service along NC 54, Western, and Capital Blvd serving RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from RTP to Triangle Town Center. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary and downtown Raleigh to Triangle Town Center. Project includes 23 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192909 45.78, 31.71Capital Area MPOB7RTP Hub to North Hills BRTBRT service along NC 54, Western Blvd, Wake Forest Rd serving RTP, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh.Construct infrastructure and service from BRT HUB to North Hills. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary and downtown Raleigh to North Hills. Project includes 21 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192906 45, 31Capital Area MPOB8RTP to Garner Station BRTBRT service along NC 54, Western Blvd, and Wilmington St serving RTP, Morrisville, Cary, Raleigh, and GarnerConstruct infrastructure and service from RTP to Garner Station. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary. Project includes 19 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192914 41.14, 28.14Capital Area MPOB9RTP Hub to Raleigh BRTBRT service along NC 54 and Western Blvd.Construct infrastructure and service from RTP to downtown Raleigh. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary. Project includes 17 vehicles.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192915 37.36, 25.57Capital Area MPOB10 DRXDowntown Durham to downtown RaleighPurchase two 40‐foot buses to support headway reduction on the DRX route, the chief transit connection between Raleigh and Durham.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T191778 23.86, 18.57Capital Area MPOB11 RTP to Cary BRTNew BRT service along NC 54 from RTP to downtown Cary serving RTP, Morrisville, and Cary.Construct infrastructure and sevice from TRP HUB to downtown Cary. New BRT lanes from RTP to Cary. Project includes 8 vehicles. Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T192903 21.93, 14.14Capital Area MPOSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Transit Submittal ListProjects Potentially Submitted by Others**August 23, 2023Page 4 of 6 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location(or Previous Submitter)SPOT IDPreliminary ScoreP7.0 SubmitterSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Transit Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023B12GoTriangle Route CRX Higher FrequencyExpress route between downtown Raleigh and downtown Chapel HillAddition of two 40‐foot buses per shift, generating a 5 minute Headway Reduction on the chief transit connection between Raleigh and Chapel HillRegional ImpactCapital Area MPO T191799 20.29, 15.86Capital Area MPOB13GoTriangle Route 310 ExtensionCary Train Station, Wake Tech, West CaryAddition of a 35‐foot bus, allowing the route to be extended to Cary Train Station serving Wake Tech and West Cary without compromising on frequency.Regional ImpactCapital Area MPO T191789 13.21, 8.86Capital Area MPOB14GoTriangle Route 100X RTP / NC 54 BRTDurham Station to Moore Square StationConstruct a high quality transfer facility, passenger station, and park‐and‐ride lots that include shelters, information kiosks, and other facilities. Upgrade route 100x through this facility with new vehicles. Division NeedsDivision 5 T192847 N/A, 41.14 Division 5B15GoTriangle Bus Stop ImprovementsVarious bus stops in the GoTriangle system.Construct approximately 125 bus stops with passenger amenities as part of bus stop improvement program. Division NeedsCapital Area MPO T191903 N/A, 36.07Capital Area MPOB16Hybrid Vans for Shared Ride ServiceSpecified zones within the Orange County Public Transportation service areaPurchase 5 plug‐in hybrid, ADA‐ramp equipped minivans and 2 level‐two dual charge charging stations for new shared ride serviceDivision NeedsTriangle Area RPO T193096 N/A, 14.25Triangle Area RPOB17Expansion vehicle for CT Express RouteCT Express Route runs between Pittsboro and Chapel Hill (with some runs also serving Siler City)Purchase one large transit vehicle for use on Chatham Transit's fixed route services. In long‐term, vehicle may also be used for future possible connecting service to Sanford, or future fixed route services related to Chatham Park.Division NeedsTriangle Area RPO T193079 N/A, 4.86Triangle Area RPOB18Leigh Village Park and RideLeigh Village Construct Leigh Village Park and Ride that serves as a terminus for UNC‐bound commuters coming from Southeast Durham, Morrisville, Cary, and Raleigh. Regional ImpactRequest for Division 5 N/A Pending PendingB19 OCPT Microtransit Orange CountyPurchase vehicles to support on‐demand service.Division NeedsRequest for Division 7 N/A Pending PendingB20 Durham Microtransit Durham CountyPuchase vehicles to support on‐demand service.Division NeedsRequest for Division 5 N/A Pending PendingB21 3B Headway reductionDurham Station in downtown Durham to Holloway StreetReduce headway and provide improvements to NC 98 infrastructure.Division NeedsRequest for Division 5 N/A Pending PendingB22North‐South Bus Rapid TransitHillsborough to PittsboroAdd additional connection for NSBRT from Hillsborough to PittsboroRegional ImpactRequest for Division 8 N/A Pending PendingB23Orange County Public Transportation Circulator II VehiclesOrange CountyProvide one (1) bus to serve a new route for Orange Public Transportation providing service to major trip generators in HillsboroughDivision NeedsRequest for Division 7 N/A Pending PendingNote: DCHC is allowed (24) submittals per mode for SPOT 7.0. Carryover projects already in the STIP are not included in this submission.*Projects in this category are listed in no particular order and projects need to be narrowed down to only 24. Projects listed with preliminary scores in this sheet were scored in a previous prioritization cycle and scores are subject to change due to updated scoring criteria as well as if the project itself is modified.**Projects in this category are expected to be submitted by other MPOs, RPOs, or Divisions. All partners work together to avoid duplication of project submittals, as well as to submit as many high‐scoring projects as possible.Page 5 of 6 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location(or Previous Submitter)SPOT IDPreliminary ScoreP7.0 SubmitterSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Transit Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Useful Acronyms:TEC ‐Transit Emphasis CorridorTSP ‐ Transit Signal PrioritizationCRT ‐ Commuter Rail TransitTEZ ‐ Transit Emphasis ZoneBRT ‐ Bus Rapid TransitUpdated 8/17/2023 5:00PMPage 6 of 6 SPOT 7Bicycle & Pedestrian Submittal ListPage 1 of 7 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SIT Jurisdiction Division Region SPOT ID SPOT 6.0 Score P7.0 Submitter1East Franklin Street SidepathBooker Creek GreenwayBolin Creek GreenwayConstruct sidepath along north side of Franklin Street to connect Bolin and Booker Creek Greenways.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DB192919 43.06 Town of Chapel Hill2US 15‐501 (University Dr) Cornwallis Rd Blackwell StConstruct shared use sidepaths on both sides of US 15‐501 Business (University Dr) from Cornwallis Rd to Blackwell St.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB193022 42.25 City of Durham3ATT / Durham Rail Trail ConnectorW Chapel Hill St at Future Durham Rail TrailAmerican Tobacco Trail at Morehead AveConstruct shared use path / multi‐use path and/or separated bike lane path to connect American Tobacco Trail to Downtown Durham and future Durham Rail Trail.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170485 41.88 City of Durham4SR 1183 (University Drive)SR 1116 (Garrett Road)Hope Valley RdConstruct shared use sidepath along one side of the roadway.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170469 41.5 City of Durham5US 15/501 (Durham‐Chapel Hill Boulevard)Nation AvenueUS 15/501 (University Drive)Construct sidewalks, improve bicycle lanes, and install intersection improvements.Division Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)City of Durham5CB170484 40.87 City of Durham6Estes DriveCaswell Road East Franklin StreetConstrct a sidewalk on the south side of the street and a multiuse path on the north side of the street.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road Designated Bicycle FacilityTown of Chapel Hill 7DB192899 40.55 Town of Chapel Hill7US 501 (Roxboro Road) SR 1456 (Milton Road) Fairfield Road Construct shared use paths on both sides of the road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB193052 39.03 City of Durham8SR 1843 (Seawell School Road)SR 1777 (Homestead Road)SR 1780 (Estes Drive Extension)Construct a sidepath along the entire corridor from Estes Drive to Homestead Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Shared‐Use Path/Multi Use Path)Town of Carrboro 7DB171175 37.99 Town of Carrboro9 Cook RdMartin Luther King Jr ParkwayAmerican Tobacco TrailConstruct a shared use sidepath. Construct shared use path on one side of Cook Rd from Martin Luther King Jr Pkwy to Fayetteville St and connect a shared use path or trail from Fayetteville St to the American Tobacco Trail.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB150405 37.25 City of Durham10 Warren Creek Trail Extension Horton RdStadium Dr Northern Dead EndConstruct a shared use sidepath on one side of Stadium Dr from Horton Rd to Stadium Dr northern dead end.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170526 33.14 City of Durham11 Campus to Campus Greenway Broad StreetVillage Drive and Tanyard Branch GreenwayConstruct an off‐road multi‐use path providing a safe connection between downtown Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the rest of the greenway network.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7 D B150258 32.61 Town of Chapel Hill12Bolin Creek Greenway ExtensionEstes Drive Umstead ParkThis roughly .5 mile project would connect the 2.5 mile Bolin Creek Greenway from Umstead Park to the planned 1.7 miles of bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Estes Drive Extension, completing a key east‐west connection and connecting Chapel Hill and Carrboro.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DB193180 32.28 Town of Chapel Hill13SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road)US 15/501SR 1913 (Bennett Road)Construct a multi‐use path on one side of Mt. Carmel Church Road. Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DB170403 31.9 Town of Chapel Hill14Ephesus Church Road SidewalkPinehurst Drive/Sharon RoadPope RoadConstruct sidewalks and bike lanes along both sides of Ephesus Church Road.Division Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill 7DB193177 27.83 Town of Chapel Hill15 Old NC 86 ‐ Hillsborough RoadSR 1777 (Homestead Road)Farm House DriveConstruct bicycle lanes on both sides of roadway and a sidewalk along the north/east side of roadway to extend existing bike lanes and sidewalk at Farm House Road to Homestead/Dairyland Rd intersection at Calvander.Division Needs3 ‐ On‐Road Designated Bicycle Facility (Bike Lanes)Town of Carrboro 7DB150435 N/A Town of Carrboro16 15‐501 South Sidepath Dogwood Acres DriveChatham County LineConstruct a multi‐use path on one side of 15‐501 South.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill17 Raleigh Road Sidepath Country Club Road Hamilton Road Construct a multi‐use path on one side of Raleigh Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill18 NSBRT Multi‐Use Path Eubanks Road Sumac RoadThe Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd./ S. Columbia St. multiuse path (MUP) creates 10.5 miles of offroad bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Chapel Hill’s primary north‐south travel corridor and is the linchpin of the Town’s multimodal investments. The MUP will be on both sides of the road from Sumac Road/15‐501 to Culbreth Road/15‐501 (~3.8 miles), and on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. from North Street (Town Hall) to Eubanks Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill19Carrboro Morgan Creek Greenway, Phase 2N/ASmith Level Road (by way of Phase 1)Construct approximately 2800 LF of paved multi‐use path, with one crossing. MUP to extend from the western terminus point of EL‐4828A (Carrboro Morgan Creek Greenway Phase 1) to beginning point for future Phase 3. Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Shared‐Use Path/Multi Use Path)Town of Carrboro 7DN/AN/A Town of CarrboroSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListProject Submissions (DCHC MPO is allotted 24)*August 23, 2023Page 2 of 7 SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListAugust 23, 202320 I‐85 Pedestrian Bridge Flat Ford RoadBeckett's Ridge DriveConstruct a pedestrian bridge across I‐85 to connect downtown Hillsbrough, the future train station, Collins Ridge, and Daniel Boone area to southern neighborhoods including Waterstone, Becketts Ridge, Cornwallis Hills, and future planned developments. Listed as project name "I‐40/New Hillborough collector road" with description of Bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I‐85 in CTP.Division Needs6 ‐ Grade‐Separated Pedestrian FacilityTown of Hillsborough 7DN/AN/ATown of Hillsborough21 Weaver Dairy Road Sidewalk Sage RoadErwin Road Construct a sidewalk on one side of Weaver Dairy Road.Division Needs6 ‐ Grade‐Separated Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill22 Erwin RdCameron Blvd Flowers DrConstruct shared use sidepaths on both sides of Erwin Rd from Cameron Blvd to Flowes Dr.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CN/AN/A City of Durham23Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk ImprovementsHarold Latta Road US 70Construct a sidewalk along the west side of Orange High School Road from Harold Latta Road to U.S. 70, construct a sidewalk along the south side of Harold Latta Road from Cloverfield Drive to Orange Grove Road, install high visibility crosswalks and in‐road signage at school entrances and exits on Orange Grove Road, and construct a sidewalk along entrance roads to CW Stanford MiddleSchool.Division Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian FacilityOrange County7DN/AN/A Orange County24Downtown Rail Trail To R. Kelly Bryant Bridge TrailDurham Rail Trail at Avondale DrDrew St / Granby St IntersectionConstruct a multimodal trail facility to connect the Downtown Rail Trail to the R Kelly Bryant Bridge Trail.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CN/AN/A City of DurhamPage 3 of 7 SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023# Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category Jurisdiction Division Region SPOT ID SPOT 6.0 Score P7.0 Submitter25 15‐501 Ped Crossing NorthsideSouthside Pedestrian Bridge over 15‐501.Division Needs6 ‐ Grade‐Separated Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill26ATT Forest Hills Park ‐ Lyon Park Connector TrailChapel Hill Rd / Morehead AveW Enterprise St / ATTConstruct a multimodal trail facility to connect the ATT & Forest Hills Park to Lyon Park.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CN/AN/A City of Durham27 NC 55 (Apex Highway)American Tobacco Trail Spur at Riddle RdCornwallis RoadConstruct shared use sidepath on one side of roadway and make intersection improvements.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170481 37.55 City of Durham28 Bennett Road Sidewalk 15‐501Mt. Carmel Church Road roundaboutConstruct a sidewalk on one side of Bennett Road.Division Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill29 Fordham Pedestrian Bridge Northside of FordhamSouthside of FordamPedestrian bridge between UNC Health Eastowne and Parkline Office Building.Division Needs6 ‐ Grade‐Separated Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill 7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill30 NC 55 (Apex Highway)Carpenter Fletcher RoadNC 54Construct sidepaths on both sides of the road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB193086 37.18 City of Durham31Alston AvenueCornwallis Road NC 54Construct a sidepath.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170483 37.11 City of Durham32 NC 98 (Holloway Street) Lynn RdGanyard Farm WayConstruct sidepaths on both sides of the road and include intersection improvements.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB19313236.76 City of Durham33 SR 1669 (Club Boulevard) Glenbrook DriveSR 1666 (Dearborn Dr)Construct a sidepath on one side and sidewalks on the other side for the entire length of the route.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB150122 N/A City of Durham34 I 40/ Triangle Bikeway NC 55TW Alexander DriveConstruct a shared use sidepath along both sides of the roadway and pedestrian intersection improvements and sidewalk connections to bus stops on both sides of the road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170480 37.4 City of Durham35 NC 751 (Academy Road) Duke University Rd University Drive Construct a sidepath for the entire length of the route.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB150104 40.85 City of Durham36 SR 1959 (Miami Boulevard) SR 1926 (Angier Ave) NC 54Construct a sidepath along east side of Miami Boulevard and a sidewalk along the west side of Miami Boulevard. A portion of this sidepath will be constructed in P‐5717.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170479 33.8 City of Durham37 Swift AveMain StHull AveConstruct a shared use sidepath on the east side of Swift Ave from W Pettigrew St to Hull Ave and construct a small section of sidewalk on the west side of Swift Ave.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CN/AN/A City of Durham38Downtown Chapel Hill StreetscapeMerritt Mill Road Henderson StreetThis project will enhance the streetscape of downtown Chapel Hill, in alignment with the Downtown Streetscape Plan.Division Needs9 ‐ Improved Pedestrian FacilityTown of Chapel Hill7DN/AN/A Town of Chapel Hill39I 40 / Triangle Bikeway (NC 54 to NC 55)NC 54NC 55Construct a segment of the Triangle Bikeway in Durham County, which entails a shared use sidepath approximately 5 miles in length along the south side of I‐40 from the bridge at NC 54 to NC 55. Includes new bicycle facilities, pedestrian intersection improvements, and transit connections. Submitted by DCHC MPO.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)DCHC MPO5CN/AN/A DCHC MPOMemberSubmitted First 24 AlternateChapel Hill14104Carrboro33 0Hillsborough11 0Orange County51 0City of Durham21910DCHC MPO10 1452415Additional Project Considerations**Page 4 of 7 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SIT Jurisdiction Division Region SPOT ID P6.0 Score Original P7.0 SubmitterSubmitted by DCHC MPO for Consideration on Division 5 List1US 15‐501 (University Dr)Cornwallis Rd Blackwell StConstruct shared use sidepaths on both sides of US 15‐501 Business (University Dr) from Cornwallis Rd to Blackwell St.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B193022 42.25 City of Durham2ATT / Durham Rail Trail ConnectorW Chapel Hill St at Future Durham Rail TrailAmerican Tobacco Trail at Morehead AveConstruct shared use path / multi‐use path and/or separated bike lane path to connect American Tobacco Trail to Downtown Durham and future Durham Rail Trail.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B170485 41.88 City of Durham3SR 1183 (University Drive)SR 1116 (Garrett Road)Hope Valley RdConstruct shared use sidepath along one side of the roadway.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5CB170469 41.5 City of Durham4US 15/501 (Durham‐Chapel Hill Boulevard)Nation AvenueUS 15/501 (University Drive)Construct sidewalks, improve bicycle lanes, and install intersection improvements.Division Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)City of Durham5 C B170484 40.87 City of Durham5US 501 (Roxboro Road)SR 1456 (Milton Road)Fairfield RoadConstruct shared use paths on both sides of the road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B193052 39.03 City of Durham6 Cook RdMartin Luther King Jr ParkwayAmerican Tobacco TrailConstruct a shared use sidepath. Construct shared use path on one side of Cook Rd from Martin Luther King Jr Pkwy to Fayetteville St and connect a shared use path or trail from Fayetteville St to the American Tobacco Trail.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B150405 37.25 City of Durham7Warren Creek Trail ExtensionHorton RdStadium Dr Northern Dead EndConstruct a shared use sidepath on one side of Stadium Dr from Horton Rd to Stadium Dr northern dead end.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B170526 33.14 City of DurhamSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Projects Potentially Submitted by Others**Page 5 of 7 SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Projects Potentially Submitted by Others**# Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SIT Jurisdiction Division Region SPOT ID P6.0 Score Original P7.0 SubmitterSubmitted by DCHC MPO for Consideration on Division 7 List1East Franklin Street SidepathBooker Creek GreenwayBolin Creek GreenwayConstruct sidepath along north side of Franklin Street to connect Bolin and Booker Creek Greenways.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B192919 43.06Town of Chapel Hill / Division 72Estes DriveCaswell RdEast Franklin StreetConstruct a sidewalk on the south side of the street and a multiuse path on the north side of the street.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road Designated Bicycle FacilityTown of Chapel Hill7 D B192899 40.55Town of Chapel Hill / Division 73SR 1843 (Seawell School Road)SR 1777 (Homestead Road)SR 1780 (Estes Drive Extension)Construct a sidepath along the entire corridor from Estes Drive to Homestead Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Shared‐Use Path/Multi Use Path)Town of Carrboro7 D B171175 37.99 Town of Carrboro4Campus to Campus GreenwayBroad StreetVillage Drive and Tanyard Branch GreenwayConstruct an off‐road multi‐use path providing a safe connection between downtown Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the rest of the greenway network.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B15025832.61Town of Chapel Hill5Bolin Creek Greenway ExtensionEstes Drive Umstead ParkThis project would connect the 2.5 mile Bolin Creek Greenway to the planned 1.7 miles of bicycle and pedestrian improvements on Estes Drive Extension, completing a key east‐west connection and connecting Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B193180 32.28 Town of Chapel Hill6SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road)US 15/501SR 1913 (Bennett Road)Construct a multi‐use sidepath on one side of Mt. Carmel Church Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B170403 31.9 Town of Chapel Hill7Ephesus Church Road SidewalkPinehurst Drive/Sharon RoadPope RoadConstruct sidewalks and bike lanes along both sides of Ephesus Church RoadDivision Needs7 ‐ Protected Linear Pedestrian Facility (Pedestrian)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B193177 27.83 Town of Chapel Hill8Old NC 86 ‐ Hillsborough RoadSR 1777 (Homestead Road)Farm House DriveConstruct bicycle lanes on both sides of roadway and a sidewalk along the north/east side of roadway to extend existing bike lanes and sidewalk at Farm House Road to Homestead/Dairyland Rd intersection at Calvander.Division Needs3 ‐ On‐Road Designated Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Carrboro7 D B150435 n/a Town of CarrboroPage 6 of 7 SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023Projects Potentially Submitted by Others**# Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street To/Cross Street Description Project Category SIT Jurisdiction Division Region SPOT ID P 6.0 Score Original P7.0 SubmitterSubmitted by NCDOT Highway Divisions in P6.0B1East Franklin Street SidepathBooker Creek GreenwayBolin Creek GreenwayConstruct sidepath along north side of Franklin Street to connect Bolin and Booker Creek Greenways.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7DB192919 43.06Town of Chapel Hill / Division 7B2 Estes DriveCaswell RdEast Franklin StreetConstruct a sidewalk on the south side of the street and a multiuse path on the north side of the street.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road Designated Bicycle FacilityTown of Chapel Hill7 D B192899 40.55Town of Chapel Hill / Division 7B3SR 1669 (Club Boulevard)Glenbrook DriveSR 1666 (Dearborn Dr)Construct a sidepath on one side and sidewalks on the other side for the entire length of the route.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road / Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)City of Durham5 C B150122 N/ACity of Durham / Division 5B4SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road)US 15/501SR 1913 (Bennett Road)Construct a multi‐use sidepath on one side of Mt. Carmel Church Road.Division Needs2 ‐ Off‐Road/Separated Linear Bicycle Facility (Bicycle)Town of Chapel Hill7 D B170403 31.9Town of Chapel Hill / Division 7Note: DCHC is allowed (24) submittals per mode for SPOT 7.0. Carryover projects already in the STIP are not included in this submission.*Projects in this category are listed in no particular order and projects need to be narrowed down to only 24. Projects listed with preliminary scores in this sheet were scored in a previous prioritization cycle and scores are subject to change due to updated scoring criteria as well as if the project itself is modified.**These are projects that are expected to be submitted by local Divisions. All partners work together to avoid duplication of project submittals, as well as to submit as many high‐scoring projects as possible.Updated 8/17/2023 5:00PMPage 7 of 7 SPOT 7Rail Submittal ListPage 1 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)A1 NCRR/NC LineNS/NCRR H Line crossings at Blackwell Street, Mangum Street, and Fayetteville Street in DurhamConstruction of at‐grade crossing improvements at Blackwell Street and cluster traffic signal cabinets at Blackwell/Corcoran Street (Crossing # 735 229N), US 15 (Mangum Street) (Crossing # 735 231P), and SR 1118 (Fayetteville Street) (Crossing # 910 605Y) in Durham Statewide MobilityDurham R150325 82.52, 53.58, 38.6A2 NCRR/NC Line SR 1954 (W. Ellis Road)Construction of grade separation at SR 1954 (W. Ellis Road) and closure of existing at‐grade crossing (Crossing # 735 236Y) in Durham.Statewide MobilityDurham R140014 76.31, 49.65, 34.37A3NCRR/NC LineExchange Park Lane (Crossing #735 158U)Construction of new railroad bridge or other railroad approved method over Exchange Park Lane (Crossing #735 158U) to accommodate pedestrian traffic within the structure.Statewide MobilityOrange R170029 14.47, 9.65, 14.47A4 NCRR/NC Line SR 1317 (Neal Road)Construction of grade separation at SR 1317 (Neal Road) and closure of existing at‐grade crossing (Crossing # 735 202E) in Durham.Statewide MobilityDurham R150312 68.77, 44.16, 30.97A5 NCRR/NC LineEast Durham Yard (MP 58.5) to Nelson (MP 63.5) in DurhamConstruction of second main track from East Durham Yard (MP 58.5) to Nelson (MP 63.5) in Durham.Statewide MobilityDurham R150320 54.74, 43.66, 27.98A6 NCRR/NC LineUS 15/501 Business (Roxboro St) in downtown DurhamImprove the crossing (Crossing# 735 233D) at US 15/501 Business (Roxboro Street) in downtown Durham. Make the bridge higher to reduce truck conflict, make the span wider to facilitate a future two‐way of Roxboro Street, and make the bridge wider to be able to accommodate four tracks. Potentially create an intersection at Ramseur and Roxboro.Regional ImpactDurham R192634 N/A, 24.17, 22.88A7 NCRR/NC LineControl Point Funston (MP 49.8) to East Durham Yard (MP 56) in Durham Construction of second main track from Control Point Funston (MP 49.8) to East Durham Yard (MP 56) in Durham.Statewide MobilityDurham, Orange R150319 14.39, 12.08, 14.39A8NCRR/NC Line I‐40 Rail Bridge in Durham County Construct triple track bridge over I‐40 in Durham County.Statewide MobilityDurham R171833 14.39, 12.08, 14.39A9 NCRR/NC Line MP H 38 to MP H 40.4 near EflandConstruction of curve radius improvements from MP H 38 to MPH 40.4 near Efland.Statewide MobilityOrange R170033 14.26, 11.95, 14.26A10NCRR/NC Line MP H 44.5 to MP H 48 east of HillsboroughConstruction of curve radius improvements from MP H 44.5 to MPH 48 east of Hillsborough.Statewide MobilityOrange R170032 13.95, 11.64, 13.95A11 NCRR/NC Line NCRR H Line from MP 41.7 to MP 42.2.Construction of curve radius improvements near Collins Ridge in Hillsborough from approximately MP 41.7 to MP 42.2. According to local officials, property for realignment of track was previously obtained.Statewide MobilityOrange R192631 13.29, 10.98, 13.29A12 NCRR/NC Line S.Plum Street Rail Crossing ImprovementsImprove the crossing (Crossing# 630472K) at S Plum Street including a grade separation, crossing closure, rail‐crossing consolidation, and additional safety initiatives. Statewide MobilityDurhamN/APendingA13 NCRR/NC Line S.Driver Street Rail Crossing ImprovementsImprove the crossing (Crossing# 630471D) at S Driver Street including a grade separation, crossing closure, rail‐crossing consolidation, and additional safety initiatives. Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingA14 NCRR/NC Line Ellis Road North Rail Crossing ImprovementsImprove the crossing (Crossing# 735236Y) at Ellis Road including a grade separation, crossing closure, rail‐crossing consolidation, and additional safety initiatives. Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingSPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Rail Submittal ListProject Submissions (DCHC MPO is allotted 24)*August 23, 2023Page 2 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Rail Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023A15 NCRR/NC Line King to West Durham Track ImprovementsConstruct new railroad track from Old State Route 10 (State Route 1715) in "King" to the proposed West Durham Station just east of Hillandale Road to establish double track along this corridor segment. Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingA16 NCRR/NC Line Central Durham Track ImprovementsConstruct new railroad track from the proposed West Durham Station(just east of Hillandale Road) to the proposed East Durham Station (just east of Alston Avenue/NC55) to establish double track along this corridor segment. Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingA17 NCRR/NC Line East Durham to Sullivan Track ImprovementsConstruct two new railroad tracks from East Durham Station (east of Alston Avenue/NC55) to "Sullivan" (east of Glover Road/State Route 1940) to establish triple track along this corridor segment. Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingA18 NCRR/NC Line Sullivan to Nelson Track Construct new railroad track from "Sullivan" (east of Glover Road/State Route 1940) to "Nelson" (west of NC 54 and proposed RTP station) to establish double track along this corridor segment. Statewide MobilityDurhamN/A PendingA19 NCRR/NC Line Research Triangle Park (RTP) StationConstruction of a new rail station for Piedmont service in RTP. To be located on RTF‐owned land near the intersection of NC‐54 and S Miami Blvd (south of NC‐54 and on the west side of the NCRR line).Regional ImpactDurhamN/APendingA20 NCRR/NC Line Hillsborough Regional Transfer StationConstruction of a multimodal transportation center to include rail, transit, bike/ped, and park‐n‐ride accomodations. Project location: 36.066613, ‐79.097416Regional ImpactOrange N/A PendingA21 NCRR/NC Line East Durham Rail Yard RelocationRelocate the rail yard to benefit commuter rail and freight rail traffic. This project will minimize negative impacts of rail industry related to environmental justice, as well as improve overall rail capacity. Regional ImpactDurham N/A PendingA22NS Main Line, NCRR NC Line, S LineNew passenger service from Charlotte to Washington, DC Upgrade infrastructure to support new passenger service from Charlotte to Washington, DC via the NS Main Line, NCRR NC Line, and the S Line. (5 ‐ PAX service)Regional ImpactCRTPO, Cabarrus‐Rowan,High Point, Greensboro, Burlington‐Graham, DCHC, CAMPO, Kerr‐TarN/A PendingA23NCRR/NC Line,K LineNew passenger service from Winston‐Salem to RaleighUpgrade rail infrastructure to support new passenger service from Winston‐Salem to Raleigh on the NC Line and K Line. Project includes necessary infrastructure, stations, and passenger equipment to begin service with three roundtrips per day. (5 ‐ PAX service)Regional ImpactCAMPO, DCHC, Burlington‐Graham, Greensboro, Winston‐SalemN/A PendingPage 3 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross Street DescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location SPOT IDPreliminary Score(S, R, D)SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Rail Submittal ListAugust 23, 2023A24 NCRR/NC LineBundled Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements at Rail Crossings in DurhamInstall wheelchair ramps, crosswalks, and relocate stop bars for pedestrian access at SR 1118 (Fayetteville Street) (Crossing # 910 605Y)Install decorative fence and restricted access fence, streetscape lights, wheelchair ramps, sidewalk, and cluster traffic signal cabinets at Blackwell/Corcoran Street (Crossing # 735 229N) in Durham. Install wheelchair ramps and crosswalks for pedestrian access at SR 1445 (Duke Street) (Crossing # 735 227A)Widen shoulders within railroad ROW and install wheelchair ramps and crosswalks on SR 1322 (Swift Avenue) (Crossing # 735 223X) in Durham.Install wheelchair ramps and crosswalk for pedestrian access at Buchanan Boulevard (Crossing # 735 225L)Install decorative fence, streetscape lights, wheelchair ramps, and sidewalk at US 15 Bus (Mangum Street) (Crossing # 735 231P) Statewide MobilityDurham N/A PendingNote: DCHC is allowed (24) submittals per mode for SPOT 7.0. Carryover projects already in the STIP are not included in this submission. The primary purpose of rail projects must be to improve railroad operations*Projects in this category are listed in no particular order and projects need to be narrowed down to only 24. Projects listed with preliminary scores in this sheet were scored in a previous prioritization cycle and scores are subject to change due to updated scoring criteria as well as if the project itself is modified.**Projects in this category are expected to be submitted by other MPOs, RPOs, or Divisions. All partners work together to avoid duplication of project submittals, as well as to submit as many high‐scoring projects as possible.Updated 8/17/2023 5:00PMPage 4 of 5 # Route/Facility Name From/Cross StreetDescriptionProject CategoryCounty Location SPOT ID Preliminary Score P7 SubmitterB1 NCRR/NC Line Mt. Willing RdThis project would realign Mt. Willing Road to line up with Efland Cedar Grove Road at US 70 and would remove the at‐grade crossing (735 145T) of the Norfolk Southern Rail Line at mile post H‐37.31 and would construct a bridge over this line. This line serves as a connect from Greensboro to Durham. Statewide MobilityOrange R19132165.74, 43.29, 31.53 Division 7B2NCRR/CSX S, NCRR/NC,NCRR/NS MainPiedmont Corridor: Raleigh to Charlotte6th frequency addition to Charlotte to Raleigh service. Requires improvements to NC Line between Greensboro and Raleigh.Regional ImpactDurham, Orange R190772 N/A, 17.11, 13.76 BGMPOB3NCRR/NC LineNS/NCRR H Line crossing of Dimmocks Mill Road in Hillsborough.Construction of grade separation at Dimmocks Mill Road (Crossing # 735 154S) and closure of Bellvue Street existing at‐grade crossing (Crossing # 735 152D) and West Hill Avenue existing at‐grade crossing (Crossing # 735 151W). Project includes a pedestrian tunnel at Hill Avenue.Statewide MobilityOrangeR15031871.43, 46.08, 34.52Requested for Division 7SPOT 7.0 DCHC MPO Rail Submittal ListProjects Potentially Submitted by Others**Note: DCHC is allowed (24) submittals per mode for SPOT 7.0. Carryover projects already in the STIP are not included in this submission. The primary purpose of rail projects must be to improve railroad operations*Projects in this category are listed in no particular order and projects need to be narrowed down to only 24. Projects listed with preliminary scores in this sheet were scored in a previousprioritization cycle and scores are subject to change due to updated scoring criteria as well as if the project itself is modified.**Projects in this category are expected to be submitted by other MPOs, RPOs, or Divisions. All partners work together to avoid duplication of project submittals, as well as to submit as many high‐scoring projects as possible.August 23, 2023Updated 8/17/2023 5:00PMPage 5 of 5 BURLINGTON-GRAHAM METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Local Input Points Methodology Adopted March 19, 2024 NCDOT Prioritization 7.0 Update 1 Burlington - Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization P7.0 Local Input Point Assignment Methodology Amended January 2024, Adopted March 2024 Introduction NCDOT developed project prioritization as a collaborative, data-driven, approval process for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in 2009. Significant changes were made to the process prompted by House Bill 817 also known as the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI). The bill established funding tiers (Statewide, Regional, and Division) and allocations across all modes. The outcome of the STI process is the draft State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STI legislation applies uniformly across the state regardless of the boundaries of MPOs. STI requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), and NCDOT Divisions develop a project solicitation process and adopt a project ranking process for all modes of transportation. Each MPO and RPO must develop, adopt, and implement a methodology that maintains criteria transparency, process documentation and maximizes the opportunity for public review and comment. In 2017, NCDOT developed new standards based on the findings and recommendations in the Local Input Point (LIP) Process Verification Report and observed best practices from Prioritization (P) 3.0, P4.0 and P5.0 and includes the creation of a NCDOT review process that ensures each MPO develops a LIP assignment methodology used in its prioritization process. While NCDOT has not issued significant guidance changes or requirements since the P5.0 cycle, a new P6.0 LIP Flex Policy enables the transfer of up to 500 LIPs between Regional Impact and Division Needs projects. The Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) LIP Methodology outlines the steps used for its P7.0 project selection and LIP assignment. The BGMPO developed a transparent process to meet the multimodal transportation needs of its member jurisdictions in accordance with its adopted Public Involvement Policy. The LIP assignment methodology is designed to meet federal and state requirements that MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) be consistent with local transportation investment priorities. Project Selection and Scoring Overview Prioritization is a data driven process used to identify and prioritize transportation improvements for funding and inclusion in the STIP. Table 1 lists eligible transportation projects by project type and funding eligibility: 2 TABLE 1. Project eligibility for each STI category STI Project Eligibility Mode Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs Highway • Interstates (existing & future) • NHS routes (as of July 1, 2012) • STRAHNET Routes • ADHS Routes • Uncompleted Intrastate projects • Designated Toll Facilities Other US and NC Routes All County (SR) Routes Aviation Large Commercial Service Airports ($500K cap) Other Commercial Service Airports not in Statewide ($300K cap) All Airports without Commercial Service ($18.5M cap) Bicycle- Pedestrian N/A N/A All projects ($0 state funds) Public Transportation N/A Service spanning two or more counties (10% cap) All other service, including terminals, stations, and facilities Ferry N/A Ferry expansion Replacement vessels Rail Freight Capacity Service on Class I Railroad Corridors Rail service spanning two or more counties not Statewide Rail service not included on Statewide or Regional Description of Criteria and Weights NCDOT utilizes criteria consisting of a combination of quantitative data, qualitative input, and multimodal characteristics for STI project evaluation. MPOs are required to use at least two criteria when evaluating projects: 1) quantitative - a data- driven, numerically based measurement (prioritization scoring, crashes, congestion, safety, etc.); and 2) qualitative. Examples of qualitative data include (but are not limited to): • Local/regional transportation plan consistency – Projects identified in local and regional adopted plans • Public input – Consideration of public comments • Economic development – Fosters long-term economic growth and enhances local labor market mobility • Environmental justice - Does not adversely impact natural environments, cultural resources, or social systems. • Land use and development - Supports local and regional land use and development policies Statewide projects are scored using only quantitative data as qualitative input is only required for projects included at the Regional and Division levels (Table 2). TABLE 2. Scoring Summary Project Type Statewide* Regional Division Quantitative Scoring% 100 70 50 Local Input Scoring% N/A 30 50 Total Score 100 100 100 3 Alternate weights on any Highway Criteria defined in the STI Law can be used to score highway projects at the Regional Impact and Division Needs Categories only. This requires unanimous agreement between all MPOs, RPOs, and Divisions within the respective Funding Region(s) or Division(s). NCDOT Division 7, which includes the BGMPO region, adopted P6.0 alternate criteria for Regional Impact and Division Needs highway projects outlined in Table 3. TABLE 3. Description of Criteria and Weights (all modes and categories) Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input (Quantitative or Qualitative Data) Division Input MPO Input Statewide Mobility Benefit/Cost = 25% Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Congestion = 30% Measurement of the Peak ADT traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the total traffic volume along the roadway. • 60% Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio •40% Existing Volume Economic Competitiveness = 10% Measurement of the estimated number of long-term jobs and the % change in economic activity within the county that the project is expected to provide over 10 years. Safety = 10% Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate future safety benefits. Freight = 25% Measurement of existing truck volume and whether the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Total = 100% N/A N/A 4 Regional Impact Benefit/Cost = 20% Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Congestion = 20% Measurement of the Peak ADT traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the total traffic volume along the roadway. • 80% Existing Volume/Capacity Ratio • 20% Existing Volume Safety = 10% Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate future safety benefits. Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% Measurement of county economic distress indicators and whether the project upgrades how the roadway functions. Goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less-affluent areas and improving interconnectivity of the transportation network. Freight = 10% Measurement of existing truck volume and whether the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% Benefit/Cost = 15% Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Division Needs Division 7 Alternative Weights Criteria Congestion = 15% Measurement of the Peak ADT traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway. Safety = 15% Measurement of the number, severity, and frequency of crashes along the roadway. 25% 25% Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% Measurement of county economic distress indicators and whether the project upgrades how the roadway functions. Goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less-affluent areas and improving interconnectivity of the transportation network. Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 5 Mobility Projects (Roadway Widening, Intersection/Interchange Improvements, Access Management): Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 30% Congestion 20% Benefit Cost 15% Benefit Cost 25% Benefit Cost 20% Congestion 15% Congestion 25% Freight 10% Accessibility/Connectivity 10% Safety 10% Economic Competitiveness 10% Freight 5% Accessibility/Connectivity 10% Safety 10% Safety 5% Freight Modernization Project (Modernize Roadway, Upgrade Freeway to Interstate): Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 25% Freight 25% Safety 20% Safety 25% Safety 10% Freight 10% Pavement Condition 20% Paved Shoulder Width 10% Lane Width 10% Paved Shoulder Width 10% Congestion 10% Pavement Condition 5% Freight 10% Lane Width 10% Paved Shoulder Width 5% Lane Width 10% Pavement Condition 5% Congestion Aviation Criteria & Weights Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 40% NCDOA Project Rating 30% NCDOA Project Rating 25% NCDOA Project Rating 30% FAA ACIP Rating 15% Benefit/Cost 10% Benefit/Cost 20% Benefit/Cost 15% FAA ACIP Rating 10% FAA ACIP Rating 10% Constructability Index 10% Constructability Index 5% Constructability Index Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Projects Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit projects in the BGMPO planning area are only eligible for funding in the Division Needs category. These projects require a local match from local governments or transit operators to be successfully implemented. Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs (Not eligible) (Not eligible) 20% Safety 15% Accessibility/Connectivity 10% Demand/Density 5% Cost Effectiveness Public Transportation Criteria & Weights Mobility Projects: Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs (not eligible) 25% Cost Effectiveness 20% Cost Effectiveness 20% Demand/Density 10% Demand/Density 15% Impact 10% Efficiency 10% Efficiency 10% Impact Demand Response Projects: Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs (not eligible) 25% Cost Effectiveness 15% Cost Effectiveness 20% Demand/Density 15% Demand/Density 15% Efficiency 10% Efficiency 10% Impact 10% Impact 6 Facility Projects: Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs (not eligible) (not eligible) 15% Cost Effectiveness 15% Impact 10% Demand/Density 10% Efficiency Rail Criteria & Weights: Statewide Mobility Regional Impact Division Needs 40% NCDOA Project Rating 30% NCDOA Project Rating 25% NCDOA Project Rating 30% FAA ACIP Rating 15% Benefit/Cost 10% Benefit/Cost 20% Benefit/Cost 15% FAA ACIP Rating 10% FAA ACIP Rating 10% Constructability Index 10% Constructability Index 5% Constructability Index Cascading During the prioritization process, projects can “cascade down” from one funding category into another. For example, if a project in the Statewide Mobility funding category is unsuccessful at being funded, the project may cascade into the Regional Impact and/or Division Needs funding categories to be funded. The same may be applied to Regional Impact projects which may cascade to the Division Needs funding category. Projects may not “cascade up” (i.e. Division Needs to Regional Impact or Statewide Mobility). Projects that cascade down are then subject to the scoring criteria and local input for the respective funding category. The BGMPO TAC reserves the right to evaluate cascading projects on a case-by-case basis to strategically assist with funding of projects. 7 Project Submittals and Local Input Points According to NCDOT and STI regulations, MPOs can submit up to a base of 12 projects and one additional project per 500 centerline miles within the MPO’s boundary. The BGMPO is eligible to submit up to 18 new projects per mode (highway, public transportation, bicycle/pedestrian, aviation, and rail) for prioritization evaluation and scoring. In addition, the BGMPO is allocated 1,400 Local Input Points (LIP) for Regional Impact and Division Needs assignment respectively. The number of points is equal to 1,000 base points plus 100 points for every 50,000 of its 2020 census population (rounded up to the next 50,000). Up to 100 points can be allocated to each Regional Impact and Division Needs project. The BGMPO has the option to apply the Local Input Point Flexing Policy. This means that up to 500 Local Input Points can be transferred from one funding category to the other. The BGMPO will provide written documentation to the SPOT Office prior to flexing Regional Impact Local Input Points. BGMPO P7.0 Prioritization Project Submission, Local Input Point Assignment and Public Involvement Process The BGMPO P7.0 prioritization project selection, project submission and LIP Assignment process involve the following key steps: 1. Regional Call for P7.0 Projects: BGMPO issues links to electronic submission forms and NCDOT cost estimators and available express designs to TCC and TAC members. Candidate project submittals must include full project description, complete street data, purpose and need, assurance of local contribution and demonstrated local stakeholder support (if applicable). Once the BGMPO submission deadline closes, new project submissions are considered pending TCC and TAC approval. 2. Public Involvement: The TAC releases the project submission list for a 30-day public review period. 3. Internal Project Screening and Evaluation: BGMPO conducts preliminary screening and determination of consistency with locally adopted plans, the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). Highway projects are evaluated using the prioritization testing scoring spreadsheet and bike and pedestrian projects are evaluated against the BGMPO Bike and Ped Scoring Matrix. 4. Draft Project List Development: A project list based on testing score results are rank ordered for TCC and TAC review at a regularly scheduled meeting. The TCC and TAC approves the draft project list of the highest scoring projects per mode (up to the maximum number of BGMPO submittals) 5. Project Submission: After consideration of public comments, the TCC and TAC approve the final project list for submission to SPOT On!ine for project scoring and further evaluation. 6. Approval of Local Input Points Assignment Methodology: The process of assigning Local Input Points (LIP) Methodology draft is presented to the TCC and TAC for approval and release for a 30-day public comment period. The TCC and TAC approves the draft LIP pending public comments. 7. Release of Quantitative Scores: Upon release of NCDOT’s Quantitative Score and draft list of Programmed Projects by the SPOT Office, the draft project list of BGMPO Regional Impact and Division Needs projects are rank ordered by SPOT quantitative scores and presented to the TCC and TAC for review (quantitative measure). The TCC and TAC approve the draft project list of the highest scoring projects per mode (up to the maximum number of BGMPO submittals). 8. Consideration of Public Comments: The BGMPO draft project list will be released for a 30-day public comment period prior to TAC assignment of local input points. Public comments will be documented, summarized, and responses will be provided to the TAC. 8 The TAC will consider: 1) public comments, and 2) ensure project consistency with adopted local and regional comprehensive plans (qualitative measures) before assigning local input points. 9. Local Input Point Assignment: The TAC may assign the maximum local points (100 points each) to the highest ranking fourteen (14) projects across all modes based on their quantitative and qualitative measures subject to the flex policy and deviation clause (outlined below). 10. LIP Submission: Upon TAC assignment of local input points and approval of the BGMPO final project list of Regional Impact and Division Needs projects, local input points are entered into SPOT On!ine. The TAC may opt to schedule a call meeting to assign local input points in order to meet LIP assignment SPOT On!ine entry deadlines. Local Point Assignment Methodology Deviation 1. The TAC may exercise its option of sharing or allocating unassigned local input points to increase the “scoring” of regional transportation projects (regional being more than one county) with an adjacent MPO. This process is accomplished via an informal agreement between the MPOs and notification to NCDOT. 2. The TAC can adjust projects receiving points or adjust the number of points given to a project based on their discretion, recommendations from the TCC and other MPO committees, and/or public input. Any exceptions will require written explanation to be provided to NCDOT and be part of an open, public process that complies with Chapter 143, Article 33C of the North Carolina General Statutes. 3. The TCC and TAC are free to deviate from the preliminary points assignment when making the final point assignments to compensate for situations where the methodology does not accurately reflect the TAC’s priorities and to ensure appropriate projects at the relevant category. Anticipated justifications include but are not limited to project cost, point sharing arrangements, estimated points required for funding, geographic equity, modal distribution, new information and public comment. Any variation in point assignments from the preliminary point assignments must have justifications documented in the meeting minutes and posted on the BGMPO’s website. 9 BGMPO Prioritization and Public Outreach Schedule * (*Subject to change pending Prioritization Schedule Updates) Task Name Start Date End Date BGMPO Call for Projects 03/21/2023 06/15/2023 BGMPO Project Screening and Development of Draft Project List 06/15/2023 08/15/2023 TCC and TAC draft project list review and release for public comment 08/15/2023 09/19/2023 TCC and TAC approval of final project list for SPOT online submission 10/17/2023 TCC and TAC review and release Draft Local Input Point Assignment Methodology for public comment 01/16/2024 02/20/2024 TCC and TAC Local Input Point Assignment Methodology approval 03/19/2024 Deadline for SPOT Office approval of all Local Input Point assignment methodologies 05/01/2024 Quantitative scores and Statewide Mobility Programmed Projects Released 05/24/2024 TCC and TAC assigns Local Input Points for Regional Impact projects (with option to assign Division Needs Points) 05/28 - 8/30/2024 Regional Impact Total Scores and Programmed Projects Released 09/20/2024 TCC and TAC assigns Division Needs Local Input Points 09/23 - 11/29/24 DRAFT STIP: NCDOT releases Draft 2026- 2035 STIP (Final STIP adoption in Summer/Fall 2025) Winter 2024 - 2025 Material Sharing Pertinent information, documents, and public meeting notices are uploaded to the BGMPO website, disseminated in advance of public meetings and/or published in general circulation media outlets. In addition, TCC and TAC meetings are open to the public in accordance with the BGMPO’s Title VI policy and Public Involvement Plan. Questions or comments may also be submitted to the BGMPO via the public comment email: comments@burlingtonnc.gov or contacting the MPO Administration below. All public comments received will be submitted to TAC for review and used in the selection of local projects for submission to the SPOT office for technical analysis and score development. A record of all public comments received (through the BGMPO website, public meetings, etc.) will be maintained through adoption of NCDOT’s Final STIP by the Board of Transportation. 10 The rationale for LIP assignments made by the TAC and/or via public input that deviate from the methodology described above will be placed on the BGMPO website. The public input process may be adjusted to meet NCDOT imposed deadlines or data requirements. The BGMPO will release the draft list of proposed STI projects and the proposed local ranking methodology for public review and comment according to the above schedule. P7.0 project scores will be available for review at the BGMPO office and posted on the BGMPO website at www.bgmpo.org. Wannetta Mallette, PTP MPO Administrator Burlington-Graham MPO PO Box 1358 Burlington, NC 27215-1358 (336) 513-5418 wmallette@burlingtonnc.gov Central Pines Rural Planning Organization - A program of Central Pines Regional Council Prioritization 7.0 DRAFT Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO April 11, 2024 Introduction The following methodology has been developed by the Central Pines Rural Planning Organization (CPRPO) for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation funding, as carried out through the State of North Carolina’s Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law and the associated Prioritization 7.0 process. This methodology is intended to incorporate both measurable data and information about priorities from local jurisdictions, to ensure a process that is both data-driven and responsive to local needs. The Central Pines Rural Planning Organization serves Lee County, as well as the portions of Chatham, Moore and Orange Counties that are not within the planning area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization. This methodology has been developed to meet the requirements of Session Law 2012-84, which requires that MPOs and RPOs have a process for determining project prioritization. STI divides available state and federal transportation funding into three categories: Statewide Mobility, Regional Impact, and Division Needs. For each category, NCDOT calculates quantitative scores based on a variety of criteria. In the Statewide Mobility category, projects are selected for funding based entirely on the NCDOT quantitative score. However, in the Regional Impact and Division Needs categories part of the final score is based on local points assigned by the MPO or RPO and/or the NCDOT Division Engineer in that area. The local input points assigned by CPRPO (and other MPOs and RPOs) represent 15% of the final score for Regional Impact projects and 25% of the final score for Division Needs projects. Points assigned by NCDOT Division Engineers are also worth 15% of the Regional Impact score and 25% of the Division Needs score. For Prioritization 7.0: Central Pines RPO in 2023 represented all of Moore County. In 2024, there is a new MPO. The Sandhills MPO (SMPO) includes Aberdeen, Foxfire Village, Pinebluff, Pinehurst Village, Southern Pines, and Whispering Pines. It will also include portions of the County that are adjacent to those towns. Typically, each MPO or RPO submits their own projects and Local Input Points into SPOT On!ine. Since SMPO is coming into the process in the middle, Central Pines RPO will be facilitating this process with SMPO. Central Pines Rural Planning Organization - A program of Central Pines Regional Council In the CPRPO area, the following types of projects are eligible for each category of project: Statewide Mobility Highway: Improvements to US 1, US 64, US 15-501 (only the portion north of US 64), US 421 (only the portion north of or overlapping NC 87), NC 87 (only the portion south of or overlapping US 421), NC 24-27* Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines All Other Modes: None Regional Impact Highway: Improvements to any NC or US Routes Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines, non-station passenger rail projects Transit: Multi-county transit routes All Other Modes: None Division Needs All Modes: All projects *NC 24-27 is only eligible at the Statewide Mobility level for four-lane widening projects. Other types of projects on NC 24-27 are only eligible for Regional Impact and Division Needs It should be noted that projects from higher categories are able to “cascade down” for eligibility in lower categories as well, should they be unsuccessful in getting selected for funding at the higher category. Thus, all Statewide projects are also eligible in the Regional and Division competitions, and all Regional projects are also eligible in the Division competition. CPRPO has 1,500 local input points to assign in both the Regional Impact and Division Needs categories. This document describes the method for selecting projects to which to assign these points. The local prioritization process consists of three parts: (1) ranking of projects at the countywide level; (2) quantitative scoring of projects; and (3) ranking of scored projects for assignment of points. Each of these is discussed in more detail below. For the Prioritization 7.0 Process only, CPRPO will donate 400 points to the newly formed Sandhills MPO for both the Regional Impact and the Division Needs categories. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 3 Description of Criteria and Weights Countywide Ranking of Projects Within each CPRPO county, all the local jurisdictions (including the county and any municipalities within the county that are in CPRPO) must work together to develop a single ranked list of projects in all modes to submit to CPRPO for use in the prioritization process. This list must be based on the list of projects that have been previously submitted to NCDOT—new projects cannot be added at this point in the process. These projects should be ranked in order from highest priority (#1) to lowest (#10). If there are more than ten projects within a county, then only the top ten should be ranked. It is up to the local jurisdictions, working together, to determine the best method for achieving this within each county; however, the following general rules apply:  All jurisdictions should be given an opportunity to participate in the development of their county’s ranked project list if they choose  The process must include at least one meeting open to the public that allows for public comment  There must be written documentation stating the reasoning behind the selected project ranking (this must be submitted to CPRPO and will be posted online along with the project list) These local ranked priority lists should be developed and submitted to CPRPO within 45 days after NCDOT releases its draft quantitative scores for projects. Once submitted to CPRPO, the local priority lists will be posted online and made available for additional public comment prior to the CPRPO RTAC’s approval of local input points on projects. All projects will receive 50% of their total CPRPO score based on the ranking assigned to that project by local officials in the above-described countywide rankings. This applies to all modes. These points will be assigned as follows: # 1 Priority in County 50 points # 6 Priority in County 25 points # 2 Priority in County 45 points # 7 Priority in County 20 points # 3 Priority in County 40 points # 8 Priority in County 15 points # 4 Priority in County 35 points # 9 Priority in County 10 points # 5 Priority in County 30 points #10 Priority in County 5 points * All other projects (ranked lower or unranked) receive 0 points for this item. For the Prioritization 7.0 Process only, SMPO members may choose to hold a separate meeting or meet jointly with the rest of Moore County. They may rank their top 10 projects separately. If they do so, the scores on Moore County projects would be combined and then assigned a point score based on the chart below. SMPO will need to submit their list to CPRPO within 45 days after NCDOT releases its list of quantitative scores, if they rank their projects separately from Moore County. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 4 NCDOT Quantitative Scores The remaining 50% of the CPRPO score is based on the Prioritization 7.0 quantitative score calculated by NCDOT. The elements that make up these scores are defined by NCDOT’s Prioritization Work Group for each mode and category (see NCDOT’s Prioritization Resources website for more information): Regional Impact: Because all Prioritization 7.0 regional quantitative scores are on a 70 point scale, the final results are multiplied by 0.7143 to convert them to a 50 point scale for use in CPRPO scoring. Division Needs: Prioritization 7.0 division quantitative scores are reported on a 50 point scale, so unlike the regional category above, no rescaling of scores is necessary. Total Score and Project Ranking Approach/Point Assignment Process Once all projects in each mode have been scored according to the criteria above, CPRPO staff will develop a ranked list of projects within each county and within the region as a whole based on the outcome of the scoring. This ranked list of all projects in all modes will be used to develop the recommended point assignments that are presented to the public for comment and to the RTCC and RTAC for approval. There will be separate rankings for the Regional Impact category and the Division Needs category. The recommendation will call for the two top-scoring projects for Chatham, Lee, Moore and Orange Counties (regardless of mode) to be allocated 100 points each. Additionally, the three next-highest scoring projects within the region (regardless of county and mode) will also be allocated 100 points each, to reach CPRPO’s Prioritization 7.0 point allocation of 1,100 points****. In the event that a county does not have at least two eligible projects, then additional projects will be selected from the top of the list of remaining projects in the other counties. This allows for geographic equity of projects in the CPRPO region. No projects with a Prioritization 7.0 quantitative score less than 10 will be recommended for points. Any project that local jurisdictions specifically request not be assigned points during the countywide project ranking process will not be recommended for points. An example of the ranking process is shown on the next page. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 5 Example – The projects in the Example RPO are ranked as follows: Project ID County County Rank Points (50) Quantitative Points (50) Total Score (100) Recommended for 100 Local Points Regional Division Regional Division Regional Division A000001 County B 50 N/A 40.59 N/A 90.59 Yes – County B #1 B000003 County D 50 N/A 34.14 N/A 84.14 Yes – County D #1 H000001 County A 50 29.34 32.35 79.34 82.35 Yes – County A #1 Yes – County A #1 H000002 County C 45 33.36 33.19 78.36 78.19 Yes – County C #1 Yes – County C #1 B000001 County C 50 N/A 26.23 N/A 76.23 Yes – County C #2 H000008 County D 45 26.02 28.73 71.02 73.73 Yes – County D #1 Yes – County D #2 B000002 County B 45 N/A 27.86 N/A 72.86 Yes – County B #2 A000002 County C 40 N/A 32.67 N/A 72.67 Yes – Rem. #1 H000003 County A 45 25.65 27.15 70.65 72.15 Yes – County A #2 Yes – County A #2 H000010 County D 40 30.59 31.65 70.59 71.65 Yes – County D #2 Yes – Rem. #2 A000003 County C 35 N/A 32.67 N/A 67.67 Yes – Rem. #3 B000004 County D 35 N/A 29.16 N/A 64.16 Yes – Rem. #4 B000007 County B 40 N/A 24.06 N/A 64.06 Yes – Rem. #5 B000005 County C 25 N/A 38.00 N/A 63.00 Yes – Rem. #6 H000005 County A 40 N/A 20.63 N/A 60.63 H000006 County B 35 21.04 23.02 56.04 58.02 Yes – County B #1 A000004 County D 30 N/A 27.35 N/A 57.35 H000011 County A 25 29.18 31.34 54.18 56.34 Yes – Rem. #1 H000004 County C 30 23.74 25.77 53.74 55.77 Yes – County C #2 H000007 County A 35 N/A 18.17 N/A 53.17 B000006 County B 30 N/A 22.41 N/A 52.41 H000017 County D 25 24.87 27.21 49.87 52.21 Yes – Rem. #2 B000010 County C 20 N/A 31.69 N/A 51.69 B000008 County C 15 N/A 36.60 N/A 51.60 H000019 County D 20 25.31 26.22 45.31 46.22 Yes – Rem. #3 H000012 County B 25 N/A 20.59 N/A 45.59 H000020 County A 20 23.42 24.96 43.42 44.96 Yes – Rem. #4 H000009 County A 30 N/A 13.06 N/A 43.06 B000009 County B 20 N/A 20.44 N/A 40.44 H000021 County D 15 21.89 24.15 36.89 39.15 Yes – Rem. #5 B000011 County C 10 N/A 24.88 N/A 34.88 H000015 County B 15 14.81 16.75 29.81 31.75 Yes – County B #2 H000024 County D 10 19.51 20.63 29.51 30.63 Yes – Rem. #6 H000014 County C 0 27.85 28.72 27.85 28.72 A000005 County C 0 N/A 24.97 N/A 24.97 H000026 County D 5 20.14 19.89 25.14 24.89 H000025 County B 0 23.52 23.70 23.52 23.70 H000016 County C 0 23.06 23.07 23.06 23.07 B000012 County B 10 N/A 11.79 N/A 21.79 H000028 County D 0 20.69 20.92 20.69 20.92 H000027 County D 0 18.46 19.72 18.46 19.72 H000013 County C 5 N/A 12.57 N/A 17.57 H000022 County B 5 9.55 11.27 14.55 16.27 B000013 County D 0 N/A 15.71 N/A 15.71 H000023 County C 0 13.89 13.70 13.89 13.70 H000018 County C 0 N/A 12.19 N/A 12.19 H000029 County D 0 13.17 11.76 13.17 11.76 H000028 County D 0 N/A 11.67 N/A 11.67 In this example: County A would receive points on 4 Regional Impact projects and 2 Division Needs projects. County B would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 3 Division Needs projects. County C would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 5 Division Needs projects. County D would receive points on 6 Regional Impact projects and 4 Division Needs projects. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 6 Point Flexing Policy NCDOT allows RPOs to flex up to 500 points between the Regional Impact and Division Needs categories. CPRPO has the option to apply this flexing policy by shifting up to 500 points from the Regional category to the Division category or by shifting up to 500 points from the Division category to the Regional category. The CPRPO RTAC has the discretion to decide whether or not it wishes to flex any points between categories. If the RTAC chooses to flex local input points, CPRPO must provide documentation of this decision to the NCDOT SPOT Office before the deadline for assigning Regional Impact category local input points. Deviations from Methodology These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC regarding changes to the list. The RTAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local points and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to document a reason for doing so. These changes must be documented and made available to the public via the CPRPO website. Cascading Projects CPRPO will submit its Regional Impact local point assignments separately from its Division Needs local point assignments and will be able to learn which projects are funded in the Regional Impact category before assigning points in the Division Needs category. As a result, if there are projects funded in the Regional Impact category that would otherwise be in line to receive Division Needs points as a result of this methodology, those Division Needs points will instead be assigned to the next-highest scoring eligible project that has not received points (subject to the rules requiring that at least two projects from Chatham, Lee and Orange and Moore County receive points). This process will be clearly explained as part of the public outreach process, and the list of “next in line” projects that could potentially be affected by this rule will be presented at the same time the initial point assignment recommendations are presented. Point Sharing On projects that cross outside of the CPRPO planning boundary, CPRPO must coordinate with its neighboring organizations on the allocation of points. By right, CPRPO may only assign the number of points equal to the percentage of the project that is located within the CPRPO boundary—for example, CPRPO could assign a project that was 48% located within its boundary only 48 points by right. However, CPRPO will coordinate with its neighboring organizations to “share” points to ensure that these projects reach a point total of 100 points—in the example above, CPRPO would share 52 points with its neighbors to ensure the project receives 100 points. In the event that point sharing is not necessary on these projects, either because the neighboring organization already plans to assign its full amount of points for the For the Prioritization 7.0 Process only, SMPO will provide a SMPO TAC-approved list of their final point assignments with a rationale if the project is a deviation. This will be published to CPRPO’s website. CPRPO’s TAC will not change SMPO’s list. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 7 project or because the neighboring organization rejects CPRPO’s offer to share points, CPRPO will only assign the points for the portion within its boundary and the remaining points will be allocated to the next-highest scoring project on the project list that did not already receive full points. Schedule and Public Outreach/Material Sharing Public Participation in Project Scoring Process As part of this project scoring process, CPRPO will post the list of projects being submitted for Prioritization 7.0, the county-level priority lists, the SMPO priority list (if done separately), the results of the quantitative analysis, the recommended draft local input point assignments, and the final approved local input point assignments at the following website: https://centralpinesrpo.org/strategic-transportation-investments-prioritization-process/. The public is invited to submit comments via the website, email, phone, or mail, as well as in person at CPRPO RTCC and RTAC meetings at any point throughout the process. Additionally, at least one public meeting will be held to gather comments at a time after the initial staff- recommended scoring is developed based on this scoring methodology, but before the CPRPO RTCC and RTAC vote on the assignment of points. Any comments provided by the public will be reviewed by the CPRPO RTCC and RTAC before the vote on the assignment of points and those discussions will be documented in the meeting minutes. For the Prioritization 7.0 Process only It should also be noted that none of the Moore County projects have been assigned to SMPO, so for this round only, either organization can submit 100 points to a project. So, if any of the 400 points that will be given to SMPO to assign are not assigned or if CPRPO has also chosen to put local input points on the project, then the CPRPO TAC will reassign the points to another project. For the Prioritization 7.0 Process only, any comments received on projects in the Sandhills MPO will be shared with them. Prioritization 7.0 Local Point Methodology for Central Pines RPO – Page 8 Proposed Schedule for Implementation of Policy in Prioritization 7.0  CPRPO RTCC & RTAC adoption of project list to submit to NCDOT –August 10, 2023  Adoption of this policy – expected on April 11, 2024 (with public hearing at beginning of RTAC meeting)  NCDOT will release quantitative project scores and announce the projects that are funded in the Statewide category expected by the end of May 2024  Next, each county, working jointly with its municipalities and SMPO if they choose to rank separately, will approve a ranked list of its top ten projects and submit this list to CPRPO – this should happen within 45 days after NCDOT releases the project scores if possible  Then CPRPO staff will calculate scores for local point assignment based on this adopted methodology and post the scores and draft point assignments on the CPRPO website— expected by the end of July 2024  CPRPO staff will host public workshop(s) to present local input point assignments and gather input after the draft scores have been calculated, but before the CPRPO RTCC and RTAC must vote on approval of the Regional Impact local input points—expected by August 8, 2024  SMPO will submit their final Regional Impact category local input point assignments to CPRPO staff by July 30, 2024  Then, the CPRPO RTCC and RTAC will adopt Regional Impact category local input point assignments at one of their regular meetings—expected at the August 8, 2024 meeting  NCDOT will announce the projects receiving funding in the Regional Impact category— expected near the end of August 2024  Next, CPRPO staff will adjust the draft point assignments if needed in accordance with the cascading policy discussed above—expected by September 20, 2024  SMPO will submit their final Division Needs category local input point assignments to CPRPO staff by October 3, 2024***** Changed  Finally, the CPRPO RTCC and RTAC will adopt Division Needs category local input point assignments at one of their regular meetings—expected at their October 10, 2024 meeting***Changed At the conclusion of this process, NCDOT will release a draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) based on the outcome of the Prioritization 7.0 process. Adoption A motion was made by _______________ and seconded by ________________ for the adoption of this policy, and upon being put to a vote it was duly adopted on ________________. ____________________________ ______________________________ Chair, Central Pines RPO RTAC Secretary, Central Pines RPO RTAC DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND RANKING NEW TRANSPORATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT REQUESTS Adopted by the DCHC MPO Policy Board on 2/27/2024 INTRODUCTION The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Methodology for Identifying and Ranking Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Requests describes the processes that the DCHC MPO will follow to identify projects that will be submitted for evaluation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) during the Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation’s (SPOT) Prioritization process. When the results of the SPOT Prioritization process are made available, the DCHC MPO will follow this Methodology to rank projects and assign Local Input Points to high priority projects. This Methodology is designed to address the federal requirement that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be consistent with the projects and investment priorities of the MPO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) while being compatible with the state’s STI process. According to U.S. Code 23 Section 134, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to develop a TIP in cooperation with the state and public transportation providers through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning. The TIP should contain projects consistent with the MTP and should reflect the investment priorities established in the current MTP. There should be an opportunity for public participation in developing the TIP including consultation, as appropriate, with state and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation. Furthermore, as a Transportation Management Area (TMA), according to U.S. Code 23 Section 134, all federally funded projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO (excluding projects carried out on the National Highway System) shall be selected for implementation from the approved TIP by the MPO in consultation with the state and any public transportation provider or operator. Projects on the National Highway System shall be selected for implementation from the TIP by the state in cooperation with the MPO. North Carolina’s Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) legislation, passed in 2013, establishes a formula and process by which transportation funding is distributed across the state and across transportation modes. The outcome of the STI process is the draft State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STI legislation applies uniformly across the state regardless of the boundaries of MPOs. The STI legislation requires the identification and submittal of potential transportation projects by the NCDOT and the MPO, the evaluation of projects according to a NCDOT-developed quantitative scoring methodology, and the allocation of ranking points among certain projects by NCDOT and the MPO. The DCHC MPO retains the authority to develop the TIP for the MPO area as required by federal regulations. Participation in the STI process through submitting projects for evaluation and/or allocating Local Input Points to projects does not require the MPO to include these projects in the TIP. 2 OBJECTIVE This methodology is designed to address multi-modal transportation needs, ensure regional balance, and prioritize projects that are needed based on technical criteria. The goal is to produce a project priority ranking which satisfies MPO goals, is simple enough for project-level analysis without requiring unnecessary data collection, and is understandable by the public. The DCHC MPO’s Technical Committee (TC) will use the Methodology to generate a list of priority projects to submit to the NCDOT SPOT for quantitative scoring. While the Methodology is designed to comprehensively address the DCHC MPO’s transportation needs, there will always be factors that are not easily measured but should still be considered in the development of the DCHC MPO’s priorities. The DCHC MPO TC will make its technical recommendation for the prioritization of projects based on the methodology described in this document, and the DCHC MPO Board will then be afforded the opportunity to make changes with appropriate documentation. All public involvement for this process will be conducted in accordance with the DCHC MPO’s adopted Public Involvement Policy. Steps and schedule for submission of DCHC MPO projects to NCDOT for evaluation: Spring 2023 DCHC MPO staff work with local jurisdiction staff to develop potential new projects for Prioritization 7.0; DCHC MPO staff review projects to ensure they meet minimum requirements and are in the MTP. April 2023 DCHC MPO staff and Technical Committee review carryover projects and make recommendations to the Board to either have those projects scored in Prioritization 7.0 as is, propose changes to projects to then be scored in Prioritization 7.0, or remove projects from consideration; DCHC MPO Board reviews and provides input on potential new projects July 2023 DCHC MPO staff performs analysis on proposed new projects; a Technical Committee sub-committee narrows the number of projects to a final recommended list for submittal August 2023 DCHC MPO Board reviews proposed list of new projects for Prioritization 7.0; new project list is released for public comment October 2023 DCHC MPO Board approves project submittals for Prioritization 7.0 Steps and schedule for updating the DCHC MPO’s Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests: Fall 2023 DCHC MPO staff updates Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests document November 2023 DCHC MPO TC reviews the Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests and forwards Methodology to the DCHC MPO Board for public release December 2023 DCHC MPO Board releases the Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests for public review and comment period January 2024 DCHC MPO TC makes final review and recommendation to DCHC MPO Board February 2024 DCHC MPO holds public hearing on Methodology, forwards for NCDOT Review Committee review 3 March 2024 DCHC MPO Board approves the Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests Steps and tentative schedule for the allocation of Local Input Points: April 2024 DCHC MPO receives results of the NCDOT SPOT scoring process for Statewide, Regional, and Division projects May 2024 DCHC MPO ranks Regional projects for the assignment of Local Input Points; DCHC MPO Board releases initial assignment of Local Input Points for Regional projects for public comment June 2024 DCHC MPO Board holds public hearing on initial assignment of Local Input Points for Regional projects and approves assignment of Local Input Points to Regional projects July 2024 DCHC MPO submits Regional projects with Local Input Points assigned to NCDOT September 2024 DCHC MPO ranks Division projects for the assignment of Local Input Points October 2024 DCHC MPO Board releases initial assignment of Division projects and the assignment of Local Input Points for public comment November 2024 DCHC MPO Board holds public hearing on initial assignment of Local Input Points for Division projects and approves assignment of Local Input Points to Division projects November 2024 DCHC MPO submits Division projects with Local Input Points assigned to NCDOT February 2025 Draft FY2026-2035 STIP released 4 DCHC MPO GOALS FOR THE METHOLDOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND RANKING TIP PROJECTS The Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Projects should result in a list of projects that are a subset of the DCHC MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). For this reason, the goals for the Methodology are the same as the adopted goals for the 2050 MTP. The goals of the 2050 MTP are as follows: • Protect the human and natural environment and minimize climate change • Ensure equity and participation • Connect people and places • Ensure that all people have access to multimodal and affordable transportation choices • Promote safety, health, and well-being • Improve infrastructure condition and resilience • Manage congestion and system reliability • Stimulate inclusive economic vitality PROCEDURE FOR IDENTIFYING PROJECTS FOR SUBMISSION TO NCDOT SPOT FOR EVALUATION 1) Submission of Local Priority Lists to the MPO All MPO member jurisdictions and agencies will submit a local priority list to the MPO. The DCHC MPO requests that the MPO members apply initial screening criteria during the development of their respective lists. The initial screening criteria are listed below in this section. In addition to the initial screening criteria, MPO members may also want to consider reviewing Section 2 of this Methodology for guidance on the NCDOT’s SPOT scoring criteria. The DCHC MPO will apply the NCDOT’s scoring criteria when considering new project requests from DCHC MPO member jurisdictions and agencies. If a project exists in more than one jurisdiction, all jurisdictions must be in agreement on the proposed scope and details of the project. Initial Screening Criteria a) Regional Goals - How well does the project meet the adopted regional goals? Is the project an element of the current MTP? Does it implement community objectives? For the intrastate system, does it meet NCDOT mobility objectives? Does the project have a broad base of local support? b) Cost Effectiveness - How much benefit does the project offer compared to the estimated cost? c) Timing – Is the project needed within the TIP funding cycle? Is timing a critical element for the project (one-time opportunity)? Will the opportunity to do the project be lost if it is not in the current priority cycle? DCHC MPO staff and the TC will review local priority lists for adherence to the initial screening criteria and apply the NCDOT scoring criteria listed in Section 2 of this Methodology, before recommending the submission of these projects to Prioritization 7.0. 5 2) Submission of Projects to the STI Process For the 2026-2035 TIP, the DCHC MPO submitted projects to NCDOT’s SPOT office by October 2023 for the application of the NCDOT’s quantitative ranking methodology. The MPO is limited in the number of new projects that may be submitted for each mode (highway, bicycle and pedestrian, public transportation, aviation, ferry and rail), but can submit an additional project for each existing project removed from the system. NCDOT Division Engineers can also submit projects for each of their Divisions but are also limited in the number of new projects per mode that may be submitted. DCHC MPO will combine the local priority lists into a list that the MPO will use to prioritize projects for submission. In the event that more highway, bicycle and pedestrian, public transportation, or rail projects are submitted to the MPO than the MPO is allowed submit to NCDOT, the DCHC MPO will work with a TC subcommittee to select projects based the NCDOT scoring criteria for each mode. For Prioritization 7.0 there were no ferry or aviation projects submitted within the DCHC MPO area. DCHC MPO will request that the Division Engineers submit any additional projects that the DCHC MPO may not be able to submit because the MPO is limited in the number of projects that may be submitted. DCHC MPO Preliminary Project Ranking Highway Projects Highway projects may be scored and funded by any of the three funding categories (Statewide, Regional, or Division), dependent on the criteria as set forth in the STI law. The SPOT Workgroup has developed a different highway project scoring process for each of the three funding categories. For SPOT 7.0, highway projects have been broken out into two specific improvement types, modernization and mobility. Modernization projects have a different set of default criteria and weights, and primarily consists of roadway modernization projects and projects to upgrade freeways to interstate standards. All other projects are mobility projects, which add capacity to roadways. The DCHC MPO will use the scoring processes developed by NCDOT to preliminarily rank projects to be submitted to NCDOT SPOT for evaluation. A project that is eligible for the Statewide funding category but is not funded under that category can cascade down to the Regional category for evaluation and possible funding. If the project is not funded under the Regional category, the project may cascade down to the Division category for evaluation and possible funding. The NCDOT SPOT process limits the number of projects that MPOs may submit. In the event that more new project requests are received than the MPO can submit, the DCHC MPO will prioritize projects based on the scoring criteria developed by the SPOT 7.0 Workgroup that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of Transportation in summer 2023. In addition to the SPOT criteria, DCHC will also consider subcommittee member input, public input, local priority, and funding availability. Each of these criteria will be weighted equally at 20%, and projects with the highest scores were submitted to NCDOT for quantitative evaluation. For Prioritization 7.0, the default weights were used by all Divisions within the DCHC MPO boundaries. Alternate criteria are not an option for non-highway projects. 6 NCDOT and DCHC MPO Scoring Criteria for Highway Projects Mobility Projects Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Statewide Mobility Congestion = 30% • Measurement of the traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the traffic volume along the roadway. Benefit/Cost = 25% • Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Freight = 25% • Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Economic Competitiveness = 10% • Measurement of the estimated percent change in economic activity within the county and the percent change in the number of long term jobs that the project is expected to provide over 10 years. Safety = 10% • Measurement of the existing severity, frequency, and rate of crashes along the roadway and the safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years. Total = 100% -- -- Regional Impact Benefit/Cost = 20% • Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Congestion = 20% • Measurement of the traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the traffic volume along the roadway. Accessibility/Connectivity = 10% • Measurement of county economic distress indicators and whether the project upgrades how the roadway functions. Goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less-affluent areas and improving interconnectivity of the transportation network. Freight = 10% • Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Safety = 10% • Measurement of the existing severity, frequency, and rate of crashes along the roadway and the safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years. Total = 70% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% 7 Division Needs Benefit/Cost = 15% • Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Congestion = 15% • Measurement of the traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the traffic volume along the roadway. Safety = 10% • Measurement of the number, severity, and frequency of crashes along the roadway. Accessibility/Connectivity = 5% • Measurement of county economic distress indicators and the degree the project upgrades mobility of the roadway, with the goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less-affluent areas and improving interconnectivity of the transportation network. Freight = 5% • Measurement of truck volume and truck percentage of total traffic on the roadway, and the degree the project is helping to complete a future interstate corridor (if applicable). Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% Modernization Projects Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Statewide Mobility Freight = 25% • Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Safety = 25% • Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate future safety benefits. Paved Shoulder Width = 20% • Measurement of paved shoulder width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type Congestion = 10% • Measurement of the traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the traffic volume along the roadway. Lane Width = 10% • Measurement of lane width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type. Pavement Condition = 10% • Measurement of overall pavement condition using the NCDOT’s pavement condition rating (PCR). Total = 100% -- -- 8 Regional Impact Safety = 25% • Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate future safety benefits. Freight = 10% • Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future interstate highway. Lane Width = 10% • Measurement of lane width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type. Pavement Condition = 10% • Measurement of overall pavement condition using the NCDOT’s pavement condition rating (PCR). Paved Shoulder Width = 10% • Measurement of paved shoulder width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type Congestion = 5% • Measurement of the traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of the roadway, weighted by the traffic volume along the roadway. Total = 70% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% Division Needs Safety = 20% • Measurement of the number, severity, and frequency of crashes along the roadway. Pavement Condition = 10% • Measurement of overall pavement condition using the NCDOT’s pavement condition rating (PCR). Paved Shoulder Width = 10% • Measurement of paved shoulder width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type. Freight = 5% • Measurement of truck volume and truck percentage of total traffic on the roadway, and the degree the project is helping to complete a future interstate corridor (if applicable). Lane Width = 5% • Measurement of lane width deficiencies compared to the NCDOT standard for each roadway facility type. Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% 9 Public Transportation Projects Public Transportation projects may be scored and funded within the Regional or Division funding categories. Different types of public transportation projects (vehicle, passenger facility, administrative/maintenance/operations facility, and fixed guideway) have different scoring processes for the Regional and Division categories. NCDOT and DCHC MPO Scoring Criteria for Public Transportation Projects Public Transit Scoring (Demand Response) Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Regional Impact Cost Effectiveness = 25% • Measurement of the trips generated by the project in 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT (annualized by the lifespan of the project). Demand/Density = 20% • Measurement of the total operating hours of the system in 10 years compared to the service area population for the system. Efficiency = 15% • Measurement of the number of vehicles in maximum service by the system compared to the total number of vehicles in the fleet (utilization ratio). Impact = 10% • Measurement of the number trips generated by the project in 10 years. Total = 70% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% Division Needs Cost Effectiveness = 15% • Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state and lifespan of the project. Demand/Density = 15% • Measurement of the number of service hours devoted to the project compared to the service population. Efficiency = 10% • Measurement of the vehicle utilization ratio. Impact = 10% • Measurement of the number trips affected by the project. Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% 10 Public Transit Scoring (Facilities) Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Division Needs Cost Effectiveness = 15% • Measurement of the trips generated by the project in 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Impact = 15% • Measurement of the trips generated by the project in 10 years. Demand/Density = 10% • Measurement of the total operating hours of the system in 10 years compared to the service area population for the system. Efficiency = 10% • Measurement of the number of vehicles in maximum service by the system compared to the total number of vehicles in the fleet (utilization ratio). Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% Public Transit Scoring (Mobility) Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Regional Impact Cost Effectiveness = 25% • Measurement of the trips generated by the project in 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Demand/Density = 20% • Measurement of the total trips along the project route in 10 years compared to the service area population for the project route. Impact = 15% • Measurement of the trips generated and relieved by the project in 10 years. Efficiency = 10% Measurement of the total trips along the project route in 10 years compared to the total revenue seat hours of the project route in 10 years. Total = 70% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% Division Needs Cost Effectiveness = 20% • Measurement of the trips generated by the project in 10 years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Demand/Density = 10% • Measurement of the total trips along the project route in 10 years compared to the service area population for the project route. Impact = 10% • Measurement of the trips generated and relieved by the project in 10 years. Efficiency = 10% • Measurement of the total trips along the project route in 10 years compared to the total revenue seat hours of the project route in 10 years. Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% 11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Bicycle and pedestrian projects are scored and funded within the Division Needs funding category; therefore NCDOT utilizes only one scoring process for bicycle and pedestrian projects. DCHC MPO will use the scoring processes developed by the P7.0 Workgroup to preliminarily rank projects to be submitted to NCDOT SPOT for evaluation. The NCDOT SPOT process limits the number of projects that MPOs may submit. In the event that more new project requests are received than the MPO can submit, the DCHC MPO will calculate preliminary scores based on the scoring criteria developed by the SPOT 7.0 Workgroup that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of Transportation in summer. This will provide a set of preliminary scores that can be used to rank projects. NCDOT and DCHC MPO Scoring Criteria for Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Division Needs Safety = 20% • Measurement of the number of bicycle and pedestrian crashes, severity of the crashes, crash risk based on existing surroundings, and safety benefit the project is expected to provide. Accessibility/Connectivity = 15% • Measurement of the quantity of destinations near the project, the quantity of connections to existing or planned bicycle/pedestrian facilities, and whether the project improves or connects to a designated bicycle route. Demand/Density = 10% • Measurement of the population and employment density within a walkable or bikeable distance of the project. Cost Effectiveness = 5% • Measurement of combined user benefits of Safety, Access, Demand, and Connectivity criteria compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT. Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% 12 Rail Projects Rail projects may be scored and funded within any of the three funding categories (Statewide, Regional, or Division). The MPO will coordinate closely with the NCDOT Rail Division on the identification, prioritization, and submission of rail projects. DCHC MPO will follow the criteria developed by the P7.0 Workgroup that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of Transportation in summer 2023. NCDOT and DCHC MPO Scoring Criteria for Rail Projects Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Input MPO/RPO Input Statewide Mobility (Class I Freight Only) Benefit-Cost = 35% • Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT. Safety = 30% • Measurement of crash potential at highway/rail crossings, based on the NCDOT Rail Division’s Investigative Index. System Opportunities = 15% • Measurement of the project’s degree of access to industrial/commercial development or nearby points of interest, and the degree of interaction between Rail and other modes. Capacity and Diversion = 10% • Volume/Capacity = 75% • Highway Diversion = 25% Economic Competitiveness = 10% • Measurement of the estimated number of full time jobs created in 20 years. Total = 100% -- -- Regional Impact Benefit-Cost = 25% • Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT. Safety = 15% • Measurement of crash potential at highway/rail crossings, based on the NCDOT Rail Division’s Investigative Index. System Opportunities = 10% • Measurement of the project’s degree of access to industrial/commercial development or nearby points of interest, and the degree of interaction between Rail and other modes. Capacity and Diversion = 10% • Volume/Capacity = 75% • Highway Diversion = 25% Economic Competitiveness = 10% • Measurement of the estimated number of full time jobs created in 20 years. Total = 70% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 30%) 15% 15% 13 NCDOT and DCHC MPO Scoring Criteria for Rail Projects - continued Funding Category Quantitative Data Local Input Division Needs System Opportunities = 15% • Measurement of the project’s degree of access to industrial/commercial development or nearby points of interest, and the degree of interaction between Rail and other modes. Benefit-Cost = 10% • Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT. Safety = 10% Measurement of crash potential at highway/rail crossings, based on the NCDOT Rail Division’s Investigative Index. Capacity and Diversion = 10% • Volume/Capacity = 75% • Highway Diversion = 25% Economic Competitiveness = 5% • Measurement of the estimated number of full time jobs created in 20 years. Total = 50% (Division Engineer and Local Input Points account for remaining 50%) 25% 25% RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION OF THE MPO’S LOCAL INPUT POINTS Overview DCHC MPO prioritized projects for submission according to NCDOT Prioritization 7.0 scoring criteria, as well as subcommittee member input, public input, local priority, and funding availability. Each of these criteria were weighted equally at 20%, and projects with the highest scores were submitted to NCDOT for quantitative evaluation. Upon submission to NCDOT, projects within the MPO will be evaluated according to NCDOT’s quantitative ranking methodology. DCHC MPO will receive the results of the NCDOT quantitative evaluation scoring process and the project data used by NCDOT to develop the scores. NCDOT’s quantitative scores will be reviewed by the DCHC MPO and staff of MPO member jurisdictions and agencies. The NCDOT’s raw quantitative scores serve as the quantitative basis for the MPO’s prioritization of projects. The allocation of the DCHC MPO’s Local Input Points to high priority projects serves as the qualitative component of the prioritization process. The DCHC MPO’s Local Input Points will be allocated to projects that aim to achieve the goals of the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and align with the priorities of the DCHC MPO. The DCHC MPO’s project ranking process and subsequent allocation of Local Input Points must capture the goals of DCHC MPO and not just be purely based on the results of data-driven processes. The process and results should also capture input received from citizens, elected officials, and stakeholders in the DCHC MPO area. It is important to consider the needs of all communities that are located in the DCHC MPO area in the allocation of Local Input Points to priority projects. 14 Collaboration with NCDOT Divisions is also an important component of DCHC MPO’s allocation of Local Input Points. Projects that receive the MPO’s Local Input Points and Division Engineer Points will have an overall better score than projects that do not receive points from both the MPO and a Division Engineer. Coordinating with NCDOT Division Engineers will ensure that priority projects in the DCHC MPO area have the best possible chance to be funded in the next NCDOT STIP and MPO TIP. Introduced in SPOT 6.0, DCHC MPO has the option to apply the Local Input Point Flexing Policy. This means that up to 500 Local Input Points can be transferred from between the Regional Impact and Division Needs project tiers. If the organization chooses to flex Local Input Points, the MPO or the Division will provide written documentation to the SPOT Office prior to assigning Regional Impact Local Input Points. It should be noted that projects in the Statewide Mobility category are not eligible for DCHC MPO Local Input Points, and therefore will not be reviewed and prioritized by DCHC MPO as part of the process for allocation of Local Input Points (though these projects will be reviewed should they cascade down to the Regional Impact and Division Needs levels). DCHC MPO will prioritize and allocate Local Input Points to eligible projects in the Regional Impact and Division Needs funding categories. Description of Criteria and Weights Per the guidance that was provided by the NCDOT SPOT Office, at least two criteria, one of which must be qualitative, will be used for the purpose of allocation of local points. The table below shows the criteria to be used to rank projects for assignment of local points. Projects will be ranked based on a seven-point scale. Criteria Maximum Points (Highway) Maximum Points (Non-Highway) MTP Prioritization Project planned for near-term (by MTP 2030 Threshold) 2 Project planned for mid-term (by MTP 2040 Threshold) 1 Project planned for long-term (by MTP 2050 Threshold) 0 Consistent with Adopted Regional or Local Plan 2 Preliminary Engineering or Engineering Study Completed or Underway 1 Project is in a high-crash area as designated by a local jurisdiction. 1 1 Project reduces emissions/improves air quality 1 1 DCHC-member jurisdiction demonstrates local funding towards progress in project 1 Project complements non-highway transportation facility 1 1 Project supports Environmental Justice Community of Concern 1 1 1 TOTAL MAXIMUM 7 7 1 For the purposes of this Methodology, an Environmental Justice Community of Concern is an Overlapping Community of Concern as identified in the 2020 DCHC MPO Environmental Justice Report. 15 Total Score and Project Ranking Approach All projects will be ranked based on their score using the rubric above. The rankings will be used to inform TC and Board members regarding allocation points of using the method described in the next section. Point Assignment Process Projects deemed to be of top priority to the MPO will be assigned the requisite amount of points necessary in order to maximize the project’s chances of receiving funding through the SPOT process. NCDOT assigns the number of local prioritization points for each MPO, RPO, and Division based on the area’s population. DCHC MPO has been allocated 2,000 points for the Regional Impacts (Regional) and Division Needs (Division) categories for Prioritization 7.0. Each MPO, RPO, and Division can assign a maximum of 100 points and a minimum of 4 points to each project. For the MPO’s 2,000 Regional Impact Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points to Regional projects among modes and project types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been structured to reflect the funding goals of the MPO’s adopted MTP and the number of eligible Regional category projects in each mode. Statewide projects that cascade down to the Regional category will generally not be assigned Regional Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The MPO Board and TC may deviate from this policy on a case-by-case basis. • 800 points to Highway • 500 points to Public Transit • 700 points could be assigned to any mode and project type For the MPO’s 2,000 Division Needs Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points among modes and project types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been structured to reflect the funding goals of the MPO’s adopted MTP and the number of eligible Division category projects in each mode. Statewide and Regional projects that cascade down to the Division category will generally not be assigned Division Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The MPO Board and TC may deviate from this policy on a case-by-case basis. • 300 points to Highway • 500 points to Public Transit • 500 points to Bicycle and Pedestrian • 700 points could be assigned to any mode and project type Deviations from this methodology may be made for various reasons, including: • A project costs more than the funding available in that category • A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of Local Input Points • Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project should not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division • The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee (TC), determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should be assigned points (or more points than assigned through application of the Methodology) 16 • The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and therefore should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of the Methodology • The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority • The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project to support geographic equity • Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project rankings Should a project receive Local Input Points through a deviation, the Board will note the reason for the deviation and that reason shall be published after final adoption. Approval of the Allocation of Local Input Points The DCHC MPO Board will release the draft Project Priority Ranking and application of Local Input Points for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. The initial list of projects proposed to receive Local Input Points will be based on the process described above. After review and public comment, the MPO Board will approve the final application of Local Input Points. The MPO Board’s approval will be informed by the following: • The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above; • The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding available within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the normalization limitations that NCDOT has adopted; • The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode /project type/category; • The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between modes and the air quality horizon year of projects; • The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other projects being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI legislation; • If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice Communities of Concern identified in the MPO’s 2020 Environmental Justice Report; • Geographic and jurisdictional balance; • Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the assignment of points; • Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO, the MPO’s public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local referenda; • The MPO Board members’ knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their communities; and • Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the MPO’s website. 17 After the DCHC MPO Board approves the allocation of Local Input Points to projects in the DCHC MPO area, MPO staff will submit the projects with the Local Input Points applied to NCDOT for use in Prioritization 7.0. Public Involvement All public involvement for this process will be conducted in accordance with the DCHC MPO’s current Public Involvement Policy. As is the MPO’s standard practice for all DCHC MPO Board and TC agenda items, all relevant materials, documentation of this process, and TC and MPO Board meeting materials and minutes will be posted on the DCHC MPO’s website, www.dchcmpo.org. The DCHC MPO Public Involvement Policy sets a minimum 21-day public comment period for this process and requires a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. This public comment period and public hearing will be advertised in accordance with the Public Involvement Policy. Public comments will be documented, summarized, and responses will be provided. In addition, all DCHC MPO Board and TC meetings are public meetings and include the opportunity for public comment. Comments provided at any meeting will be considered. The DCHC MPO web site will include the following on its Local Methodology tab for the FY2026-2035 TIP web page: • Link to the NCDOT STI Prioritization Resources web site • Updated drafts of the Methodology as they are available • Schedule for adoption of the Methodology and Local Points • Schedule of milestones in the Methodology and Local Input Points adoption process • Preliminary and final local input point assignment sheets DCHC MPO will follow the schedule below for public comment and adoption of this Methodology: November 2023 – Draft Methodology reviewed by the DCHC MPO TC (materials published online for public review); TC recommends that DCHC MPO Board release Draft Methodology for public comment December 2023 – DCHC MPO Board reviews Draft Methodology and releases for 21-day public comment period January 2024 - TC has second review and makes recommendation to the Board February 2024 – Board holds public hearing, reviews public comments, and adopts Methodology (including any changes based on public comment); DCHC MPO staff submits the Methodology to NCDOT Review Committee; TC reviews comments from NCDOT Review Committee and recommends changes to Methodology, if necessary March 2024 – Board adopts revised Methodology, if necessary 18 Material Sharing Comments on the DCHC MPO’s Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests or any information contained within may be submitted in writing to the DCHC MPO using the contact information below. Comments may also be offered during any DCHC MPO Board or DCHC MPO TC meeting. All meetings are open to the public and meeting schedules are available on the DCHC MPO’s website www.dchcmpo.org. Filmon Fishastion DCHC MPO 4307 Emperor Blvd Durham, NC 27703 (919) 503-4117 email: filmon.fishastion@dchcmpo.org ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT 600 Hwy 86 N · Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Phone (919) 245-2008 · Fax (919) 732-2137 orangecountync.gov/transportation Item 5.b. Subject: US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study Attachment: Att 1 - US 70 MCS OUTBoard Concerns Addressed Att 2 - US 70 MCS Final PURPOSE: To recommend Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approve US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study (MCS). BACKGROUND: On Monday, March 25, 2024, Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) met with VHB to address all their questions and concerns for the US 70 MCS. VHB compiled a list of all issues and documented how the US 70 MCS Final Plan addresses them. The consultant is at today’s meeting to present the Final plan for OUTBoard’s reconsideration. Process to date: • Summer 2022 – Notice to Proceed • Summer – Winter 2022 – Existing Conditions and Market Analysis • Winter 2022 – Spring 2023 – Traffic Forecast and Public Workshop #1 • Spring 2023 – Winter 2023 – Draft Recommendations and Public Workshop #2 • March 4th – Mebane Town Council o Approved the goals, objectives, and recommendations of Segment A and the portion of Segment B extending from Segment A to Frazier Road as presented in the US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study. o Endorsed the vision and recommendations of the US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study outside of Mebane. • March 25th – Hillsborough Town Commissioners o Approved US 70 MCS for portions of Segment C, D, and F within Town Limits o Endorse US MCS outside Town limits contingent on OUTBoard approval Attachment 1 is a comprehensive list of all OUTBoard issues and how they are addressed. Attachment 2 is the Final US 70 MCS. Staff recommends OUTBoard approval of multimodal corridor study. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time. Local approval of study allows County opportunity to pursue state and federal funding for transportation improvements along the corridor. It also allows County staff to utilize it in development review process for the dedication of right-of-way for future state funded improvements and the construction of bike/ped facilities through enforcement of County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this item: • GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND INEQUITY The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color; religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs, and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Goal impact is applicable to this item: • CLEAN OR AVOIDED TRANSPORTATION Implement programs that monitor and improve local and regional air quality by: 1) promoting public transportation options; 2) decreasing dependence on single-occupancy vehicles, and 3) otherwise minimizing the need for travel. RECOMMENDATION(S): Recommend BOCC approve US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT Issue Addressed How do we know the Environmental Justices communities (minorities, low-income, elderly, zero car, etc.) would use the network? EJ communities are identified along the corridor and the plan does recommend multimodal transportation improvements that will meet their needs. Visually explain Peak Hour LOS/results for corridor Demonstrated in the Existing Conditions section of the plan. Crash Data Details Demonstrated in the Existing Conditions section of the plan. Travel time savings analysis SimTraffic simulation used in the analysis Counter the idea that slower speeds will cause more crashes (impatient drivers passing/being aggressive) rear end crashes (prevalent in the data set) are shown to be reduced when congestion is lessened Add wording - this study/plan is a guidance document for future widening and to inform other plans Acknowledged Add how goals are supported by data and OUTBoard intro/closure Acknowledged What the highest-level goal for the corridor. Is it that move more traffic through, or calming traffic measures and feel like a community setting? Two to four lanes is not a recommendation of the study, and we did a lot of vehicular traffic investigation of this project. The widening is an impending situation. Verified by local (TRM) and state modeling data. The recommendations balance increased traffic with multimobility, transit amenities or PEDs and bikes Landscaping as growth occurs along the corridor Frontages along US 70 are redeveloped are held to certain standards, local government enforces these standards through the UDO. County is currently updating its LUP 2050. Local plans on landscaping Hillsborough has their own Connectivity Plan and Comprehensive Sustainability Plan that addresses this. Mebane and Orange County does this through their UDO. Getting traffic on the highway to 85 or 40 is mentioned in the important sections about improving the connectivity between the 70 corridor and the interstates, correct. Acknowledged Moving all the traffic over to the interstates and 70 not be a first choice and someone except for short commutes within the area. TRM and state model puts the traffic on the path of least resistance from its origin to destination and gives us the amount of traffic that is expected to be on US 70 in the future year. It includes all traffic moving to 40 and 85 based on the available capacity within the network that was modeled. Even with the 40 and 85 widening, the improvement on Churton Street and other future completed projects, we're still seeing levels of level service of E and F on US 70. Those are failing levels of service. The plan builds upon what is eventually going to be a base condition because the models say it is warranted in the future, verified at every update. Model validation TRM and Statewide Model Both models say in 2050, even with traffic moved onto the widened I-85 and I-40, traffic on 70 is still going to require the need for widening 70. Do you have data to support the assumed need or demand in a couple of areas for low-income people to find non-automotive transportation to potential work along the corridor, and the other for the need or demand for non-automotive transportation to parks? They have the demand that they would use those non- automotive assets if they were available to them to go either to work or to recreation at the parks. No model can predict what mode of travel a person will use. Given a road with all modes, a person may use all options available throughout the course of a day. You showed us the level of service, what is the time of day for those? Are we building for the peak? Peak and daily as reported in the models. we've just come through two years where there was very little traffic. That was during covid, Existing Conditions report documents traffic has returned to pre-covid numbers and some areas increased, especially speeding. section 4.6.2 is the crash data and its narrative in there and it does not reflect over what period where those incidents were existing conditions report went a lot deeper into the crash analysis and you know it was taken over a 5-year period What was used for traffic projections State approved projection rate, and modeled data, with 2023 as base year. when was the model adopted 2022, When the 2050 MTP was completed, The model was adopted by DCHC MPO board by resolution along with the MTP. Currently being updated for 2055 MTP. The plan assumes that there will be a widening of 70 from 2 to 4 lanes and when that happens, the NCDOT can use this plan to guide its widening process. Is that correct? Yes. And the multimodal accommodations that would be included with that typical section Because the focus is non-highway, the outcome is the widening because it gives us leverage to DOT to say to them if you do widen this road, we want you to add bike-ped and transit as you do the widening because of complete streets. are recommendations on providing some protection of the environmental issues would also be that NCDOT would have to go by that Yes, because they would do it through the NEPA, which would be the first step that is required What about electric vehicles. According to the federal government, we are going to try to have majority of electric vehicles in 2050. Is there any combination or reference or will that affect any of the recommendations in this plan? As far as the recommendations of this project, an EV is going to function just like a gas vehicle as far as its presence on the road. And so, I think the sidewalks, the mixed-use pads, and things like that would stay the same from a recommendation standpoint. If this plan is approved, we will use it in coordination with County’s Climate Action Plan, Strategic Plan, LUP 2050 and other plans like Hillsborough Comprehensive Sustainability Plan and others. Is there a way that we can put in the opening statement something about the fact that we are that we hope, or we urge the DOT to use this as a guidance document? Can we say that explicitly? Yes, absolutely, And you can also extend this to ensuring consistency with the County's Climate Action Plan and other adopted policies. We had the core goals that we wanted to achieve. How can we speak to that with a little bit of data? What is the ROI? How do we explain that? travel time comparison from point A to point B, travel time savings, intersection queueing time reduction, etc. we can try to present this in April. how we're incorporating some of the multimodal transport, make sure there's adoption. By resolution, locally adopted plans, policies, UDO, etc. I'm always concerned about, there's a lot of build it and they will come and there's a lot of stuff we built and no one’s using it. Acknowledged I just want to make sure I feel comfortable saying that yeah, this makes sense, and we are going to hit the goals that we said we would hit. Acknowledged you showed the 2050 level services E and Fs. What does the current level of service look like? See Existing Conditions report are there any things on the docket in the short term to improve what are the current delays? Efland and Cedar Grove Rd-that where is says C, that’s Efland Industrial development that's going on right now. If you drive in that area, you'll see this big gray building going up and construction going on and development going on for the industrial park that's been developed there. What about future development along the corridor So if the developer, say, five years down the line, decides to put a hospital or some other traffic generating development, including subdivisions, or a commercial or something along the corridor, it gives us leverage to the development review process to say, hey developer, we have this adopted plan, you need to do XYZ because of a locally adopted plan. Either need to dedicate the land such that it can be built in the future, or if it's a product of a traffic impact analysis that they need to build one of those lanes or something like that What would encourage some analysis of signal timing or other ways? Signal timing requires a DOT warrant analysis for signalization and traffic signals. Meaning, DOT will require a detailed warrant analysis What about schools along the corridor? NCDOT treats school differently according to state law. What can we do with the Study? Can we ask that some of the recommendations be taken out? we can only affect the Orange County portion, Town approved plans fed this study. Not taken out, you can make other recommendations (e.g. speeding in rural Orange County). You cannot remove something that others approve. DURHAM PROJECT LIST 5-YEAR PROGRAM FEBRUARY 2024 Project ID Description R/W Acq. Begins Let Date Project Manager Name ROW $UTIL $CON $COMMENTS U-6021 SR 1118 (FAYETTEVILLE ROAD),FROM WOODCROFT PARKWAY TO BARBEE ROAD IN DURHAM. WIDEN TO 4-LANE DIVIDED FACILITY WITH BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS. 10/15/2032 1/1/2040 BETH A. QUINN $4,158,000 $379,000 $15,200,000 Project is funded for engineering only in 2024 STIP and remains suspended. U-5516 AT US 501 (ROXBORO ROAD) TO SR 1448 (LATTA ROAD) / SR 1639 (INFINITY ROAD) INTERSECTION IN DURHAM. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. 10/18/2028 10/15/2030 JOHN W. BRAXTON JR $9,290,500 $2,075,000 $12,400,000 Project is funded for engineering only in 2024 STIP and remains suspended. BP5-R117 BRIDGE 110 OVER LITTLE CREEK ON SR 1110 (FARRINGTON ROAD)8/14/2030 LISA B. GILCHRIST, EI $150,000 $3,709,612 BP5-R142 PIPE TO BRIDGE ON (SR 1800) HEREFORD ROAD 7/11/2029 LISA B. GILCHRIST, EI $75,000 $1,500,000 I-6000 I-540 - DURHAM/WAKE COUNTIES FROM I-40 IN DURHAM TO US 1 INRALEIGH. BRIDGE PRESERVATION/REHABILITATION. COORDINATE WITH I-5998 & I-5999. 11/21/2028 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON $7,610,000 U-5717 US 15 / US 501 DURHAM CHAPEL-HILL BOULEVARD AND SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD) CONVERTING THE AT-GRADE INTERSECTION TO AN INTERCHANGE 4/23/2019 10/20/2026 JOHN W. BRAXTON JR $20,413,786 $53,300,000 ROW acquisition ongoing. 80105 Riddle Road Widening Expansion of The Building Center - Econ Dev 3/25/2026 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON SM-6105H SM-6105H - Durham - NC 54 (Miami Boulevard) at SR 1978 (Hopson Road). Construct a southbound right turn lane on NC 54. 3/3/2025 3/11/2026 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON HS-2005N NC 98 AT SR 1919 (LYNN ROAD). TURN LANE CONSTRUCTION.2/19/2025 2/25/2026 MARK S. GALLO $500,000 $1,785,000 Planning and engineering activities underway. I-5995 I-40 - DURHAM/WAKE COUNTIES FROM EAST OF NC 147 TO SR 1728 (WADE AVENUE). PAVEMENT REHABILITATION. INCLUDE I-5996. 1/20/2026 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON $53,500,000 Estimate updated in February. I-5998 I-540 - DURHAM/WAKE COUNTIES FROM I-40 IN DURHAM TO US 70 IN RALEIGH. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION. COORDINATE WITH I-5999 &I-6000. 12/16/2025 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON $24,500,000 Estimate updated in February. HS-2405M US 501 BUS. (ROXBORO ROAD) AT MAYNARD AVENUE. INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS AND CONNECT TO THE DURHAM SIGNAL SYSTEM. 4/25/2025 9/24/2025 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $25,000 $177,000 SM-6105G SM-6105G - Durham - NC 147 southbound off ramp at SR 1321 (Hillandale Road/ Fulton Street). Widen the NC 147 southbound off ramp to dual right and revise the traffic signal. 2/26/2025 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON Planning and engineering activities underway. HS-2005S NC 98 NC 98 AT SR 1815 (MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD). CONSTRUCT RIGHT TURN LANES AND SIDEWALK. 1/29/2024 2/12/2025 STEPHEN REID DAVIDSON $700,000 65% plans. Engineering continuing. HE-0007B SR 1794 (TEKNIKA PARKWAY), FROM SR 1632 (RED MILL ROAD) CONSTRUCT TURN LANES AND SIGNALIZE INTERSECTION. 2/23/2024 1/22/2025 MARK S. GALLO $95,000 $815,000 Funding is insufficient for a roundabout. Project team will evaluate costs for turn lane. HS-2405I SR 1110 (BARBEE CHAPEL ROAD) AT DOWNING CREEK PARKWAY/HALESWOOD ROAD. INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCOMMODATIONS. 4/19/2024 10/23/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $2,000 $2,000 $120,000 Page 1 of 2 DURHAM PROJECT LIST 5-YEAR PROGRAM FEBRUARY 2024 Project ID Description R/W Acq. Begins Let Date Project Manager Name ROW $UTIL $CON $COMMENTS HS-2005L SR 1327 (GREGSON STREET) AT KNOX STREET. INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL.6/26/2024 ASHLEY LOWERY $110,000 HS-2005D SR 1303 (PICKETT ROAD) AT SR 1116 (GARRETT ROAD)/(LUNA LANE). INSTALL ALL WAY STOP. 10/17/2022 4/24/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $2,000 $40,000 HS-2405B NC 157 (GUESS ROAD) FROM DURHAM MUNICIPAL LIMITS TO ORANGE COUNTY LINE. INSTALL LONG LIFE PAVEMENT MARKINGS. 4/24/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $223,000 HS-2005E US 15-501 BUSINESS AT NC 751 (DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL BOULEVARD). INSTALLl GUARDRAIL. 4/10/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $175,000 HS-2005H SR 1973 (PAGE ROAD) AT CHURCHILL HALL/Aat Churchill HALLl/ARBY'S /MCDONALDS DRIVEWAY. INSTLL DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER. 4/10/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $20,000 HS-2005C NC 54 AT NC 55 3/27/2024 KAYLA NOELLE GALES $75,000 HS-2005M NC 55 (ALSTON AVENUE) AT SR 1670 (GEER STREET). REVISE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND INSTALL PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEADS. 3/27/2024 ASHLEY LOWERY $62,000 HE-0007A SR 1004 (OLD OXFORD ROAD) FROM FIRST AVE (MERCK DRVEWAY). CONSTRUCT RIGHT TURN LANE. 2/29/2024 JOHN EDWARD SANDOR $165,000 ROW and utility coordination ongoing. I-5941 I-85 FROM ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO US 15 /US 501 IN DURHAM PAVEMENT REHABILITATION 2/20/2024 MARK S. GALLO $26,600,000 Construction contract unable to be awarded in February letting. Project will readvertise in spring. Page 2 of 2 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead U-4726DF Bicycle detection at signalized intersections in Carrboro 3/28/2024 FY2026 $36,000 Plans at 90% completion - Plan review comments returned back to the Town of Carrboro for revisions Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson EB-5721 Upgrade existing off-road path and construct new section of path of Bicycle Route #1 from Cleland Drive to Willow Drive in Chapel Hill TBD FY2025 $2,400,000 Bids opened 7/17/23 - Bids rejected. Project on Hold. Chapel Hill to seek additional funding and relet at a future Town of Chapel Hill/Stephen Robinson BL-0044 49998.1.1 NC 54 from Westbrook Drive in Carrboro to west of US 15/501/NC 86 (South Columbia Street) interchange in Chapel Hill. Construct sidewalk and install pedestrian signals, crosswalks, and refuge islands at selected locations. 9/1/2024 10/31/2024 $1,311,000 Construction funding to be requested once municipal agreements are executed. Chapel Hill MA executed, Carrboro MA has also been executed. Letting date set tentatively September 2024. Chad Reimakoski P-5701 46395.1.1 46395.3.1 Construct Platform, Passenger Rail Station Building at Milepost 41.7 Norfolk Southern H-line in Hillsborough 7/1/2024 FY2025 $7,200,000 PE funding scheduled 7/1/2020. Planning and deisgn activities underway Matthew Simmons SS-6207A 50337 NC 54 Pedestrian improvements between SR 1902 (Manning Drive) and SR 1937 (Old Fayetteville Road) in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Improvements will include refuge islands, crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Improvements to be completed by state forces. 4/30/2024 10/31/2024 $171,000 Planning and design activities underway. Waiting on materials to arrive. Dawn McPherson 51130 Eliminate slip ramp on SR 1120 (Mt. Willing Road) at SR 1117 (Oak Grove Church Road) 5/31/2024 Summer 2024 $75,000 Funding approved by BOT. Maintenance to begin after Traffic Services revision complete. Matthey Whitley EL-4828A Construct Morgan Creek Greenway Phase 1 in Carrboro 5/24/2024 FY2026 $372,000 Review comments provided to Carrboro in June 2023 for revisions and resubmittal. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson HL-0045 Repair Bridge #241 on Exchange Park Lane over Eno River from South Churton Street to Faribult Lane in Hillsborough 9/26/2024 FY2027 $153,800 Agreement executed, Hillsborough to prepare environmental documents and plans. Town of Hillsborough/Stephen Robinson C-5181 Jones Creek Greenway Project - Fill Gap between the Carrboro Upper Bolin Trail and Twin Creeks Greenway and also implement program to support on-vehicle trips to Morris Grove Elementary School 6/21/2024 FY2026 $654,000 Environmental document approved 8/14/23. NCDOT to review plans once Carrboro develops and submits. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT Page 1 DCHCMPO Mar 2024 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT SS-6207T 51112 Portions of Twenty-One (21) Routes. Curve Warning Sign Installation. 9/20/23 9/30/24 $200,000 Project approved by BOT and assigned. Planning and design activities underway. Dawn McPherson C-5650 Construct sidewalk on one side of SR 1919 (Smith Level Road/S. Greensboro St.) from Public Works Drive to the northern end of Old Pittsboro Road in Carrboro 12/4/2025 FY2028 $1,718,000 Carrboro approved to incorporate water line work into design. Env doc returned w comments on 12/10/21. Document to be updated to include additional limits for resurfacing. NCDOT waiting on revised plans to be submitted for review. Util Plans under review. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson HS-2007J Install a new crosswalk with Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB), raised center island, pedestrian signage, and approximately 125 linear feet of sidewalk on NC 86 at Critz Drive in Chapel Hill 11/21/2024 6/30/2025 $300,000 Planning and deisgn activities underway Chris Smitherman B-6037 Replace Bridge #49 over Norfolk Southern Railway on NC 86 7/15/2025 FY2029 $2,500,000 Planning and design activities underway Chris Smitherman BR-0092 Replace Bridge #37 on NC 86 over New Hope Creek 8/19/2025 FY2028 $4,100,000 Planning and design activities underway Alexander Foster EB-5880 Construct sidewalk on the north side of SR 1005 (Jones Ferry Road) from Davie Road to SR 1010 (West Main St.) in Carrboro 9/30/2027 FY2029 $441,000 Municipal agreement needs to be requested and executed to begin work. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson EB-5890 Construct sidewalk on Barnes Street from King Street to SR 1005 (Jones Ferry Road) in Carrboro 9/30/2027 FY2029 $230,000 Municipal agreement needs to be requested and executed to begin work. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson EB-5886B Construct sidewalk/MUP/bike lanes on Estes Drive from south of Norfolk Southern Railroad to NC 86 (MLK Jr. Blvd.) in Chapel Hill 10/2/2025 FY2027 $3,104,000 Municipal agreement executed and project development underway. Town of Chapel Hill/Stephen Robinson I-3306AC I-40 at NC 86 - Upgrade to superstreet from Northwood Drive to Ramp C/D at I-40 interchange 10/21/2025 FY2028 $4,350,000 Planning and design activities underway Radha Attaluri Page 2 DCHCMPO Mar 2024 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT HO-0013 51177.1.1 51177.2.1 51177.2.2 51177.3.1 Chapel Hill from Franklin Street and Rosemary Street, and the streets in between from Merritt Mill Road to Henderson Street in downtown Chapel Hill. Install new mast arm and curb and sidewalk improvements. 6/4/2026 FY28 $2,100,000 Project approved by BOT and assigned.Stephen Robinson BP7-R009 Replace Bridge #11 on SR 1336 (Halls Mill Road)9/17/2026 FY2029 $1,100,000 Planning and design activities underway Plans at 65% Vacant BP7-R013 Replace Bridge #90 on SR 1940 (Damascus Church Road)9/16/2027 FY2030 $800,000 Planning and design activities underway Plans at 25% Vacant EB-5998 Construct MUP on US 15/501 from Willow Drive to SR 1741/SR 1838 (Old Durham Chapel Hill Road) in Chapel Hill 9/30/2026 FY2028 $2,044,000 Municipal agreement needs to be requested and executed to begin work. Town of Chapel Hill/Stephen Robinson EB-5886A Construct sidewalk/MUP/bike lanes on Estes Drive from SR 1772 (North Greensboro Street) to south of Norfolk Southern Railroad Tracks in the Town of Carrboro 9/17/2026 FY2029 $848,000 Municipal agreement needs to be requested and executed to begin work. Town of Carrboro/Stephen Robinson 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) 11/17/2026 FY2028 $8,690,000 Planning and design activities pending Chris Smitherman BR-0247 Replace Bridge #29 on US 70 Business/NC 86 over Cates Creek 11/16/2027 FY2029 Pending Preliminary activities pending Bryan Key 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). 6/17/2031 FY2033 $7,000,000 PE funding approved 10/10/17, design activities currently suspended, Coordinating with NC54 West Corridor Study Chris Smitherman BP7-R007 Replace Bridge #63 on Pleasant Green Road 9/5/2030 FY2033 $2,500,000 Planning and design activities underway Vacant Page 3 DCHCMPO Mar 2024 TIP/WBS # Description LET/Start Date Completion Date Cost Status Project Lead NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT BP7-R015 Replace Bridge #86 on SR 1942 (Jones Ferry Road)9/6/2029 FY2031 $1,700,000 Planning and design activities underway Vacant BR-0091 Replace Bridge #32 on US 70 over the Eno River 10/17/2028 FY2032 $4,000,000 Planning and design activities underway Jon Gaillard 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 7/16/2030 FY2033 $49,238,000 PE funding approved 5/14/15, Planning and Design activities underway, Coordinate with I-0305B which was formerly I-5967. Radha Attaluri I-0305(A) 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. 1/20/2032 FY2036 $132,000,000 PE funding approved 6/5/18, Planning and design activities underway, Project reinstated per 2020-2029 STIP (funded project) and delete project I-5983 Colin Mellor I-0305B 34142.1.5 34142.3.3 34142.3.4 34142.2.4 Interchange improvements at I-85 and SR 1009 (South Churton Street) in Hillsborough 10/15/2030 FY2033 $16,900,000 PE funding approved 9/8/17, Planning and Design activities underway, Coordinate with I-0305 and U-5845. (I- 0305B was formerly I-5967) Colin Mellor I-0305C 34142.1.6 Interchange improvements at I-85 and NC 86 in Hillsborough 11/16/2032 FY2035 $20,900,000 PE funding approved 10/10/17, Planning and Design activities underway, I-0305C was formerly I-5984. Colin Mellor B-5733 Replace Bridge #39 over Booker Creek in Chapel Hill on SR 1010 (E. Franklin St.) 1/16/2029 FY2031 $5,100,000 Planning and design activities pending Jennifer Hernandez BR-0195 Replace Bridge #31 on SR 1010 (Franklin Street) over Bolin Creek in Chapel Hill 2/15/2029 FY2031 Pending Planning and design activities underway. Bridge recently rehabbed. Project on hold. Jennifer Hernandez Page 4 DCHCMPO Mar 2024 North Carolina Department of Transportation 3/6/2024 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 C204632 I-3306A WIDENING I-40 FROM I-85 IN ORANGE COUNTY TO THE DURHAM COUNTY LINE AND I-40 WESTBOUND IN DURHAM COUNTY NEAR US- 15/501. THE LANE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION Cvijetic, PE, Bojan $236,457,869.00 9/27/2021 9/1/2025 10/28/2021 9/1/2025 59 35.6 C204806 RESURFACING 27 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC Howell, Bobby J $4,512,658.45 3/15/2023 9/15/2024 5/22/2023 9/15/2024 17 20.35 DG00589 HS-2007C INSTALLATION OF THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON VARIOUS SECONDARY ROUTES THROUGHOUT DIVISION 7 TRP CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC Cvijetic, PE, Bojan $1,494,249.58 3/15/2023 11/7/2023 9/13/2023 2/20/2024 100 100 DG00596 R-5787I INSTALLATION OF ADA COMPLIANT CURB RAMPS AT VARIOUS ROUTES CAROLINA GROUP PROPERTIES LLC DBA CAROLINA GROUP CONTRACTING Howell, Bobby J $312,070.00 10/12/2022 2/28/2024 11/9/2022 10/14/2022 100 100 Page 1 of 1 Contract # or WBS # or TIP #Description Let Date Completion Date Contractor Project Admin.Funds Needed Notes U-6192 Convert to reduced conflict intersections from US 64 to SR 1919 (Smith Level Rd) 5/20/2031 TBD TBD Greg Davis (910) 773-8022 $117,700,000 Right of Way 8/2027 Route Chatham County - DCHC MPO - Upcoming Projects - Planning & Design, R/W, or not started - Division 8--March 2024 US 15-501