HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.18.2024 OUTboard ORANGE TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY
NoKaL CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT
OrangeCounty
AGENDA
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Whitted Building
300 West Tryon Street, 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. Minutes— March 25 Subcommittee on US 70 and June 17, 2024
5. Regular OUTBoard Agenda
a. 2024 Annual Report and Work Program
i. Action: Recommend approval
b. 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
i. Action: Approve Scope of Work
c. 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update
i. Action: Provide comments
d. RAISE Grant
i. Action: Recommend approval for FY25 and FY26
6. Staff Report/Updates
a. MPO, RPO, and NCDOT
b. County Bike/Pedestrian Plan
c. Coordinated Human Service Plan
7. Adjournment-The next meeting—August 19th , 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.
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919)245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES
Monday June 17th, 2023, 6:30 pm
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278
1 Attendance: Members Present
2
3 Jamie Crandell Eno Township
4 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township
5 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager
6 Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township
7 Erik Legg Cheeks Township
8 Adam McGovern At Large
9 Michael Hughes At Large
10 Joshua Mayo At Large
11 Amy Cole At Large
12 Sherry Appel At Large
13 Randy Marshall Bringham Township
14 Art Menius Little River Township
15 Todd Jones At Large
16 Gregory Woloszczuk- Chapel Hill Township
17
18 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER
19 The meeting was called to order and the roll was taken.
20
21 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA.
22 Art has two motions; one is the attendance of the Transportation Director, and the other is the agenda. Art
23 motioned that printed copies of the agenda be mailed to anyone who requested one week prior. Sherry
24 asked a question about mailing out 10 days, Art explained that 7 days was sufficient.
25
26 Motion: Art Menius Second: Randy Marshall Vote: Unanimous
27
28 Art opened the discussion about the awkwardness of meeting without the Transportation Director and
29 how to avoid this happening in the future. The point was made by several of the Transportation Directors
30 not informing the OUTboard about his vacation. Several members explained in the past the Director
31 would inform and cancel the meeting. The Chair explained that after reviewing the content of the
32 presentations, he thought it was too much to talk about than there would be time and wasn't
33 comfortable. It was mentioned that they would like WSP to provide the briefing on the Transportation
34 Multimodal Plan, but Darlene could not give a date. Sherry wanted to know what the policy on cancellation
35 of the meeting was. Darlene explained for the June agenda that we didn't have the SPOT results or all
36 the required information for the Transportation Multimodal Plan. Art mentioned that decisions about
37 meetings should be made in coordination with the Chair and Vice Chair and in the past that is how all
38 decisions were made. It decided to table the Transportation Multimodal Plan until the consultants could
39 be at the meeting. Josh made a motion to table the Non-STIP for July.
40
41 Motion: Art Menius Second: Joshua Mayo Vote: Unanimous
42
43 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS.
44 None.
45
46 AGENDA ITEM 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
47 Corrections: Art suggested correcting line (35) should read merge minutes, Micheal was not in
48 attendance, so add Art's name to attendance, and no second for the motion to approve the last April
49 minutes. Art suggests the correction of lines (92) and (169) it should read Highway 70 W and suggests
50 removing the statement. Sherry questioned why all the US 70 recommendations and amendments were
51 not referenced. Randy suggests a correction for Bing Township to Bringham Township, correcting the
52 spelling of Michael's name. Make corrections for the minutes and include the US 70 minutes before
53 approval.
54
55 Motion: Randy Marshall Second: Art Menius Vote: Unanimous
56
57 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda
58
59 5.b. SPOT 7 Local Input points
60
61 D. Weaver presented the overview, process, and results from the SPOT 7 process by explaining each
62 level of the process. Explained that in September we will start talking about Division projects.
63
64 S. Appel asked for copies of the presentation maps. They are in the report and copies could be provided
65 and inform the OUTboard that scores could be slightly adjusted, released in June through August at the
66 Regional level.
67
68 J. Mayo provided feedback on the fund's process of funding at all three levels and projects must score
69 at least 45 points to be competitive.
70
71 S. Appel: From what year does the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) use its
72 data? They use the data from the submission, spreadsheet, and historical information, and they collect
73 data every two years. Are projects limited by the number of dollars? Projects are limited by numbers; the
74 organization gets points based on the population.
75
76 R. Marshall: Questions about the points? D. Weaver and J. Mayo explained the points are distributed by
77 population and each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural Planning Organization (RPO)
78 has several counties they represent and not just Orange County. The funnel on the slides represents all
79 three counties.
80
81 S. Appel: When are allowed to make suggestions about prioritization? The Central Pines Rural Planning
82 Organization (CPRPO), Burlingham Graham (BG), and Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) MPO
83 have regular meetings with the different countries to discuss the priorities, but everything is based on the
84 score.
85
86 S. Appel: Are there any non-MPO representatives on the board and not elected officials over the towns?
87 It was explained that we have BOCC members who are representatives on each of the MPO and RPO
88 boards.
89
90 R. Marshall: Made statement Congresswoman Alice Gordon was on the Board of County Commissioners
91 and a representative for the MPO board and had a wealth of Knowledge. She attended the OUTboard
92 meeting regularly, since we have lost access to Congresswoman Gordan we no longer have access to
93 that information and our voices are not heard.
94
95 M. Hughes and S. Appel: Asked for the names of the Board of Commissioners names that were set on
96 the board. The Orange County Transportation Planning Manager agreed to provide the OUTboard
97 members with the name of each commissioner who represents each board.
98
99 The OUTboard members would like Jamezetta Bedford to attend the OUTBoard meetings occasionally.
100 There was a motion to invite Jamezetta Bedford to attend the OUTBoard meetings.
101
102 S.Appel suggested we have Commissioner Bedford attend the meeting for specific items on the agenda,
103 i.e. the SPOT 7 decisions.
104
105 A. Cole stated that Alice Borden would attend as the Liaison, but there was no item on the agenda for
106 her.
107
108 M. Hughes volunteered to write the invitation to Jamezetta Bedford.
109
110 Motion: Amy Cole Second: Roy Schonberg Vote: Unanimous
111
112 S. Appel: I know what NCDOT scoring is based on, what is Orange County's scoring based on? We
113 currently have consultants completing our Transportation Multimodal Plan, this will allow us to work with
114 the MPOs, and RPO and create Orange County's score method.
115
116 J. Crandell: For the Regional and Division scores can we combine them? If the project is large enough it
117 can be supported at both Regional and Division, so if the doesn't qualify for regional it can still be funded
118 at the division.
119
120 R. Marshall: Says if we can just refine modernization, we don't need sidewalks and grass berm if they
121 would just give us 11-foot lanes and 5-foot bike lanes for 2-foot gutters. That would be way down the road
122 and probably a lot less expensive than having sidewalks on those roads. It was explained that price plays
123 a role but was not a major factor in scoring for SPOT 7.
124
125 M. Hughes suggested we bring SPOT 7 back to the July meeting, so everyone could have time to look
126 over the information and provide their recommendations and suggestions.
127
128 S.Appel:Ask what projects are we recommending? DCHC MPO has them amount of points to fully fund
129 and support 23 projects, we can put projects in the portal that we think should get points out of those 23
130 projects. However, not all the projects will make it past the regional level.
131
132 Suggestion to postpone recommendation for SPOT 7 until the July meeting
133
134 Motion: Art Menius Second: Randy Marshall Vote: Unanimous
135
136 AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT
137 The OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for July 18th, 2024
OUTBoard Subcommittee—US 70 Question and Answer Session
Monday, March 25, 2024,4:00 p.m.
606 NC 86, Hillsborough, NC 27278
1 Attendance: Members Present
2
3 Gregory Woloszczuk- Chapel Hill Township
4 Art Menius Little River Township
5 Michael Hughes At Large
6 Amy Cole At Large
7 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township
8 Sherry Appel At Large
9 Erik Legg Cheeks Township
10 Lauren Triebert, VHB
11 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager
12 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
13
14 Introduction to Meeting Purpose
15 N. Trivedi: re-explained the planning process, plan importance, public engagement, reviewed OUTBoard
16 concerns, focused the meeting on solutions and best path forward. Consultant was introduced and the
17 floor is opened for discussion.
18
19 M. Hughes: I was unable to attend the meeting, so I'm going to go on mute, but paying close attention.
20
21 L. Triebert: Presented how they addressed some of the concerns and encouraged dialogue for the rest.
22 Anything unanswered at meeting will be addressed of the next formal OUTBoard meeting.
23
24 A. Cole: First of all, I just wanted to thank all of you. You put together an extremely thorough report. The
25 area that I was thinking about when I was reading the report as I took a look at what the goals and
26 objectives are, I think that that's spot on for what I would want as a member of this Community to see
27 that if that's how we're planning for, for growth in our city, in our town, in our county, that's what I want to
28 be able to see when I read how we would meet those goals and objectives. I think there's a misalignment
29 for me and some of those and so overarching what I think I'm not understanding is what the highest-level
30 goal for the 70 corridor is. Is it that we're trying to move more traffic through that space, or are we trying
31 to make it into a place where we're calming traffic measures and trying to create more of a feel of what
32 that looks like in a community setting? I'm looking at them and that sounds great, and I would promote
33 that. But then if I look at what is implemented that might conflict with that.And so I don't want to promote
34 something where people get an image of what we're saying is the goal and objective, but the actual
35 output doesn't align with that
36
37 L.Triebert: So, I can give a little bit of insight into that.And then if folks want to add on or take the question
38 further, we can, but I think what you are referencing is the two-lane to the four-lane widening.
39
40 A. Cole: Yeah, but I wouldn't say it's just about two to four. It's about, you know, we talk about preserving
41 nature, then you know the natural landscape and we talk about, you know, just some of those ideas of
42 what that looks like to me. And conflicting how are we addressing the fact that that current corridor is
43 lined with trees, and it's lined with a lot of other natural landscape. And then by expanding that when we
44 are taking that down, so how do we say we're kind of that's our goal and objective, but we're tearing down
45 the landscape to do that.
46
47 L. Triebert: So I think just first and foremost the idea just to address the two to four lanes because I want
48 to make it clear that's not a recommendation of the study to go from two to four, and we did a lot of
49 vehicular traffic investigation at the beginning of this project that indicated that the widening is an
50 impending situation and, at some point will be called for based on the projected growth. And we used the
51 regional model statewide model to verify that. And So, what we were kind of faced with was, OK, if we
52 know ultimately this two-lane roadway that is you know that that was points for it feels very rural or when
53 it goes through you know a more populated area seems like the potential for great like maybe downtown
54 placemaking type feel like in Mebane. We were trying to figure out how to balance the need to move
55 traffic with providing for multimodal users whether that's transit amenities or PEDs and bikes. So, the
56 idea that we, you know, our quote, tearing down landscape, I think that's going to come from what
57 happens as frontages along US 70 are redeveloped, whether that's private development and those
58 developers are held to certain standards or whether that what goes into the complete street typical section
59 that would ultimately be implemented most likely by an NC DOT widening project.
60
61 N. Trivedi: Laura, can I ask you a quick follow-up question to the issue of widening and landscaping?
62 Hillsborough has its landscaping plan for that whitening that landscaping to know he'll widening 70 is also
63 planning how the landscaping is preserved. This is in their connectivity plan. This is also in their
64 sustainability plan that fed into this US 70 Study.
65
66 L. Triebert: Right. That's my understanding.
67
68 N. Trivedi: This is how the land is preserved through landscaping or other improvements that would be
69 covered by complete streets or potentially be covered by complete streets and the landscaping would be
70 done by the developer, making their development improvements to accommodate and ensure
71 landscaping as the areas being as the road corridor evolves.
72
73 L. Triebert: Right, as it's growing. Yes, that's my understanding.Art, is that you?
74
75 N. Trivedi: Art, Sherry, and then Greg.
76
77 A. Menius: yeah, the expansion from two to four lanes seemed inconsistent with most of the rest of the
78 goals of the project seemed an outlier compared to slowing traffic, making it more friendly for pedestrians
79 and bicyclists. And you know the many goals I agree with that appear in this plan, which is the vast
80 majority. Getting traffic on the highway to 85 or 40 is mentioned in the important sections about improving
81 the connectivity between the 70 corridor and the interstates, which is absolutely correct. And there's and
82 the suggestions there are very good, but to me it seems like a lot of these goals and important step in
83 that is moving all the traffic they can get moved over to the interstates and 70 not be a first choice and
84 someone except for short commutes within the area to make our goal to move every vehicle over to the
85 Interstate, we can move over to the Interstate and Off of 70.
86
87 L. Triebert: The models that we use to project future roadway traffic, trucks and vehicles, not PEDs and
88 bikes, that's based on the current adopted statewide model, what that includes is a widened 40 and 85.
89 It includes all fiscally constrained projects in the comprehensive transportation plans, and looking at 2050,
90 the model puts the traffic on the path of least resistance from its origin to its destination and gives us the
91 amount of traffic that is expected to be on US 70 in the future year, and that accounts for all the traffic
92 moving to 40 and 85 based on the available capacity within the network that was modeled. And so, what
93 we see when that happens (speaker shared her screen) this service table (11) that we have for the
94 corridor and assuming a two-lane highway, even with the 40 and 85 widening and the improvement of
95 Church Street and improvements in the long-range plans, we're still seeing levels of level service of E
96 and F, which is just like a report card. Those are failing levels of service. That's why I wanted to make it
97 clear that's not a recommendation of the study. We're assuming that that is eventually going to be a base
98 condition because we can tell from the traffic projections that it's going to be warranted in the future and,
99 we did a lot of data analysis and collection and verification early in the process to make sure that we had
100 good estimates for those.
101 N. Trivedi: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're verifying that when you did this analysis you considered
102 two models-the adopted triangle regional model and the statewide model, and both models say in 2050,
103 even with the 85 and 40 widening, even when the traffic moves onto 1-85 and 1-40, traffic on 70 is still
104 going to require the need for widening 70.
105
106 L. Triebert: Correct.
107
108 N. Trivedi: And this model is updated every four years, and the State's is updated every three years
109 because of the tip.
110
111 L. Triebert: yes, it is.
112
113 N. Trivedi: OK, so I think I think what we need to, I think it would help if we can present and show this
114 that even with the improvements in the future, the future horizon of this stuff, even with the widening of
115 80 widening of 40 traffic on local roads, the regional roads are still going to need widening. So, the report
116 card of E or F is critical in explaining why, even after all this, in the future, the 70 lane expansion needs
117 to happen. So, the data part of their scope of work is short-term, midterm, and long-term improvements
118 in different alternatives, but to no build, you're still going to have problems with 70 in the future.
119
120 A. Menius: Do you have data to support the assumed need or demand in a couple of areas for low income
121 people to find non-automotive transportation to potential work along the corridor, and the other for the
122 need or demand for non-automotive transportation to parks?
123
124 L. Triebert: So just to make sure I got the question right, do we have data to support that those
125 communities exist, or that they would have the demand for the types of recommendations we're making?
126
127 A. Menius:They have the demand that they would use those non-automotive assets if they were available
128 to them to go either to work or to recreation at the parks.
129
130 L. Triebert: That is not a straightforward answer. I think it's one of these if they currently don't have auto
131 access to a personal automobile and they're getting by with whatever transit usage they can find the idea
132 that if there was another alternative available such as a better sidewalk system or a better transit
133 operational system for forgetting to and from those places, I don't have like a model that says that they
134 would use that, that that, that demand would come, but, I would think it would follow that if the
135 infrastructure was there, it would get used, assuming the absence of personal vehicles is still base issue.
136
137 A. Menius: It's totally logical. It makes a completely sensible assumption; I just don't know that it's how
138 the real world is actually going to play out.
139
140 N. Trivedi: At the April meeting, we have another consultant, Nelson Nygaard, who's doing a short-range
141 transit plan which includes some of this analysis, called the Transit Density Index, that talks about how
142 Northern Orange County and areas around Hillsborough using environmental justice and transit density,
143 and addresses alternative modes along this corridor. In this study we are talking about today they also
144 recommended in this study that the U.S. 70 be a transit Infosys corridor because of currently slated transit
145 improvements. If those are implemented in these local areas within Hillsborough, Mebane, and so forth
146 they would use these alternative modes of transportation.
147
148 L. Triebert:
149 And that's where some of the more nitty gritty specific transit recommendations, like pairing the
150 bidirectional bus stops, is where we got down into the detail of things like that to make it so that it is a full
151 and complete system that is usable from point A to point B and back to point A, as opposed to some
152 situations now where maybe you can get on a bus in the direction you want to go. But then when you try
153 to come home, you don't get dropped off in the same place. We also looked at extensions or expansions
154 of service routes that would hit communities that if they had more proximity to the access, if it was closer
155 to their front door, that could encourage more use as well. So, I do see where you're coming from, and
156 maybe Nish, it's good to hear that Nelson Nygaard doing that density plan, and I think that may help
157 support and answer what Art is asking for.
158
159 N. Trivedi: Sherry's next.
160
161 S. Appel: But yeah, thank you for doing this and for all the other Members who are on this call, I have
162 several questions. You showed us the level of service, what is the time of day for those?Are we building
163 for the peak?
164
165 L. Triebert: They are peak hour analysis, so we do take a look if it's intersection specific, it's going to be
166 generally between your 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM peak. And then your 4:00 PM four and 6:00 PM peak and
167 so to answer your question, yes, they're peak hour analysis. We do have some daily numbers that are
168 more from the model that we could dig further into. Or, you know, there could be an opportunity to look
169 at just other hours of the day. I'd have to go back and see what kind of available data we have for that.
170 That may be able to allay some of those concerns.
171
172 S. Appel: Well, the other part of it is, when would the counts done? I mean, we've just come through two
173 years where there was very little traffic. Well, there was traffic, but it wasn't necessarily normal volume.
174 And then you have now. And section 4.6.2 is the crash data and its narrative in there and it does not
175 reflect over what period where those incidents were, and there's not, you know, it didn't seem like there
176 was data. And I know one of your recommendations is to lower the speed limit to 35, which I'm a little
177 concerned about because sometimes lowering the speed limit on a road like that could potentially cause
178 more accidents as people used to driving that road at high speeds become frustrated, then try to pass
179 against the line and so on.
180
181 L. Triebert: So, the existing conditions report went a lot deeper into the crash analysis and you know it
182 was taken over a 5-year period. But let me get back to traffic counts those were originated with 2019
183 data. We also, though, used streetlight data which is more current and uses basically cell phone
184 technology to help tell where cars are, to help calibrate a "base year current year" which I believe was
185 2023, and then we projected out to 2050. So that's kind of the background of the traffic analysis years
186 and when the data came from and
187
188 N. Trivedi: And the projection is using the state-approved projection rate.
189
190 L. Triebert: Yeah, it's using the model.
191
192 N. Trivedi: Yeah, it's using the adopted model that both the status adopted, and the triangle original
193 model is that also adopted in the MTP. So, it's approved methodology that's being used.
194
195 S. Appel: And when was the model adopted?
196
197 N. Trivedi: And when the 2045 MTP was done, the 2050 MP was done. Yeah, I'll have to get you the
198 exact date.
199
200 L. Triebert: There was a model that was approved, I think in early 2023.
201
202 J. Hamilton: It was most recently updated in October.
203
204 L. Triebert: October of 2023, right? Yeah.
205
206 S. Appel: Thank you. I'm going to keep moving because I don't.
207
208 L. Triebert: I just want to make sure I've got these questions down right. So, about the crash data showing
209 the length of time. Section 4.6.2. is specific to large vehicle crashes, there's also a section on PIED bike
210 crashes, and then at the intro, there's just an overview of crashes in general and which I've got. Do you
211 want as we're coming up on time, do we want to go through and get lists of questions or do you want me
212 to keep talking out responses?
213
214 N. Trivedi: Well, you could understand the need for the crash data and to review the crash that I guess 1
215 presentation that can be one point that can be shown at the April meeting is the existing conditions
216 analysis of the crash data and the recommendations in the issues that the crash data because you're the
217 existing conditions report the analysis of all this crash and traffic and all that stuff was done with a little
218 over a year ago.
219
220 S. Appel: And let me let me let me just throw this out really quick because of your time issue. You say
221 that this report does not include a recommendation to widen the 70 from 2 to 4 lanes. Instead, it assumes
222 that there will be a widening of 70 from 2 to 4 lanes, and based on that assumption, this plan. And when
223 that happens, the NCDOT can use this plan to guide its widening process. Is that correct?
224
225 L. Triebert: Yes. And the multimodal accommodations that would be included with that typical section,
226 such as-
227
228 N. Trivedi: Yeah, the multimodal accommodations cannot be included if it's not included in the study. If
229 you had done the study with just the widening itself, the DOT would use it as leverage to not do any bike-
230 ped accommodations. Because the focus is non-highway, the outcome is the widening because it gives
231 us leverage to DOT to say to them if you do widen this road, we want you to add bike-ped and transit as
232 you do the widening because of complete streets.
233
234 S. Appel: I just want to get this clear. So, Nish, if that is the case, does that also mean that the
235 recommendations, or if there are recommendations on providing some protection of the environmental
236 issues would also be that NCDOT would have to go by that -
237
238 N. Trivedi: Yes, because they would do it through the NEPA, which would be the first step that is required.
239
240 S. Appel: The other thing I just want to comment on it is the electric vehicles. According to the federal
241 government, we are going to try to have majority of electric vehicles in 2050. Is there any combination or
242 reference or will that affect any of the recommendations in this plan?And then I will just turn my mic off.
243 Thank you very much.
244
245 L. Triebert: Or I just I think the quick answer to that is from just kind of an off-the-cuff here in terms of
246 plans for sustainability or infrastructure to the locality. As far as the recommendations of this project, an
247 EV is going to function just like a gas vehicle as far as its presence on the road. And so, I think the
248 sidewalks, the mixed-use pads, and things like that would stay the same from a recommendation
249 standpoint.
250
251 N. Trivedi:And Sherry,just to confirm, we will be working as this plan is approved, if this plan is approved
252 and adopted, we will be using this in coordination with the County's Climate Action Plan, the County
253 Strategic Plan, and the new Land Use 2050 plan that is also going in the process. So, this would give us
254 more leverage in ensuring that there's consistency with other plans and documents that are adopted by
255 the county that the climate action plan would be adopted. It was adopted recently, and it will be updated
256 every two to four years, so be ensuring that is implemented through this process. Then use the short-
257 range transit plan to further recommend improvements.
258
259 S. Appel: Is there a way that we can put in the opening statement something about the fact that we are
260 that we hope, or we urge the DOT to use this as a guidance document? Can we say that explicitly?
261
262 N. Trivedi: Yeah, absolutely.
263
264 L. Triebert: Yeah, we can do that.
265
266 N. Trivedi: And you can also extend this to ensuring consistency with the County's Climate Action Plan
267 and other adopted policies.
268
269 L. Triebert:And, you know from the point of view of NCDOT, but when they go into starting a project such
270 as a widening of US 70 in the future, a review of previous plans like this is done, and is included in part
271 of the, the NEPA documentation. And that's where, if plans like these are "on the books", that's when
272 complete streets policy from DOT starts to kick in as far as them being required to build it and pay for it.
273 Now, as opposed to previously, where they might have had to build it, the cost share might have been
274 different between DOT and the communities.
275
276 N. Trivedi: And this is this comes from the experience we had with Chapel Hill. The 15-501 corridor was
277 recently completed last year and included the New Hope area between Durham and Chapel Hill. Well,
278 the study was completed but it was not adopted and because it was not approved NCDOT went ahead
279 and redesigned the interchange and the improvements and now Chapel Hill later came back and said,
280 oh, we had had the study done and DOT came back and said you didn't approve it. So, you cannot use
281 the study that was not approved as oh we changed our mind. It has to be adopted to be able to be used
282 as leverage, otherwise, DOT will say not it's on the books and we don't recognize it.
283
284 L. Triebert: But I think adding specific wording Sherry to just state that this is a guidance document for
285 the future widening of US 70 is a good add for sure.
286
287 N. Trivedi: The next one is Greg.
288
289 G. Woloszczuk: Excellent. Appreciate and thanks for coming. So, it sounds like we'll have a follow-up in
290 the April meeting. This is really to help kind of prep for those questions.
291
292 L. Triebert: Correct.
293
294 G. Woloszczuk: So, I'll just give my questions. I don't need any answers today, but I think back to the
295 earlier part when it kicked off the meeting for me. What would help is almost like an elevator pitch. We
296 had the four core goals that we wanted to achieve. How can we speak to that with a little bit of data?
297 Because if we say we're going to improve traffic, but then we're going to lower speed limits, how do we
298 quantify that? Because this is going to be very expensive. So how do we say well, by doing this, this is
299 what we see, and by how much? I'm a data person, so when we invest in stuff, I want to know how we
300 see the return on that investment. And we're not back in four or five years saying, oops, yeah, we said
301 we are making it faster, and we slow down the roads instead. I'm not concerned about whether we widen
302 the four lanes or not. It's probably needed, but I would like to see when we talk about slowing down, the
303 same thing with the access into some of the parkways, and the greenways. If we have to go back out
304 and talk to our fellow neighbors, how would we finish this and say, well, we said we're going to improve
305 the traffic flow and say, oh, that's nice. Everybody always says that. How do we explain that?And I don't
306 want to go into the deep, deep details because I trust you all as professionals have done the studies, but
307 just the way that we can talk to it and understand it, right, that's really my comment.
308
309 L. Triebert: Yeah, I think some just not going deep into it, but just off the top of my head, it's just some
310 sort of travel time comparison from point A to point B is maybe something that we could do. You know, if
311 you're not queueing at a single lane stop light for as long, then even if you're limited to 35 miles an hour,
312 you're not stopped in a single location. We can see about incorporating that kind of thing.
313
314 G. Woloszczuk: Exactly. I think that would help. And then how we incorporate, I think somebody else
315 mentioned it like how we're incorporating some of the multimodal transport, make sure there's adoption.
316 What I'm always concerned about, there's a lot of build it and they will come and there's a lot of stuff we
317 built and no one's using it. So just a little bit, how would we see that? Do we have other communities
318 nearby that we've seen have similar success in the improvements because there's, like I said, this is a
319 big budget, I think that's going to be asked. I just want to make sure I feel comfortable saying that yeah,
320 this makes sense, and we are going to hit the goals that we said we would hit.
321
322 L. Triebert: It looks like Michael is up.
323
324 M. Hughes: Thank you very much. Hey Lauren, I've appreciated the way you're handling all of this,
325 particularly that last comment you made concerning Gregg's suggestion, with your time of travel idea,
326 you showed an, excuse me, if you talked about this and I missed it. Or you showed the 2050 level services
327 E and Fs. What does the current level of service look like?
328
329 L. Triebert: Yes, I can show you that too (sharing screen). I'm referencing back to our existing conditions
330 report. So, this is figure 21 in that report showing that currently in the Mebane area, we're operating at a
331 level service D. We're essentially A through C until we get down closer to the Durham line. Yeah, this is
332 the corridor level of service today.
333
334 N. Trivedi: That's a separate document. I need to print out to you the existing conditions document. It was
335 in the packet last year.
336
337 L. Triebert:And so, what we're seeing here is like if nothing was growing, if this area wasn't growing then
338 it would, it's operating generally OK from a corridor level service with a couple of intersections that operate
339 at your failing levels of service. And so, getting back to the 2020 intersection, we looked at specific key
340 intersections along the corridor. Hopefully, that's big enough and so you can see we're, you know, A, B,
341 and Cs with some E, some Ds in various places. But what we're saying is, if we keep the two lanes and
342 the configurations as they are now, single lane approaches, maybe a left turn lane here or there and we
343 layer on top of that the future your traffic that's when you get these E & F from both a corridor and an
344 intersection levels of service so what I just showed you with the dots and again for the April meeting, we
345 can make these graphics more consistent. So, it's more of an apples-to-apples conversation. I just kind
346 of pulled together some things that we have on hand for today, but so this is the 2050 do nothing, versus
347 widening to four lanes and putting in the intersection language improvements that were also part of the
348 recommendations (speaker shared her screen and another graphic). So, you can see in 2050 everything
349 red here, you know, 175 seconds of delay per vehicle is kind of what that means. And when we do the
350 improvement, we go to 30 seconds of delay. Again, these are peak-hour analyses. Just as that as that
351 design hour, but you can see the kind of red really improves once we do the vehicular improvements and
352 that is the case of what 70 is going to do in the future to accommodate the traffic that is expected.
353
354 M. Hughes: Nicely done. I put a question earlier in the chatjust to that point, but going back to the existing
355 condition diagrams that you had, is there maybe more of a question for Nish but are there any things on
356 the docket in the short term to improve what are the current delays?
357
358 N. Trivedi: Just to give you an example, Efland and Cedar Grove Rd-that where is says C, that's Efland
359 Industrial development that's going on right now. If you drive in that area, you'll see this big gray building
360 going up and construction going on and development going on for the industrial park that's been
361 developed there.
362
363 M. Hughes: Yeah, I crossed that intersection a couple of times a week.
364
365 N. Trivedi: Yeah, well, that traffic caused by that is in their traffic impact analysis. That development
366 predates this study. This is also showing that OK, you do nothing with 70 more traffic from developments
367 like this is going to cause on that 70.
368
369 L. Triebert: And so, Michael, one thing I'd say to address the "anything on the docket" we are looking at
370 this from a 21-plus mile corridor perspective if NCDOT or the county or the MPOs- if they want to elevate
371 specific smaller projects then showing those problems in this and potential recommendations works the
372 same way- as it kind of being an on the books recommendation for when DOT does a wider project. So,
373 if you look at the NC 86 at US 70, we're currently at a level service C and when we've got their highlighted
374 purple, which shows potential queuing issues, that's in the existing conditions. And so, if that's seen as
375 an issue that someone, like the MPO, the county, or locals want to elevate in the NDOT prioritization
376 process. Well, then, now they've got something here to start from as a recommendation for what could
377 be done to improve that now, it would not include the four-lane widening yet, but you could set it up such
378 that it doesn't preclude the four-lane widening, but maybe does some local widening to allow for dual left
379 turn lanes or an exclusive right or something like that. And so, just like the on-the-docket intersection
380 question,they can kind of individually be pulled out as location-specific recommendations if those projects
381 want to be prioritized by the various agencies and are looking for funding from DOT in that way.
382
383 M. Hughes: Thanks, Lauren.
384
385 N. Trivedi: Great job with the DOT perspective and how this plan gives us leverage with the DOT and
386 the state-recommended improvements on the road, but by locally adopted plan it gives us as planners
387 as long as a darling and stuff through development review process to impose these recommendations
388 on the developer. So if the developer, say, five years down the line, decides to put a hospital or some
389 other industrial development or some other development or a subdivision in along the corridor or anything,
390 or a shopping mall or something along the corridor, it gives us leverage to the development review
391 process to say, hey developer, we have this adopted plan, you need to do XYZ because of a locally
392 adopted plan.
393
394 L. Triebert: Either need to dedicate the land such that it can be built in the future, or if it's a product of a
395 traffic impact analysis that they need to build one of those lanes or something like that. Again, this, as
396 Nish said, gives you just the base leg to stand on to start requiring those things of developers.
397
398 M. Hughes: Cool. And I will say this, Nish probably knows that, but I've been on the other side of that
399 conversation where I've brought something in and had that kind of feedback that we have to do some
400 infrastructure improvement to get it through. But, Lauren, can you go back to the previous slide before
401 this one that showed red dots at the intersection with 5th St, 4th St, and 3rd St?
402
403 L. Triebert: Yes, I can. So, this is the corridor level of service that those are just indicating that those are
404 signalized intersections.
405
406 M. Hughes: And that's current conditions.
407
408 L. Triebert: Current conditions.
409
410 M. Hughes: D.And what kind of delay might you expect with the?
411
412 L. Triebert: So, let's see, from an intersection standpoint, here we go. So, your average travel speed, free
413 flow for a D. OK, average travel speed.
414
415 M. Hughes: And you could follow up in our meeting, you can follow up in our meeting. But the question
416 would be also just to follow up on that, not necessarily looking for the answer, but is there anything niche
417 or team that we could do in a group that would encourage some analysis of signal timing or other ways?
418
419 N. Trivedi: Signal timing requires a DOT warrant analysis for signalization and traffic signals. Meaning,
420 DOT will require a detailed warrant analysis. Even, I mean, Chapel was trying to synchronize all their
421 signals. And the synchronization of the Chape Hill signals is requiring a detailed warning analysis before
422 DOT synchronizes all the signals on the MLK and other corridors on Chapel Hill. That is something that
423 Chapel Hill is trying to work on. So, there is a level of work that can be done. It's more done
424 administratively with DOT. Give you an example, and this is to address two of your points, The Lawrence
425 Rd. Development where the Charter school is going up. The Charter school did a traffic impact analysis.
426 Kimley-Horn did the traffic impact analysis for the charter school and the Rec Center, going there on
427 Lawrence & 70 business. The developer had met the traffic warrant for Signalizing the intersection of 70
428 business and Lawrence Rd. OK, the developer had met the DOT traffic warrant for a signal. The
429 Developer was offering $400,000 for the signal, cutting a check. Here's the check for the signal and the
430 improvement of that intersection would turn lanes and everything. DOT said no. Because it involved a
431 school and DOT would have to give the money back.
432
433 M. Hughes: Yeah, that was my next question. Why? But you got it.
434
435 N. Trivedi: Because State law changed about schools or any improvements, traffic improvements related
436 to schools DOT has to reimburse the Developer.
437
438 L. Triebert: I did find this table (speaker shares screen for section 1.4.2). It's about delay associated with
439 the levels of service, Michael, and this is specific to intersections as opposed to corridor levels. But you
440 know a level service D on average per vehicle you're between basically 30 and 60 seconds at a signalized
441 intersection.
442
443 M. Hughes: Got it.
444
445 L: Triebert: And we strive for C or better, but D is doable but Es and Fs, we really try to mitigate-whether
446 that's optimized timings, if you can get those pushed through, or additional capacity.
447
448 M. Hughes: Thank you.
449
450 N. Trivedi: OK, I do want to address Sherry's question and I'm sorry, Michael, do you have another
451 question? Go ahead, Michael.
452
453 M. Hughes: On one last curveball question. How does the level, what does the existing level of service
454 on NC 54, which we also just currently recommended to the BOCC move forward?
455
456 N. Trivedi: They're in the existing conditions report, so I'll get that to you and present that also at the
457 meeting if you need to see that, it has other levels.
458
459 M. Hughes: I think it's it would. It would be interesting, just as a point of comparison for me, because 1
460 don't travel the 70 corridor much, I tend to cross it, but I tend to travel 54 a lot and this is more unique to
461 me. It's just my curiosity.
462
463 N. Trivedi: Yeah, I'm happy to present that.
464
465 M. Hughes: Thanks very much, Nish and Lauren.
466
467 N. Trivedi: And Sherry, to help answer your question regarding what you can do with the study, we can
468 only affect the Orange County portion. So, you can make your recommendation for your action at the
469 April meeting any approval of the study contingent on XYZ like this is recommended approval.
470 Recommending this like, OK, we also recommend whatever you want to do with the speed for the rural
471 portion of Orange County. Like if you want to say the recommended speed be issued addressed a little
472 differently like changing or reducing the speed as your action also includes additional recommendations
473 to be considered through your action at the April meeting. So as an OUTBoard, we do have a strong
474 influence in shaping the orange, the rural portion, because the towns are taking independent action on
475 their town portion of it. So, we kind of tell Hillsboro what to do. We can't tell Mebane what to do.
476
477 S. Appel: OK, so I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if at our
478 April meeting, we can review this and we can ask that some of the recommendations be taken out before
479 they?
480
481 N. Trivedi: Not taken out but changed, like you can make changes because right now the actions that the
482 towns are taking are endorsing the plan as is. Mebane's action has been endorsing the whole plan as is,
483 so we can't take anything out of something that's been approved by them, and that's something that those
484 boards going to be doing tomorrow when I presented to Hillsboro so you can make changes to the Orange
485 County's portion that you feel are needed but you cannot remove something that's been approved. What
486 is it that you want to do with the speed? Is there a certain idea that we can explore that the consultant
487 can explore for the April meeting for the speed?
488
489 S. Appel: I just find that that change in speed limit is not necessarily going to achieve what the
490 recommendation wants it to, and I think-
491
492 L. Triebert: That's where I wonder if we may need some sort of interim meeting or email or a memo of
493 some sort kind of laying out some of our answers to these because we haven't gone into depth and in
494 some of the things about what the crash trends show about congestion and how the speed does line up
495 with severity and run-off road crashes. I would like to be able to show you guys those things that may
496 change whether you want to endorse the speed. If we do that presentation of data and kind of information
497 at the April meeting then there's potential for changes to recommendations and then it's a following
498 meeting where it's finally endorsed or if we want to try to address as much as we can so that there is or
499 isn't, there's a clear approval or not a hey if you change this and adjust that then we'll approve it.
500 N. Trivedi: The OUTBoard meeting is on April 15th. There's a third Monday of the month.
501 1 don't think you can do April 1 st.
502
503 L. Triebert: No, no.
504
505 N. Trivedi: So, I don't know if the Board wants to get together again between the 2nd and the 15th, or
506 would you like to let the consultant provide more information together and present at the 15th meeting?
507
508 M. Hughes: My perspective would be to wait until the 15th.
509
510 N. Trivedi: Yeah, as much mine.
511
512 L. Triebert: Yep, OK.
513
514 N. Trivedi: And one thing that one thing just to give you an example of a contingent approval is the NC
515 54 core board study that has been approved to give you an example of how effective a conditional
516 approval is. Here's an example of how effective it is, and this has been proven because I've got it done
517 with a confirmation from DOT confirming this. The approval of the Multimodal corridor study like 54, was
518 approved on the condition that the complete streets and multimodal accommodations be included in any
519 roadway improvement. DOT came back with a preliminary courtesy Complete Streets review of that
520 approval, even though it's not a program project, even though it's not in the STIP, it's
521 going through a scoring process right now, DOT has written back with a preliminary courtesy complete
522 street review that any how improvements on 54 will include non-highway improvements paid by the state.
523
524 L. Triebert: Yeah, and I can speak a little further to that cause one of the other contracts that I work on
525 and run for our firm is the DOT Express design contract, which is basically the process that DOT uses to
526 get planning-level project-specific cost estimates that help with prioritization. And I happen to we VHB is
527 doing the 54 express design and it does have those accommodations included in the design and the cost
528 and that is because those uh those facilities and accommodations are included in planning documents.
529 And so now the inner integrated Mobility division does a review and makes sure that projects moving
530 forward are inclusive of those types of complete street elements.
531
532 L. Triebert: Well, it sounds like we've got several action items in this to follow up with on you. Just digging
533 a little deeper into some data and graphics to answer some of these questions that you'll will be able to
534 present at the 15th meeting.
535
536 N. Trivedi: Thank you everybody at the OUTBoard for participating in this.
537
538 S. Appel: Is it possible for you to put together whatever kind of question, answer, reference, document,
539 PowerPoint or something like that that we can look at beforehand and then give you any follow-up
540 questions before that meeting so that we can have an expedited meeting for this?
541
542 L. Triebert: I'll see, you know, within the next two weeks, there's just three weeks, but I think we've got a
543 lot of the information available. It's just a matter of like putting it together. I want to follow this meeting up
544 with an email that outlines the questions that need to get answered and then present the answers to
545 those you know and getting follow-up will kind of be time-dependent on what we can get done before the
546 15th.
547
548 Members gave their salutations and the meeting was adjourned.
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY
NoKm CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT
�rangeCounty
Item 5.a.
Subject: 2023 Annual Report & Work Plan Amendment
Attachment: 1. Annual Report and Work Plan —Track Changes
2. Annual Report and Work Plan Amended
PURPOSE:To approve the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) 2023 Annual Report
and Work Plan Amendment.
BACKGROUND: November 2023, the OUTBoard approved the 2023 Annual Report and Work
Plan. On June 17th OUTBoard approved the need for the Transportation Director. This duly
approved action requires the approved Annual Report and Work Plan be amended with the
associated responsibilities.
Amendment:
• Primary- Darlene Weaver to Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
• Additional Professional Support to OUTBoard to Secondary administration
• Office Assistant—Vacant to Darlene Weaver, Transportation Planning Manager
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County.
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.
Action: Approve Amendment
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919) 245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
Report Period January 2023- December 2023
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INPUT FOR
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) welcomes input from various advisory
boards and commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please
complete the following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other
background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for,
this form.
Person to address the BOCC and contact information:
Michael Hughes, Chair. Telephone (919) 270-6462; Email mmh@mmhpe.com
Primary County Staff Contacts:
• Primary administration and professional development support for OUTboard
o DaFlene Weaver, TFanspot4ation Planning Man^gel
o Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
• Secondary administration
e--Offiee Assistant Vae-ant
o Darlene Weaver, Transportation Planning Manger
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Central Pines Rural Planning Organization
(CPRPO)
o Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
• Transit Division
o Jamael Wiley, Transit Operations Manager
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any
special meetings and sub-committee meetings?
• Once per month-third Monday or as needed to address items that require
action consistent with its Charge and Duties as specified in the OUTboard
Rules and Procedures. The Board met 9 times in 2023.
Brief Statement of Board/Commissions' Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
The OUTBoard is charged with advising the BOCC on the planning and
programming of transportation infrastructure improvements and other County
transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board. Upon request, OUT
Board may advise other boards regarding transportation.
1
What are your Board/Commission's most important accomplishments? In 2023,
the OUTBoard has:
1. Recommended County approve the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study.
2. Recommended County approve updated County Priorities for Strategic
Prioritization of Transportation 7.0 this includes making NC 10 and Regional
Transit Center in Hillsborough County Priorities.
3. Advocated for Congestion Management and Air Quality Grant for 3 MOD vans in
Central Pine Rural Planning Organizastion, along with FTA 5339 discretionary
grant.
4. Updated OUTBoard Policies and Procedures including quorum, meeting date,
time and location.
5. Recommended County approve the Sidewalk Maintenance Agreement for bridge
replacement project for state build sidewalk from home depo and Aldo, south to
the new bridge
6. Recommended County approve Orange County Transportation Services Public
Involvement Plan.
7. Provided comments on list of local and regional transportation Plan, programs and
projects including DCHC MPO Safe Streets For All grant,
8. Approved the Safe Routes to School update Scope of Work for 2024
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored
Annually.
1. Continue improving coordination, collaboration, and comprehensive
transportation planning with local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
2. Continue improving upon countywide multimodal safety assessment and
determine unique ways Orange County can help meet MPO safety performance
measures and targets.
3. Continue pursuing all funding sources for County transportation priorities and
track status of project implementation.
1. Continue monitoring locally and regionally adopted plans for updates and
amendments like Orange County plans, Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and others.
2. NCDOT's bi-annual STIP
i. 1 st year, recommend to BOCC Orange County's transportation priorities for
MPO/RPO SPOT consideration.
ii. 2nd year, provide comments on the draft STIP
3. Regularly review NCDOT implemented projects and MPO/RPO activities.
i. Bi-annually review Small Projects Program for non-STIP funding.
ii. Discuss any OCPT and TAS activities.
4. BOCC initiatives as assigned.
5. OUTBoard membership, offices and other items assigned by the BOCC.
2
Describe this board/commission's activities/accomplishments in carrying out
BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
Priority 6: Develop plan and tools to improve how County and citizens communicate
with each other; foster two-way exchange.
• Regularly update Transportation Planning and OUTBoard website
• Publish online all public meeting notices issued by local, regional, and state
agencies related to transportation plan and projects in the County
Priority 20: Support transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities and other alternatives to
the single passenger automobile.
• Ensure transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are addressed in each
transportation plan, project, and program.
• Quarterly discuss County transit activities with OCPT and TAS.
• Participate in addressing bicycle. Sidewalk, and pedestrian safety for Safe
Routes for schools and residents in Orange County
• Actively participate in states SPOT/STIP process as well as MPO/RPO
activities ensuring multimodal issues are addressed.
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2023 as they
relate to established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable,is there a fiscal
impact (i.e., funding, staff time, and other resources) associated with these proposed
activities (please list).
Following task are part of OUTBoard' current work plan
1. Continue expanding Moblity-on-Demand
2. Continue advancing the Regional Transit Center in Hillsborough
2. Implementation of the complete street and vision policy through grants, transit tax
and CIP.
3. Participated in aspects of the OCPT 5311 Rural area and 5339 combined capital
grants- analysis, and recommendations to support transit services and funding to
non-urbanized areas.
4. Support the departments Transit Plan and Short-Range Transit Plan updates
6. Updated the Safe Routes to school project to include safety for all schools in
Orange County.
7. Implement NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Improvements through complete street
and vision zero
8. Complete US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study by providing recommendations on
improvements for roads, bikes, and pedestrians and requesting County approve the
study
9. Advance the County's Transit Dashboard with transportation performance
measures and other improvements.
3
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the
upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners'
attention?
1. Monitor connectivity and infrastructural changes with the local jurisdictions,
surrounding counties, regional agencies, and along utility easements to create a more
comprehensive multimodal transportation system.
2. Work with NCDOT to promote funding of multimodal projects in rural areas to a
greater degree.
3. Promote alternative transportation modes during peak hours via public-private
partnerships through County TDM Program.
4. Continue work with NCDOT in completing pedestrian counts as a function of the
Municipal Schools Transportation Assistance (MSTA) study conducted at Grady
Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School and share findings from the
final report.
5. Improve transportation planning process by encouraging local schools and other
public agencies to be more involved through public engagement.
6. Pursue alternative means of addressing local match and local administration
requirements for non-highway projects when plausible options exist for rural, low-
density areas of the County; at the same time, encourage municipal partners to pursue
similar options in urbanized, higher-density municipal areas.
4
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
Report Period January 2023- December 2023
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INPUT FOR
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) welcomes input from various advisory
boards and commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please
complete the following information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other
background materials may be provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for,
this form.
Person to address the BOCC and contact information:
Michael Hughes, Chair. Telephone (919) 270-6462; Email mmh@mmhpe.com
Primary County Staff Contacts:
• Primary administration and professional development support for OUTboard
o Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
• Secondary administration
o Darlene Weaver, Transportation Planning Manager
• Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and Central Pines Rural Planning Organization
(CPRPO)
o Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director
• Transit Division
o Jamael Wiley, Transit Operations Manager
How many times per month does this board/commission meet, including any
special meetings and sub-committee meetings?
• Once per month-third Monday or as needed to address items that require
action consistent with its Charge and Duties as specified in the OUTboard
Rules and Procedures. The Board met 9 times in 2023.
Brief Statement of Board/Commissions' Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
The OUTBoard is charged with advising the BOCC on the planning and
programming of transportation infrastructure improvements and other County
transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board. Upon request, OUT
Board may advise other boards regarding transportation.
1
What are your Board/Commission's most important accomplishments? In 2023,
the OUTBoard has:
1. Recommended County approve the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study.
2. Recommended County approve updated County Priorities for Strategic
Prioritization of Transportation 7.0 this includes making NC 10 and Regional
Transit Center in Hillsborough County Priorities.
3. Advocated for Congestion Management and Air Quality Grant for 3 MOD vans in
Central Pine Rural Planning Organizastion, along with FTA 5339 discretionary
grant.
4. Updated OUTBoard Policies and Procedures including quorum, meeting date,
time and location.
5. Recommended County approve the Sidewalk Maintenance Agreement for bridge
replacement project for state build sidewalk from home depo and Aldo, south to
the new bridge
6. Recommended County approve Orange County Transportation Services Public
Involvement Plan.
7. Provided comments on list of local and regional transportation Plan, programs and
projects including DCHC MPO Safe Streets For All grant,
8. Approved the Safe Routes to School update Scope of Work for 2024
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored
Annually.
1. Continue improving coordination, collaboration, and comprehensive
transportation planning with local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
2. Continue improving upon countywide multimodal safety assessment and
determine unique ways Orange County can help meet MPO safety performance
measures and targets.
3. Continue pursuing all funding sources for County transportation priorities and
track status of project implementation.
1. Continue monitoring locally and regionally adopted plans for updates and
amendments like Orange County plans, Comprehensive Transportation Plan,
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and others.
2. NCDOT's bi-annual STIP
i. 1 st year, recommend to BOCC Orange County's transportation priorities for
MPO/RPO SPOT consideration.
ii. 2nd year, provide comments on the draft STIP
3. Regularly review NCDOT implemented projects and MPO/RPO activities.
i. Bi-annually review Small Projects Program for non-STIP funding.
ii. Discuss any OCPT and TAS activities.
4. BOCC initiatives as assigned.
5. OUTBoard membership, offices and other items assigned by the BOCC.
2
Describe this board/commission's activities/accomplishments in carrying out
BOCC goal(s)/priorities, if applicable.
Priority 6: Develop plan and tools to improve how County and citizens communicate
with each other; foster two-way exchange.
• Regularly update Transportation Planning and OUTBoard website
• Publish online all public meeting notices issued by local, regional, and state
agencies related to transportation plan and projects in the County
Priority 20: Support transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities and other alternatives to
the single passenger automobile.
• Ensure transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities are addressed in each
transportation plan, project, and program.
• Quarterly discuss County transit activities with OCPT and TAS.
• Participate in addressing bicycle. Sidewalk, and pedestrian safety for Safe
Routes for schools and residents in Orange County
• Actively participate in states SPOT/STIP process as well as MPO/RPO
activities ensuring multimodal issues are addressed.
Identify any activities this board/commission expects to carry out in 2023 as they
relate to established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable,is there a fiscal
impact (i.e., funding, staff time, and other resources) associated with these proposed
activities (please list).
Following task are part of OUTBoard' current work plan
1. Continue expanding Moblity-on-Demand
2. Continue advancing the Regional Transit Center in Hillsborough
2. Implementation of the complete street and vision policy through grants, transit tax
and CIP.
3. Participated in aspects of the OCPT 5311 Rural area and 5339 combined capital
grants- analysis, and recommendations to support transit services and funding to
non-urbanized areas.
4. Support the departments Transit Plan and Short-Range Transit Plan updates
6. Updated the Safe Routes to school project to include safety for all schools in
Orange County.
7. Implement NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Improvements through complete street
and vision zero
8. Complete US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study by providing recommendations on
improvements for roads, bikes, and pedestrians and requesting County approve the
study
9. Advance the County's Transit Dashboard with transportation performance
measures and other improvements.
3
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the
upcoming year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners'
attention?
1. Monitor connectivity and infrastructural changes with the local jurisdictions,
surrounding counties, regional agencies, and along utility easements to create a more
comprehensive multimodal transportation system.
2. Work with NCDOT to promote funding of multimodal projects in rural areas to a
greater degree.
3. Promote alternative transportation modes during peak hours via public-private
partnerships through County TDM Program.
4. Continue work with NCDOT in completing pedestrian counts as a function of the
Municipal Schools Transportation Assistance (MSTA) study conducted at Grady
Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School and share findings from the
final report.
5. Improve transportation planning process by encouraging local schools and other
public agencies to be more involved through public engagement.
6. Pursue alternative means of addressing local match and local administration
requirements for non-highway projects when plausible options exist for rural, low-
density areas of the County; at the same time, encourage municipal partners to pursue
similar options in urbanized, higher-density municipal areas.
4
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY
NoKm CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT
OrangeCounty
Item 5.a.
Subject: 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
Attachment: Scope of Work
PURPOSE: To approve Scope of Work for 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management
Plan (2019 EBM AMP) Update.
BACKGROUND: The 2019 EBM AMP (link) was adopted in accordance to state and local laws
using best transportation planning practices and through extensive public involvement.
The E-B-M AMP is:
• A long-range transportation vision for the area illustrating roadway alignment and corridor
width necessary to serve future land uses and address traffic impact as development occurs.
• A plan that assists the County in promoting economic development through its development
review process by encouraging developers to dedicate right-of-way necessary for future
roads.
The area has experienced growth (link) as indicated in the plan and anticipates even more as
projected, this includes and is not limited to:
Approved:
• R+L Carriers—Trucking and Freight Terminal on 83.4 acres at Buckhorn and 1-40/1-85
• Medline— 1.2 Mil SF medical supply distribution center on 176 acres along West Ten Rd.
• Buckhorn Industrial — Light manufacturing on 49.3 acres at Buckhorn and West Ten Rd.
• West Ten Industrial — Light manufacturing on 47.5 acres at Buckhorn and West Ten Rd.
• Buckhorn Business Center — Master planned light manufacturing campus on 128.8 acres at
Buckhorn Industrial Parkway and Buckhorn Road.
In-Process
• Carolina Achieve (link)
Orange County and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization also
approved the US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study. County also anticipates approving the Short
Range Transit Plan in September 2024 which seeks to improve transit in the planning area. Other
approved and soon to be approved plans resulting in updating to the 2019 EBM AMP include and
are not limited to:
• 2022 County's Strategic Plan
• Hillsborough Connectivity Plan
• Mebane Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• Orange County Safe Routes to School Update
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919)245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
The 2019 EBM AMP was updated in-house by County staff and its update will use a similar
process, taking into consideration all the growth between Hillsborough and Mebane as well as
the approved plans. Transportation Services Director recommends Orange Unified
Transportation Board (OUTBoard) review,comment on,and approve the attached Scope of Work
(Attachment 1). The Scope of Work is mirrored off of the 2024 Safe Routes to School Update
Scope of Work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County. OCTS is conducting this update
in-house through department resources.
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.
Action: Approve the 2019 EBM AMP Scope of Work (Attachment 1).
2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
Scope of Work
Contents
Scopeof Work............................................................................................................................................................2
Task A—Analysis of Existing Conditions.....................................................................................................................2
KeyDeliverables: ....................................................................................................................................................2
TaskB— Public Engagement.......................................................................................................................................2
KeyDeliverables: ....................................................................................................................................................2
TackC— Draft Plan......................................................................................................................................................2
KeyDeliverables: ....................................................................................................................................................2
TaskD—Final Plan Approval.......................................................................................................................................3
KeyDeliverables: ....................................................................................................................................................3
2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
Scope of Work
Scope of Work
1. In-House-County transportation staff is of professional planners, business administrators,and public servants
with combined over 50 years of experience.
2. Anticipated Schedule—August 2024 kick-off- December 2024 Final Plan to Board of County Commissioners
3. Public Engagement in accordance with the Orange County Transportation Services Public Involvement Plan
Task A — Analysis of Existing Conditions
Staff will conduct a general planning level analysis of the current plan and transportation network:
• Data driven approach using adopted and published data including locally approved Traffic Impact Analysis
This is the key task for this project. Staff will collect all relevant data from publicly available sources, field work
and independent research (e.g. data collection, US Census, Triangle Regional Model, NCDOT data, etc.). All
information will be consolidate into clear and concise format including maps. An Existing Conditions Report will
be presented before determining any recommendations.
Key Deliverables:
• Updated GIS maps
• Charts, graphs, tables and associated narrative
• Multimodal network analysis
• Existing Conditions Report
Task B — Public Engagement
Staff will use the approved Department specific Public Involvement Plan to conduct public engagement. This
includes and not limited to:
• Two round of public workshop and other pop-up events in the planning area.
• OUTBoard meetings and formal Public Hearing before BOCC
Staff will prepare a summary of engagement and include it in the plan. The summary will include graphics and
charts to illustrate the feedback received and how it helped formulate the recommendations and action plan.
Key Deliverables:
• 2 Public Workshops in planning area
• Project specific website for continuous public engagement
• Public Engagement Report
Tack C — Draft Plan
After finalizing the Existing Conditions Analysis and Public Engagement report, staff will draft alternatives and
recommendations for short, mid and long term strategies. They will be presented the draft plan to the Orange
Unified Transportation Board for feedback and again for final action.The final plan will be presented the Orange
County Board of County Commissioners for public hearing and subsequent action.
Key Deliverables:
• Draft alternatives and recommendations
• Draft 2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
Scope of Work
Task D — Final Plan
The project will begin in August 2024 and anticipates completion December 2024.The table below shows the
task-wise schedule through the project.
Task August- October November December
September
A- Existing Conditions Report
B- Public Engagement Report
C- Draft Plan
D - Final Plan
Action Strategies
In this task, the staff will develop an action strategies that outlines the steps of data collection, timeline, costs,
responsible parties and other information necessary to realize the recommendations identified in the plan. The
action strategies will highlight coordination efforts between different members, potential partnerships with
relevant agencies, and strategies to engage the community in the implementation process. Staff will present the
draft action strategies plan to the OUTBoard for their comments, and will revise before drafting the final plan.
Final Plan and updated graphics
A final plan will conclude the project. This includes a final table of projects, with updated maps, and
recommendations. Staff will present the final plan to the County's Transportation Advisory Service for technical
approval, OUTBoard for public approval and Board of County Commissions for final approval.
Key Deliverables:
• Action Strategies
• Final Report
• Updated graphics and maps
ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
N0Wr CAROLINA OrangeCounty
i
URLIC TRANSIT
Item 5.c.
Subject: 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update
PURPOSE: Provided comments on the 2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update.
BACKGROUND: The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC
MPO) is responsible for long range transportation planning for Durham County and parts of
Orange and Chatham Counties and is updating its MTP. The 2055 MTP is a federally required,
financially constrained plan that recommends major transportation projects, policies and
strategies designed to maintain existing transportation systems and address the region's future
travel needs. Projects must be in the 2055 MTP to receive any state and federal transportation
funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
2055 MTP Plan Process to date:
• August 9, 2023 — DCHC MPO Board adopted Triangle Regional Model
• December 2023— Public Engagement—Goals and Objectives
o Engagement Strategy (link) approved November 2023
• February 27, 2024— DCHC MPO Board approved Goals
June 2024, the DCHC MPO Board approved the Objectives in relationship to the approved Goals
for the 2055 MTP. Staff is providing this presentation as an opportunity for Board comments. All
comments will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and the MPO for its
consideration.
For more information on the 2055 MTP Update please visit the project website (link).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County.
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.
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919) 245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
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: Provide comments
ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
N0Wr CAROLINA OrangeCounty
i
URLIC TRANSIT
Item 5.d.
Subject: Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
PURPOSE: Approval of projects for RAISE FY25 and FY26 submission
BACKGROUND: The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) or Bi-Partisan
Infrastructure Bill appropriates an estimated $1.5 billion annually to all local, regional, and state
government for transportation improvement planning and construction projects. Currently the
Federal government has invested $7.2 billion on over 550 projects across the country. The
program has available funding for two more Federal Fiscal Years.
Examples of such projects in North Carolina include:
o $12,044,800— Holloway Street: Safe Access to Durham's Busiest Transit Route Project
o $25,000,000— RTP's new multi modal transportation center
o $5,000,000—Charlotte's Making Our Roads SAFER: A Cross-Jurisdictional Planning Study
Applicants can submit 3 projects per year. Two types of projects can be pursued:
o Capital - $5 million minimum urban, $1 million minimum rural
• Highway, bridge, or other road projects eligible under title 23, United States Code;
• Public transportation projects eligible under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code;
• Passenger and freight rail transportation projects.
o Planning— no minimum
• Preparation, or design (for example -environmental analysis, equity analysis, community
engagement, feasibility studies, benefit cost analysis (BCA), and other pre-construction
activities) of eligible surface transportation capital projects that will not result in
construction with RAISE funding
Maximum grant award is $25 million. Project submission deadlines is typically January/February
for the subsequent Federal Fiscal Year. Orange County Transportation Director recommends the
following three for FY25 and FY26 submissions.
o Capital 1 - Regional Multimodal Hub in Hillsborough
o Capital 2 - Implementation of 2024 Orange County Safe Routes to School update
o Planning- Expansion of North-South Bus Rapid Transit to Hillsborough
OCTS will task WSP as the on-call consultant in preparing the necessary application and staff will
pursue letters of support from local, regional and state agencies.
More information on RAISE grant can be found here (link).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County.
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919)245-2008 - Fax(919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
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.
Action: Approval projects for FY25 and FY26 submission
ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
N0Xr CAROLINA OrangeCounty
i
URLIC TRANSIT
Item 6.b.
Subject: Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
PURPOSE: Receive update on Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
BACKGROUND: On May 22, 2024, Central Pine Regional Council, Lead Planning Agency for
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, published a Request for
Proposal (link). The purpose of this RFP was to select a vendor for the County's first Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, a planning project similar to other County such plans appearing across the state:
• Pender County Bike/Pedestrian Plan (link)
• New Hanover County Bike/Pedestrian Plan (link)
The Scope of Work mirrors that of the Durham County's future Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The
plan is a data and public driven approach to determining specific non-motor vehicle
infrastructure projects in the unincorporated parts of Orange County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:There is no financial impact to the County. Projects identified in the plan will
be part of for future State and Federal funding and administratively done through Department's
Non-State Transportation Improvement Program now reviewed by Orange Unified
Transportation Board on a quarterly bases.
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.
Action: Receive update
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919) 245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation
ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT
ORANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
N0Wr CAROLINA OrangeCounty
i
URLIC TRANSIT
Item 6.c.
Subject: Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan
PURPOSE: Receive update on Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan.
BACKGROUND: June 25, 2025, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization updated the Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan (link).
The plan grants participating public transit agencies access to Federal Transit Administrations
5310 grant also known as Job Access Reverse Commute, and New Freedom Grants.
Planning Process:
• March -April 2024— public workshops on plan, including County Department on Aging
• May 2024— Draft plan released for public comment
• June 2024—Approved
• July 10 to August 23, 2024—Call for Projects
Staff is working on putting together two potential applications for consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to the County. Plan serves as opportunity for
department to pursue FTA 5310 grants.
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.
Action: Receive update
600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Phone (919)245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137
orangecountync.gov/transportation