Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08.19.2024 OUTboard
ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORANGE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT NoKm CALIQLLNA OrangeCounty AGENDA ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD August 19, 2024, 6:30 pm 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—July 10, and July 18, 2024 5. Regular OUTBoard Agenda a. Transportation Multimodal Plan i. Action: Recommend approval b. Short Range Transit Plan i. Action: Provide comments and/or recommend approval c. 2024 Safe Routes to School i. Action: Provide comments and/or recommend approval 6. Staff Report/Updates a. MPO, RPO, and NCDOT b. 5310 Grant—Go Orange and 3 ADA Vehicles 7. Adjournment-The next meeting—September 15, 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 Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township 6 Erik Legg Cheeks Township 7 Micheal Hughes At Large 8 Joshua Mayo At Large 9 Amy Cole At Large 10 Sherry Appel At Large 11 Randy Marshall Bringham Township 12 Art Menius Little River Township 13 Todd Jones At Large 14 Gregory Woloszczuk-Chapel Hill Township 15 Kelly Milligan Business Officer 16 Jamale Wiley Transit Operations Manager 17 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 20 The meeting was called to order and the roll was taken. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. None. 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda 29 30 5. a. SPOT Process Summary/ Scores. Nish provided detail review of SPOT process and County project 31 scores, based on the mathematical formula and state law. Local input are the points given by MPO and 32 Division to improve the score of local priorities. 33 G. Woloszczuk: When you talk about our hundred points, I thought we had a pool that has been spread 34 between the projects? 35 N. Trivedi: They are each project can only receive a maximum score of 100. While they may get 100 local 36 input points, that only equates to a small percentage of the total score. In Region, they account for 30% of 37 the maximum score and in Division 50%. 38 G.Woloszczuk:So,it's a finite set of points that can distributed between the 19 projects,so we are spreading 39 the points across 19 projects.So,say we want to have fifteen projects we can apply more points to the other 40 projects. 41 N.Trivedi:Yes but you can't provide more than 100 points per project. 42 G.Woloszczuk:Would it be better off to add more points to certain projects so we can get them over the finish line? 43 44 N Trivedi: Not all projects we want points on will get them, we share the recommendation with other local towns 45 also competing for points,as well Durham. 46 47 A. Menius: What we need is a full 100 points on key projects. So,we might have to sacrifice certain projects to 48 support others,say projects one and two and that's how the points will fall out? 49 50 N.Trivedi:Yes.We will vie for the most points we can in the MPO and RPO in coordination and collaboration with our 51 local partners. I've presented staff recommendation, now seek yours through this public process. 52 53 G.Woloszczuk:Why are the highway points so low for Old NC-86 improvement and US-70 improvements? 54 55 N. Trivedi: Old 86 is a modernization project. Modernization projects have a different mathematical formula than 56 mobility. The US-70 improvements was scored using the mobility formula. Modernizing roads are scored based on 57 pavement conditions,shoulder width, and lane width. 58 59 S.Appel:Is there a document that explains each project? For example,we just completed the US-70 Corridor Study, 60 and all agreed we didn't want to widen it to four lengths,so what is the US-70 improvements project?Does this mean 61 the US 70 project is for widening the four lanes? 62 63 N. Trivedi: Every two years we work together to update the County Priorities prior to start of the SPOT process. 64 Current list of priorities were determined Feb 2023 and pursued accordingly. US 70 became a priority through that 65 process enabling us to pursue a multimodal study of the corridor. The score is based on the SPOT process and 66 anticipated a multimodal corridor,widening with bike/ped and transit.The widening is already approved in the CTP. 67 68 S.Appel: Earlier it was recommended where to put points and it seems to be better for points on fewer projects. 1 69 would like to take the US-70 improvements off the list. 70 71 N.Trivedi:whether points are put on it or not,only two or three projects may be funded,it is based on available funds. 72 73 S.Appel:The Hillsborough City Signal system would help with the traffic that impacts 86 and Old 86.The first four 74 NC 86 North of Hillsborough, Orange Grove Rod Extension/NC 86 Connection, Orange Grove Road with bike/ped 75 improvements,and Eno Mountain Road/Mayo St at Orange Grove R is where we should place our emphasis.Maybe, 76 NC 10 improvements. Is there a process you need from us for nominations? 77 78 N.Trivedi: I'm requesting the OUTBoard to provide their ranking of the three lists. No motion is needed for BG MPO 79 local input point list. 80 81 Motion for CPRPO recommendation: Accept staff recommendations with the following changes. Move item#7 82 (e.g. MOD/Demand Response EV)to#3 and everything else down one. 83 84 Motion:Art Menius with changes Second:G.Woloszczuk Vote:Unanimous 85 86 Motion for DCHC MPO bike/ped,rail and transit recommendation: 87 Accept staff recommendations for DCHC MP for Bike-Ped, Rail,and Transit Mode,with the exception for Transit 88 mode,to move Go Triangle ODX Headway Reduction/Hillsborough Regional Transit Center be moved up to#1. 89 90 Motion:Art Menius with exception Second:G.Woloszczuk Vote:Unanimous 91 92 R.Schonberg: Under DCHC Highway what is#3 Orange Grove Rd? 93 94 N.Trivedi:Adding a middle turning lane on Orange Grove Rd to qualify for NCDOT's complete streets. 95 96 Motion for DCHC MPO highway projects: 97 Accept staff recommendation with the exception of moving projects#8 (Old NC-86 improvements) and#9 (US 70 98 improvements)above#6(Chapel Hill Citywide Signal System)and#7(Hillsborough Citywide Singal System). 99 100 Motion: Roy Schonberg with exceptions Second:Art Men ius Vote:one oppose 101 102 Dissent-S.Appel: Disagrees with moving the US 70 improvements up in ranking. 103 104 5. b.Transportation Multimodal Plan: 105 N.Trivedi: presented the County's TMP and collected feedback from OUTBoard members. 106 107 A.Menius:What are the point? 108 109 N.Trivedi:They are intersection and operations improvements like traffic signal.The transit points stops and other 110 transit access.Data is in GIS format,which is state approved.We work with MPO,RPO,and other agencies to pursue 111 the projects. 112 113 A. Menius:The public survey numbers were not adding up. 114 115 N.Trivedi: I will request consultant check the math. 116 117 AGENDA ITEM 6:STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 118 119 6.a. Non STIP 120 N. Trivedi: discussed the Non-STIP project status and asked how often they would like to review it. OUTBoard 121 requested quarterly.Going forward, it will be done quarterly. 122 123 AGENDA ITEM 8:ADJOURNMENT 124 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.The next meeting is scheduled for June 10, 2024. ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES Monday July 18th, 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 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 Art Menius Little River Township 15 Todd Jones At Large 16 Gregory Woloszczuk-Chapel Hill Township 17 Jamael Wiley Transit Operations Manager 18 Kelly Milligan Business Officer 19 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 22 The meeting was called to order and the roll was taken. 23 24 AGENDA ITEM 2: Consideration of Additions or Changes to Agenda. None. 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda 31 32 5.a.2024 Annual Report and Work Program 33 N. Trivedi: explained how he understood and respected OUTBoard's actions at the previous June meeting 34 and demonstrated how he will honor their decision. The Annual Report and Work Plan is updated in 35 accordance with OUTBoard action.N.Trivedi was made primaryto OUTBoard and Mrs. D.Weaver secondary. 36 OUTBoard was requested to approve the changes necessary to ensure Department Director responsibility 37 to the OUTBoard. 38 39 Motion:Art Menius Second: Josh Mayo Vote: Unanimous 40 41 5.b.2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update 42 43 A. Menius: execute task A and if that determines a study update is necessary,then proceed. 44 45 J. Mayo: Complete task A and then bring it back to the OUTboard comparing it to the Mebane TIA. 46 47 N. Trivedi: If the conditional show the approved developments meet or exceed the projects in the current 48 plan,then update, correct? 49 50 J. Mayo:Yes 51 52 S. Appel: Will this work be done by a consultant and or would this work be done by an outside or inside 53 source? I think it would be beneficial to separate. 54 55 N.Trivedi:We can use our on-call consultant WSP, so you can have a professional product over an in-house 56 one.WSP can complete the analysis and compare the initial analysis. 57 58 J. Mayo: It was ok for the consultant, it would make sense. The preference would be to do an analysis. 59 Running a TIA is different from running a plan update.The plan update is the goal. I don't know if you want to 60 use your on-call for a TIA review. 61 62 N. Trivedi: Have WSP complete task A and then present the findings to the OUTboard and then this 63 determines if we want to proceed with the rest,correct?The original 2019 adopted plan,the pods were based 64 on a geographic, not the parcel by parcel or development by development,they were grouped together.The 65 development that was approved may not be the full development.We will confirm if the overall total of the 66 development is either at the 2019 projections, below or above the requiring changes. 67 68 A. Menius: Motion to analyze existing conditions will be undertaken for the Efland Buckhorn-Mebane Access 69 Management Plan updated and the results of the study will be used by the OUTboard to determine whether 70 to proceed with the plan update. 71 72 Motion:Art Menius Second: Josh Mayo Vote: Unanimous 73 74 5.c.2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update(MTP) 75 76 N.Trivedi:The goal is to receive your feedback,comments,or concerns so I can provide it to the DCHC MPO.. 77 78 S.Appel: Is this just an FYI situation or when would address this again? 79 80 N. Trivedi: Requesting your comments on the goals and objectives right now. The planning process is two 81 years and we are one year into the process including public engagement. 82 83 5.d. RAISE Grant 84 N.Trivedi presented the RAISE grant and requested OUTBoard authorization staff to pursue grant application 85 for three potential projects using WSP on-call services. OUTBoard recommended staff pursue the Regional 86 Multimodal Hub in Hillsborough as the primary project. 87 88 AGENDA ITEM 6:STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 89 90 6.a. MPO, RPO, &NCDOT Updates 91 92 6.b. County Bike/Pedestrian Plan 93 N.Trivedi updated OUTBoard that Stantac was selected to do the County's first Bike/Ped Plan. 94 95 6.c. Coordinated Human Services Plan 96 N. Trivedi updated OUTBoard on the adopted plan and how OCTS will pursue 5310 grant opportunities. 97 98 AGENDA ITEM 7:ADJOURNMENT 99 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m.The next meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2024. ORANGE TRANSPORTATION COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY NoKm CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT OrangeCounty Item 5.a. Subject: Transportation Multimodal Plan (TMP) Attachment: Prioritization Methodology Draft Prioritized List TMP Maps PURPOSE: To recommend approval of Orange County Transportation Multimodal Plan (TMP). BACKGROUND: On September 29, 2023, Orange County contracted WSP for a County specific Transportation Multimodal Plan.This plan consolidated all Orange County transportation related plans into a single document. Previous efforts to consolidate all these plans resulted in an interactive Transportation Projects map published on the department's website (link). The TMP project started in November 2023 and was scheduled for completion June 2024. However, due to the unique Prioritization Methodology(Attachment 1), created by WSP, project was extended to allow for additional time necessary to complete the work. The Draft Prioritization List (Attachment 2) list the outcome of the applied new prioritization methodology. Key notes: • While this may be based on state's Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) formula, it is unique to Orange County and its rural as well as sub-urban needs. • It prioritizes non-highway improvements while simultaneously addressing critical highway needs, including widening. Public Involvement: WSP implemented the following public engagement activities in coordination with OCTS Public Involvement Plan and staff support: • Website launch (April 3) • Promotional outreach (April 9) • Public survey (April 9— May 3): https://www.surveyhero.com/c/orangeCtVTMP • Public Meetings (April 23 and 25) OCTS Director presented this plan at the July 10th OUTBoard meeting and members provided feedback.That feedback have been incorporated into the plan.WSP presents the final Draft maps (Attachment 3)and staff recommends approval of the Orange County Transportation Multimodal Plan. TAS Recommendation: [placeholder] FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial impact at this time. 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. RECOMMENDATION(S): Recommend approval of Orange County Transportation Multimodal Plan. I fs• u 'aa *p. i.ti�: y: •� ZA jai r' J Orange Count Transportation Multimodal Prioritization Survey results ➢ Bike Ped Score Calculation • - ➢ Transit Score Calculation ➢ New Roadway / Widening Score Calculation Intersections / Improvements Score Calculation Additional Points Calculation ➢ Mode Split Exceptions for special projects Prioritization — Survey R Final score = (Public Survey score + CTT Score + Orange County Score)/3 Normalized Normalized scores Scores Roadway Improvements 0.23 Transit improvements priorities (n=97) Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements 0.46 Increase local service (within County) 0.26 Transit and Rail Improvements 0.31 Increase regional service (outside of County) 0.12 Serve areas with higher density 0.21 Roadway improvements priorities (n = 101) Improve access to jobs/schools 0.21 Improve access and connectivity 0.41 Improve access to points of interest (Civic, shopping, recreation, etc.) 0.15 Manage congestion through technology solutions and roadway design 0.48 Improve access to hospitals/medical facilities 0.05 Improvement freight movement efficiency 0.05 Improve pavement condition 0.06 Environmental Justice considerations 0.27 Safety considerations 0.33 Bicycle and pedestrian improvements priorities (n = 101) Cost considerations 0.10 Serve regions with dense residential and employment centers 0.11 Environmental considerations 0.00 Provide access to schools (K through 12) 0.20 Multimodal considerations(esp. for roadway projects) 0.30 Provide access to points of interest (Civic, shopping, hospitals, etc.) 0.23 Increase access to recreational spaces 0.07 Provide access to bus stops 0.18 Connect disjointed parts of existing network 0.11 Improve Existing Pavement Condition 0.11 Bil<e - Ped ments Score Calculation • Bike Ped Score Dense Access to Acce ints Access to Access to Bus Connect residential and Schools of Interest Recreational Stops Disjointed parts employment Spaces Population and Schools within % POIs + Parks within % Bus stops within Travel Distance Commercial / employment mile Retail mile %2 mile Ratio NB/B Pop+Emp within POI within % Retail/Comm./ Projects < 1 mile mile Civic locations mile. NB / B within % mile distance ratio For projects longer than 1 mile, the metrics will be 'per mile'. Maximum possible bike-ped score will be 100 Bike Ped Bridges Score 50% 50% Dense residential Connect Bil<e - Ped Bridges Score Calculation and employment Disjointed parts Population and Travel Distance employment Ratio NB/B Pop+Emp within % mile Mximum possible bike-ped bridges score will be 100 Transit Calculation Transit Score Increase Local Increase Improve access Areas with Access to Points Access to Service Regional Service to jobs / schools higher density of Interest Hospitals of project % of project Employment + Population POIs in Orange Hospitals and within County outside County Higher Ed density County other medical facilities Emp Den within Ed. Institutions Pop Den within POI within % Hosp., other mile within % mile % mile mile medical facilities within % mile For projects longer than 1 mile, the metrics will be 'per mile'. Maximum possible transit score will be 100 New Roadway Widening Score Calculation Change in Volume / Change in � 43% Improve Access and Capacity Volume = Total_Flow Connectivity Capacity = �CAP_E � (Between FYB and FYNB) �• Relative change in VC ratios Maximum of all AB and � 50% Manage Congestion BA AM and PM VOCE (Between FYB and FYNB) values C6 � �/ Change in Truck Vol Truck Vol = Improve Freight movement CV+MUT+SUT � (Between FYB and FYNB) For New Roadways, the Build Volumes and VC Ratios were separately normalized and redistributed within the rest of the list. Maximum possible roadway score will be 100 Modernization Intersection Score Calculation Modernizatio n / Intersection Score Improve Access Manage Improve Freight and connectivity Congestion movement 40% 40% 20% Average volume at Average V/C ratio Average Truck AADT at the location (TRM at the location the location 2020 BYN B) (TRM 2020 BYN B) (TRM 2020 BYN 6) Average metric for Intersection = metric for all legs / number of legs Average metric for segment = (length of subsegment x metric of subsegment)/Total length of segment Maximum possible roadway score will be 100 Additional Calculation JW Weight si4 Environmental Justice 27/o 0 38 Average Adjusted"TDI score 73% Average Adjusted# 27% Negative Average TDI score Adjusted4 TDI score Safety 33% 48% I(BP Crash x Severity) - 33% Weighted Section Safety Score Acres [Ground Area + (24 x Buses required Acres [Ground Area + (24 x ( g) ° 14% g ) ( * )l / 27% (Roundup(length*2/ 10% g ) ( * )l Cost Inverse Rankin 10% Bridge Area + Par 10 25)+1) + Stop Bridge Area + Par 1000 Mile / Mile frequency factor Multimodal 30/ - 30o 1 (Percentage of project x (for roadway projects) � Multimodal multiplier**) Multimodal*Severity multiplier : No Injury or Unknown = 1,, Possible injury 2, Suspected Minor Injury = 4, Suspected Serious Injury = 7, Killed 10 • ' • . • = 1 bike or • - • bike and • - • • Average TDII scoreswere adjusted considering the minimum score1 Mode Each mode will have its own project list, ranked by score. 3 ways to combine the modes and create overall prioritization list The overall prioritization can be in 4 Bike Ped / 3 Transit / 2 RoadwayMN succession e.g. BP1, BP2, BP3, BP4, T1, T2, T3, R1, R2, BPS, BP6, BP7, BP8, T4, R3, R4...... Exceptions Certain projects didn't render themselves to score calculations using these methods E.g. Transit Facilities, Very short road connections, certain bike-ped projects These projects will be included in a separate list and their prioritization can be determined at Orange County's discretion. Questions ? Mode Project ID 'Descriptio" Specific A Score 1 1 BPI-702 Bike Ped Bridge 1-40/Orange Grove Rd Grade separate bike/ped path from 1-40 70% 86% 156% 2 2 BP-349 Bike Ped S Churton St On road 4' Paved Shoulder(or bicycle lane) 75% 52% 126% 3 3 BP-418 Bike Ped Martin Luther King Jr. Paved Greenway 18% ° Blvd 87/0 106/0 4 4 BP-424 Bike Ped Duke Easement Trail 3 Multiuse Path 56% 45% 101% 5 1 TR-806 Transit NC 54 West Express Bus 83% 73% 156% 6 2 TR-813 Transit Old NC 86 Bus along INC 86 63% 64% 126% 7 3 TR-802 Transit NCRR Commuter Rail Transit 39% 58% 98% Upgrade interchange capacity; managed lane access; increase 8 1 Int 201 Intersection I-40/NC 86 Interchange 77% 75% 152% cycle length of 1-40 westbound ramps at NC 86 9 2 Int-207 Intersection Buckhorn Road/Industrial Intersection Improvements 91% 55% 145% Drive 10 5 BPI-700 Bike Ped Bridge I-85/Cates Creek Bridge to separate 1-85 and Cates Creek Greenway. From 56/°° 40% 96% Greenway H'boro Planning 11 6 BP-350 Bike Ped S Churton St On road 4' Paved Shoulder(or bicycle lane)and sidewalk 47% 42% 90% 12 7 BP-447 Bike Ped NC 54 ANDERSON PARK TO JAMES STREET IN CARRBORO. 28% 59% 87% CONSTRUCT MULTI-USE PATH ON NORTH SIDE OF NC 54. 13 8 BPI-703 Bike Ped Bridge 1-40/New Hillborough Bicycle/pedestrian bridge over 1-85 47% 39% 87% collector road 14 4 TR-810 Transit 1-40 Bus along 1-40 52% 44% 95% 15 5 TR-814 Transit Davis Rd/Orange Grove °Rd New OCTS fixed route,improve Hillsborough Circulator 38 52% 90% /° 16 6 TR-816 Transit NC-86 Bus along NC 86 36% 52% 88% 17 3 Int-212 Intersection NC 86 Replace Bridge 670049 over North Carolina Railroad/Norfolk 59/° 85% 144% Southern Railroad ° 18 4 Hwy-031 Modenization NC 86 Upgrade to a reduced conflict intersection. 71% 65% 136% 19 9 BP-301 Bike Ped Homestead Rd On road Bicycle Lane 23% 59% 82% 20 10 BP-487 Bike Ped Orange Grove Rd Sidewalk 26% 54% 80% 21 11 BP-480 Bike Ped Oakdale Dr Sidewalk 29% 49% 79% 22 12 BP-453 Bike Ped Hillsborough North South Proposed trail 56% 22% 78% Connector 23 7 TR-815 Transit Richmond/Lebanon/ Deviated fixed route 29% 56% 85% Doe Run/Mill Creek 24 8 TR-807 Transit 1-40/1-85 OCTS BRT 49% 34% 83% 25 9 TR-804 Transit NC 86 Add high capacity transit;Chapel Hill to Hillsborough 51% 31% 82% SR 1008(Mt Carmel SR 1913(Bennett Road)in Chapel Hill.Construct roundabout 26 5 Int-216 Intersection Church Road SR 1913 48% °83/° °131/° / and related safety improvements (Bennett Road) 27 6 Hwy-030 Modenization NC 54 Construct operational improvements,including 51/° 79% 129% bicycle/pedestrian accomodations MORGAN CREEK WESTERN SECTION,SR 1919(SMITH LEVEL ROAD)TO 28 13 BP-448 Bike Ped GREENWAY UNIVERSITY LAKE IN CARRBORO. CONSTRUCT GREENWAY 22% 55% 77% AND CONNECTIONS. 29 14 BP-322 Bike Ped US 70 On road 4' Paved Shoulder and sidewalk 33% 40% 74% 30 15 BP-419 Bike Ped 35 68 (UNC)na North Trails Paved Greenway 32% ° °/°/° 31 16 BP-358 Bike Ped US 70 A On road Bicycle Lane and sidewalk 45% 22% 67% 32 10 TR-800 Transit NC 86 Recommended transit 27% 55% 82% 33 11 TR-818 Transit Saint Marys New deviated fixed route 37% 39% 76% 34 12 TR-801 Transit NC 54 West Recommended transit 28% 46% 74% 35 7 Int-215 Intersection NC 54/SR 1006 SR 1006(Orange Grove Road). Intersection improvements 60% 67% 127% 36 8 Int-214 Intersection 1-85/NC 86 NC 86 in Hillsborough. Upgrade interchange 32% 93% 125% 37 17 BP-450 Bike Ped Proposed Trail Proposed trail 40% 26% 67% 38 18 BP-456 Bike Ped Ridgewalk Greenway Greenway 40% 26% 66% 39 19 BP-491 Bike Ped Mayo St Sidewalk 35% 30% 65% 40 20 BP-488 Bike Ped Millstone Dr Sidewalk 30% 34% 64% 41 13 TR-819 Transit New Sharon Church Bus along New Sharon Church Rd 28% 38% 66% Increase transit access with more stops, improve Hillsborough 42 14 TR-808 Transit US-70 37% 28% 65% Circulator Hatch Road/Old 43 15 TR-811 Transit Greensboro Rd/White New OCTS fixed route 29% 35% 64% Cross Rd/Butner Rd 44 9 Int-213 Intersection 1-85/SR 1009 SR 1009(South Churton Street)in Hillsborough. Interchange 32% 93% 125% improvements Improve to a 2-lane with two way left turn lane,curb and 45 10 Hwy-008 Modenization Mt.Carmel Church Rd 49% 70% 119% gutter, bikes lanes,sidewalks,and transit accomodations 46 21 BP-486 Bike Ped Orange High School Rd Sidewalk 34% 29% 64% 47 22 BP-484 Bike Ped Rencher St Sidewalk 27% 36% 63% 48 23 BP-414 Bike Ped Homestead Rd Paved Greenway 29% 34% 63% 49 24 BP-348 Bike Ped Orange Grove On road 4' Paved Shoulder and sidewalk 19% 43% 62% Fixed Guideway proposed on the existing Amtrak freight rail 50 16 TR-821 Transit Amtrak Track 40% 21% 61% track High Rock Rd/Efland ° ° 51 17 TR-822 Transit Proposed urban fixed bus corridor 29/° 29/° 58/° Cedar Grove Rd 52 18 TR-809 Transit Mt Moriah/Whitfield/ New OCTS fixed route 36% 5% 41% Erwin Improve truck safety with wayfinding, incident management, 53 11 Hwy-049 Modenization 1-40 dynamic message signs on road conditions,and/or accel/decel 54% 63% 117% lanes New Location/ SR 1009(SOUTH Widen to multi-lanes with bicycle, pedestrian,and transit 54 12 Hwy-028 29% 86% 115% Widening CHURTON STREET) accomodations. • . . Mode Project ID Description Specil ic Score 55 25 BP-408 Bike Ped Morgan Creek Trail Paved Greenway 20% 39% 60% Eastern Ext 56 26 BP-354 Bike Ped New Collector Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 33% 27% 59% 57 27 BP-490 Bike Ped Orange Grove Rd Sidewalk 30% 29% 59% 58 28 BP-422 Bike Ped Horace Williams Trail Paved Greenway along RR 17% 43% 59% New Location/ Widen to a 4-lane divided cross section with a raised median 59 13 Hwy-012 NC 86 33% 81% 114% Widening with bike lanes,sidewalks,and transit accomodations. Grade Separation Recommended.Construct a roadway bridge 60 14 Int-205 Intersection Buckhorn Road 54% 59% 113% over the rail tracks. 61 29 BP-427 Bike Ped Old Field Cr Trail Multiuse Path 12% 46% 59% 62 30 BP-489 Bike Ped Eno St Sidewalk 21% 37% 58% 63 31 BP-455 Bike Ped Proposed Trail Proposed trail 29% 27% 57% 64 32 BP-428 Bike Ped Duke Easement Trail 1 Multiuse Path 12% 44% 57% Extend Mattress Factory Road northward across East Washington Street and the NCRR/Norfolk Souther railroad 65 15 Hwy-044 New Location/ Mattress Factory Road right-of-way to intersect US 70 and close the existing railroad 81% 30% 111% Widening crossover road connecting East Washington Street and US 70 approximately 240 feet to the east of the intersection of Mattress Factory Road and East Washington Street. 66 16 Hwy-032 Modenization 1-40/1-85 Pavement rehabilitation. 54% 58% 111% 67 33 BP-306 Bike Ped Eubanks Rd On road Bicycle Lane and sidewalks 20% 37% 57% 68 34 BP-492 Bike Ped Dimmocks Mill Rd Sidewalk 19% 37% 56% 69 35 BP-412 Bike Ped Boulder Hill Connector Paved Greenway 21% 35% 56% 70 36 BP-454 Bike Ped Blackwood Farm Park Proposed trail 18% 38% 55% Implement bus on shoulder,enhanced surveillance cameras, 71 17 Hwy-040 Modenization 1-40 ramp metering and addtional supportive ITS strategies along 1- 60% 49% 109% 40, BGMPO Improve to a two-lane undivided cross section comprised of twelvefoot travel lanes with five-foot shoulders or bike lanes and improve sight distance where needed to better 72 18 Hwy-005 Modenization Old NC 86 accommodate vehicular and bicycle travel. Improvements 41% 63% 104% related to travel lane width,intersection and driveway entrance sight distance,and paved shoulders accommodating bicycle travel are needed. 73 37 BP-430 Bike Ped Carolina Commons Trail Greenway-Paved 14% 41% 55% 74 38 BP-420 Bike Ped Carraway Village Block D Paved Greenway 7% 48% 55% 75 39 BP-429 Bike Ped Lake Hogan Farm Trail Greenway-Paved 14% 41% 55% 76 40 BP-431 Bike Ped Cates Creek Greenway Multiuse Path 22% 33% 54% Recommended new facility. Realignment of Eno Mountain New Location/ Eno Mountain Rd Road (SR 1148)at the intersection of Mayo Street(SR 1192) 77 19 Hwy-015 53% 48% 101% Widening realignment and Orange Grove Road (SR 1006)with on-road bicycle, pedestrian and bus accommodations. 78 20 Int-208 Intersection Lebanon Rd&StagecoachRd Intersection Improvements 23% 77% 100% 79 41 BP-482 Bike Ped E Corbin St Sidewalk 28% 25% 53% 80 42 BP-451 Bike Ped Proposed Trail Proposed trail 27% 26% 53% 81 43 BP-411 Bike Ped Seawell School Road Paved Greenway or sidepath 17% 36% 53% 82 44 BP-452 Bike Ped Proposed Trail Proposed trail 27% 24% 52% Modernize Mebane Oaks Road with NCDOT standard cross section 2B(60' row, 11'travel lanes with 5'paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough 83 21 Hwy-024 Modenization Mebane-Oaks Road 36% 63% 99% Road, Hebron Church Road,Yarborough Road,Oak Grove Church Road,Jones Road,S Jim Minor Road, Nicks Road, Bradshaw Quarry Road,and NC 54 Improve to a four lane divided roadway north of Whitfield with 84 22 Hwy-001 New Location/Widening Erwin Rd. bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on both sections to 23% 76% 99% relieve projected congestion 85 45 BP-459 Bike Ped US-70 Multi-Use Path or Sidepath 14% 38% 52% Farm House Dr/S Lake 86 46 BP-355 Bike Ped Hogan Farm Rd/Lake On road Bicycle Lane 10% 41% 51% Hogan Farm Trail Trail Connection from 87 47 BP-497 Bike Ped English Hill Lane to Multi use path connecting English Hill Lane to Buttonwood 24/0 Drive ° 27% 50% Buttonwood Dr 88 48 BP-330 Bike Ped Old NC 10 On road 4' Paved Shoulder and sidewalk 13% 37% 50% New Location/ Construct a new 4-lane divided boulevard facility with bicycle, 89 23 Hwy-016 Orange Grove Connector 28% 69% 98% Widening pedestrian and bus accommodations. New Location Widen NC 86 from US 70 Bypass to north of NC 57 to four / 90 24 Hwy-013 Widening NC 86 lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass and NC 27% 67% 94% 57 91 49 BP-357 Bike Ped US 70 A On road Bicycle Lane 20% 29% 50% 92 50 BP-415 Bike Ped Fan Branch Trail Ext Paved Greenway 20% 29% 50% 93 51 BP-303 Bike Ped Erwin Rd On road Bicycle Lane 10% 40% 49% 94 52 BP-321 Bike Ped US 70 On road 4' Paved Shoulder or bicycle lane 16% 33% 49% 95 25 Hwy-004 New Location/ Mt.Willing Rd Needs Improvement 34% 59% 93% Widening 96 26 Hwy-038 New Location/ Buckhorn Rd/Frazier Rd Widening and new location with above-grade crossing of RR to 49% 42/0 91/0° ° Widening connect to US 70. Mode • . . Project ID Description. Specific -A IL A Score 97 53 BP-445 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Short sewer easement from south end of Sargents Path to 2/° 47% 49% Mattress Factory ° 98 54 BP-410 Bike Ped US 15-501 Paved Greenway or sidepath 11% 38% 48% 99 55 BP-327 Bike Ped NC 86 On road 4' Paved Shoulder or bicycle lane and sidewalk 16% 32% 48% 100 56 BP-426 Bike Ped Duke Easement Trail 4 Multiuse Path 11% 36% 48% 101 27 Hwy-018 New Location/ Lake Hogan Farms Rd New Location 31% 60% 91% Widening NC 54 Widening from Old Fayetteville Road to Mebane Oaks 102 28 Hwy-041 New Location/Widening NC 54 Rd with additional lanes and multimodal facilities along the 24% 65% 90% corridor and safety improvements at each intersection 103 57 BP-342 Bike Ped Jones Ferry Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder or other bike improvement 2% 45% 47% 104 58 BPI-701 Bike Ped Bridge I-40/Dry Creek Trail Dry Cr Tr pass under 1-40 using culvert near Eastown and New 47/°° 0%0 47% Hope Commons 105 59 BP-485 Bike Ped NNdew Grady Brown School Sidewalk 18% 29% 47% 106 60 BP-325 Bike Ped NC 86 On road 4' Paved Shoulder and pedestrian footpath 3% 44% 47% New Location Widen to a 4-lane divided expressway cross section with / 107 29 Hwy-023 Widening NC 86 bicycle,pedestrian,and transit accomodations and safety 23% 65% 88% improvements at each intersection 108 30 Hwy-025 New Location/ Buckhorn Rd Widen Buckhorn Road to a four lane divided section with 38% 50% 88% Widening bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 109 61 BP-421 Bike Ped Millhouse Rd Sidepath 7% 40% 47% 110 62 BP-347 Bike Ped Old NC 86 On road Bicycle lane and sidewalk 14% 32% 46% 111 63 BP-326 Bike Ped NC 86 On road 4' Paved Shoulder or bicycle lane 15% 32% 46% 112 64 BP-457 Bike Ped Cane Creek Connector Multiuse Path 9% 37% 46% Widen to a four lane divided boulevard to accommodate 113 31 Hwy-009 New Location/Widening Eubanks Rd. projected 2040 vehicular traffic and to adequately 17% 68% 85% accommodate increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic. 114 32 Int-211 Intersection SR 1005(Old Greensboro Replace Bridge 670085 over Phil's Creek 24% 59% 83% Road) 115 65 BP-483 Bike Ped Eno Mountain Rd Sidewalk 23% 23% 46% 116 66 BP-481 Bike Ped Harold Latta Dr Sidewalk 17% 29% 46% 117 67 BP-423 Bike Ped Fan Branch Trail Multiuse Path 7% 39% 46% Trail Connection from Multi-use path connecting the southwest corner of Patriots 118 68 BP-498 Bike Ped Patriot's Pointe to Pointe to Timbers Drive to shorten walking distance for 4% 41% 45% Timbers Dr pedestrians New Location/ North Mattress Factory Realign the northern terminal of Mattress Factory Road to 119 33 Hwy-026 Widening Road improve existing at-grade railroad crossing on Washington 36% 46% 83% Street Matress Factory Road from South of Washington Street to I- New Location/ Mattress Factory Road/ 40/1-85 and W Ten Road from I-40/1-85 to Buckhorn Road, 120 34 Hwy-042 37% 45% 82% Widening West Ten Road Roadway Widening. Bicycle, pedestrian,and transit accomodations. 121 69 BP-499 Bike Ped Old NC 10 Proposed bicycle and pedestrian 1% 43% 44% 122 70 BP-367 Bike Ped SUPPER CLUB Paved shoulder recommended and sidewalk 4% 40% 44% 123 71 BP-365 Bike Ped WASHINGTON ST Paved shoulder recommended 7% 37% 44% 124 72 BP-425 Bike Ped 1-40 Multiuse Path-separate from 1-40 6% 38% 44% 125 35 Hwy-014 New Location/ New Hope Commons Dr New Location 22% 58% 80% Widening Extension % New Location/ 126 36 Hwy-027 I-85 Widen to 6 lanes 30% 50% 80° Widening 127 73 BP-368 Bike Ped Oakwood St/Mattress paved shoulder recommended 3% 41% 44% Factory Rd 128 74 BP-366 Bike Ped US 70/CENTER Paved shoulder recommended and sidewalk 6% 37% 43% 129 75 BP-343 Bike Ped Faucette Mill Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 18% 25% 43% 130 76 BP-441 Bike Ped Oakwood St Sidepath along Oakwood 6% 37% 43% Modernize Old Greensboro Road form Jones Ferry Road to Alamance County with NCDOT standard street cross-section 131 37 Hwy-050 Modenization Old Greensboro Road 2B(60' row, 11'travel lanes,with 5' paved shoulder),add turn 16/° 63% 79% lanes and safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road, Hatch ° Road, Neville Road,Carl Durham Road,White Cross Road, Wildcat Creek Road,and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road 132 38 Hwy-003 New Location/ 1-85/US 70/1-40 connector Modify the 1-85/1-40 Connector interchange at US 70 to 11% 68% 79% Widening provide access from all directions 133 77 BP-390 Bike Ped Whitaker Rd&BowmanRd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 1% 42% 43% 134 78 BP-356 Bike Ped University Lake Rd On road Bicycle Lane on one side 6% 37% 43% 135 79 BP-329 Bike Ped Old NC 10 On road 4' Paved Shoulder 5% 37% 42% 136 80 BP-341 Bike Ped Dimmock Mill Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 9% 33% 42% 137 39 Hwy-002 Modenization Erwin Rd. Needs Improvement 27% 52% 79% 138 40 Int-210 Intersection Buckhorn Road/West TenIntersection Improvements 19% 58% 77% Road 139 81 BP-437 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Follows sewer easement to connect to end of Mockingbird Ln 6% 37% 42% 140 82 BP-305 Bike Ped Eubanks Rd On road Bicycle Lane 10% 32% 42% 141 83 BP-353 Bike Ped NC 54 On road 4' Paved Shoulder and pedestrian pathway 5% 36% 42% 142 84 BP-359 Bike Ped US 15-501 On road Bicycle Lane 8% 34% 42% 143 41 Hwy-017 New Location/ New Collector Rd New Location 17% 59% 76% Widening • r . . Project ID • . Description Specific Modernize Orange Grove Road from 1-85 to Dodson Crossroad with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B(60'row, 11' 144 42 Hwy-051 Modenization Orange Grove Road travel lanes,with 5'paved shoulder),add turn lanes and safety 15% 62/° 76/° ° improvements at Ode Turner Road, Dimmocks Mill Road, Crossroad Church Cemetery Road, Davis Drive, Kimbro Road, and Dodson Crossroads. 145 85 BP-416 Bike Ped Mt.Carmel Church Road Paved Greenway 10% 32% 41% 146 86 BP-375 Bike Ped NC 86 On road bicycle improvement and pedestrian path 1% 40% 41% 147 87 BP-364 Bike Ped LEBANON RD/E BROWN Paved shoulder recommended and sidewalk 7% 34% 41% ST 148 88 BP-438 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Follows sewer easement to connect to end of Creeks Edge Ct 4% 37% 41% / 149 43 Hwy-034 New Location 1-40 Widen to six lanes,improve NC 86 interchange,and install ITS. 24% 52% 75% Widening Modernize NC 10 from NC 86 to US 70 Business with NCDOT 150 44 Hwy-055 Modenization Old NC 10 cross section 26,add turn lanes and safety improvements at 7% 67/° 74/°° ° Larence Road, New Hope Church Road, University Station Road, Mt Harmon Church Road,and US 70 Business 151 89 BP-439 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Sewer easement from McPherson south to Avalon and east to 1% 40% 41% Oakwood 152 90 BP-413 Bike Ped Rogers Road Paved Greenway 16% 24% 40% 153 91 BP-338 Bike Ped W Ten Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 4% 37% 40% 154 92 BP-475 Bike Ped Old Field Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 9% 31% 40% Modernize Dairyland Road from Orange Grove Road to Old NC 86 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B,add turn 155 45 Hwy-052 Modenization Dairyland Road lanes and safety improvements at Orange Grove Road, Dodson 9% 63% 72% Crossroads, Rocky Ridge Road, Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road and convert intersection at Old NC 86 to a roundabout Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102)from Orange Grove Road (SR-1006)to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross 156 46 Hwy-053 Modenization Dodson Crossroads 11% 61% 72% section 2B(60' row, 11'travel lanes,with 5'paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at each intersection. 157 93 BP-362 Bike Ped University Station Rd On road From Orange County Bicycle Routes Map 3% 37% 40% 158 94 BP-372 Bike Ped NC 49 On Road, Needs Improvement 0% 39% 39% 159 95 BP-460 Bike Ped Sunrise Road (west side) Sidewalk 13% 26% 39% 160 96 BP-409 Bike Ped Sunrise Road Paved Greenway 13% 26% 39% 161 47 Hwy-020 Modenization Buckhorn Road Upgrade the current unsurfaced 20-foot cross section to a 7% 64/° 71/°° ° surfaced,24-foot cross section suitable for public traffic use. Construct one additional lane between Patriot's Pointe Drive New Location and New Grady Brown School Road(SR 1221)with bike/ped / 162 48 Hwy-054 Widening Orange Grove Road improvements.The 1-40 bridge would be widened to 7% 63% 71% accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle amenities and one additional travel lane. 163 97 BP-324 Bike Ped Miller Rd/Baldwin Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 6% 33% 39% 164 98 BP-304 Bike Ped Mt Carmel Church Rd On road Bicycle Lane 8% 31% 38% Lynch Store Rd/Doc 165 99 BP-393 Bike Ped Corbett Rd/McDade Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 38% 38% Store Rd/Pentecost Rd 166 100 BP-478 Bike Ped Ben Wilson Rd Sidewalk 5% 34% 38% New Location Provide a new location 2-lane cross section at Walnut Grove / ° ° 167 49 Hwy-022 Widening Little River Church Rd Ext Church Road to extend Little River Church Road into Sawmill 20% 51% 71% Road to provide better east-west continuity and connectivity. 168 50 Hwy-039 Modenization Lebanon Road Intersection and safety improvements along Lebanon Road 9% 62% 70% 169 101 BP-433 Bike Ped Proposed trail Multiuse Path 7% 31% 38% 170 102 BP-458 Bike Ped Mebane Oaks Road Multi-Use Path or Sidepath 0% 38% 38% 171 103 BP-383 Bike Ped Oak Grove Church Rd/ Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 38% 38% Vernon Rd Mt Hernon Church Rd/W 172 104 BP-328 Bike Ped Cornwallis Rd/Schley Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 1% 37% 38% /Pleasant Green Rd Widen to a 4-lane divided cross-section with curb and gutter, 5'bikes lanes,sidewalks,and transit accomodations(110'row, 17.5' median, 11'travel lanes). Improve intersections from Buckhorn Road to Durham County.Add turn lanes and safety 173 51 Hwy-006 New Location/Widening US 70 improvements at NC 86,St Mary's Road, Efland Cedar Grove 13% 56% 69% Road, Frazier Road, Richmond Road, Brookhollow Road, Faucette Mill Road, Miller Road, Lawrence Road, Palmers Grove Church Road, Pleasant Green Road,Orange High School Road,and N Scotswood Boulevard. 174 52 Hwy-011 Modenization Homestead Rd Add turn lanes where needed. Bike lanes and sidewalks are 20% 48/° 68/°° ° recommended along the entirety of the corridor. • IF qw14 Mode Project ID __,.Description - Specific . . A 1W Jd IR Score 175 105 BP-384 Bike Ped Oak Grove Church Rd On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 0% 37% 38% 176 106 BP-310 Bike Ped Pickett Rd On road Bicycle Lane. Multiuse if unpaved section closed. 1% 37% 38% ° ° 177 107 BP-435 Bike Ped King's Highway Park Multiuse Trail, Paved 11/° 26/° 38/° Connector 178 108 BP-331 Bike Ped Coleman Loop On road 4' Paved Shoulder 1% 37% 38% 179 53 Hwy-048 Modenization US 70 1-40/US 70 ICM.Advanced Signal Technology upgrades, 22% 45/° 67/0° ° Enhanced Surveillance New Location Provide a new location 2-lane cross section at Orange Grove / ° 180 54 Hwy-019 Widening Buckhorn Road Extension Road to extend Buckhorn Road into Dairyland Road to provide 11/° 55/° 66% better connectivity and improve traffic flow. 181 109 BP-434 Bike Ped Riverwalk Connector Multiuse Trail, Paved 9% 28% 37% 182 110 BP-345 Bike Ped New Hope Church Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 3% 35% 37% 183 111 BP-473 Bike Ped Lebanon Rd Off road Footpath 0% 36% 37% McDade Store Road/ 184 112 BP-371 Bike Ped Hurdle Mills Road/ Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 36% 37% Ormond Road 185 55 Hwy-047 New Location/ Rabbit Run Road Rabbit Run Road from Buckhorne Road to West Ten Road, 16% 49% 64% Widening Roadway New Location Upgrade the current unsurfaced 20-foot cross section to a 186 56 Hwy-021 Modenization Arthur Minnis Road 24% 40% 64% surfaced,24-foot cross section suitable for public traffic use. 187 113 BP-335 Bike Ped Dairyland Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 3% 33% 37% 188 114 BP-469 Bike Ped NC 86 Pedestrian path 4% 33% 36% 189 115 BP-344 Bike Ped Mt Sinai Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 3% 33% 36% 190 116 BP-461 Bike Ped Erwin Rd Sidewalk 2% 34% 36% 0%191 57 Hwy-046 New Location/ Mace Rd Construct approximately 0.35 mile,two-lane section, ° 55% 55% Widening extension of Mace Road to connect two existing dead-ends / 192 58 Hwy-036 New Location Rex Road Extension New location extension of Rex Road. 20% 31% 51% Widening 193 117 BP-313 Bike Ped Hillsborough Rd On road Bicycle Lane 2% 34% 36% 194 118 BP-468 Bike Ped Phils Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 0% 36% 36% 195 119 BP-308 Bike Ped Hwy 751 On road Bicycle Lane 2% 34% 36% CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT BRIDGE AND 650 FOOT PAVED TRAIL IN CARRBORO TO FILL GAP BETWEEN THE UPPER BOLIN TRAIL 196 120 BP-446 Bike Ped JONES CREEK GREENWAY AND TWIN CREEKS GREENWAY AND IMPLEMENT PROGRAM 16% 19% 36% TO SUPPORT NON-VEHICLE TRIPS TO MORRIS GROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. I-85/US 70 Connector ° 197 59 Int-202 Intersection Make full access interchange at US 70 14/ 37% 51% interchange upgrade 198 60 Int-209 Intersection Ben Wilson Intersection Improvements 22% 27% 48% Road/Bowman Road 199 121 BP-382 Bike Ped Mebane-Oaks Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 36% 36% 200 122 BP-495 Bike Ped NC 57 Pedestrian pathway in NC 57 corridor north of Hillsborough 2% 33% 36% 201 123 BP-443 Bike Ped Stagecoach Rd Sidepath along Stagecoach Rd 2% 33% 35% 202 124 BP-381 Bike Ped Hebron Church Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 35% 35% 203 61 Hwy-007 Modenization Albert Rd Needs Improvement 6% 41% 46% 204 62 Hwy-010 New Location/ Purefoy Rd Ext New Location 8% 37% 45/o°Widening 205 125 BP-377 Bike Ped Lonesome Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 35% 35% 206 126 BP-442 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Short trail connection from south end of Bob White to US 70 4% 31% 35% 207 127 BP-346 Bike Ped Old NC 86 On road Bicycle Lane;consider multiuse path aft. 4% 30% 34% 208 128 BP-444 Bike Ped Proposed shared use path Follows sewer easement from Lebanon Rd to St Andrews Dr 2% 32% 34% 209 63 Int-206 Intersection 1-85/1-40 at Mattress Proposed Interchange 21% 24% 45% Factory Rd 18/°210 64 Hwy-043 Modenization Bowman Rd Bowman Road from Ben Wilson Road to West Ten Road, ° 24% 42% Roadway Modernization 211 129 BP-333 Bike Ped Lawrence Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 2% 32% 34% 212 130 BP-463 Bike Ped Morgan Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 1% 32% 34% 213 131 BP-449 Bike Ped Proposed Trail Proposed trail 5% 29% 34% 214 132 BP-376 Bike Ped Carr Store Rd On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 0% 33% 33% 215 133 BP-323 Bike Ped 1-85 Connector On road 4' Paved Shoulder 2% 31% 33% 216 134 BP-432 Bike Ped Dry Creek Trail Multiuse Path 8% 25% 33% 217 135 BP-320 Bike Ped Ode Turner Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 1% 32% 33% 218 136 BP-386 Bike Ped Chestnut Ridge ChurchRd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 1% 32% 33% 219 137 BP-370 Bike Ped Walnut Grove Church On Road, Needs Improvement 0% 33/° 33/°° Road 220 138 BP-493 Bike Ped Mount Willing Road Pedestrian path in Mount Willing Road corridor 0% 33% 33% 221 139 BP-369 Bike Ped Buckhorn Rd 4' Paved shoulder recommended 1% 32% 33% 222 140 BP-407 Bike Ped Corbett Ridge Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 32% 33% 223 141 BP-397 Bike Ped Efland-Cedar Gr Rd Paved Shoulder and pedestrian path 0% 32% 32% 224 142 BP-474 Bike Ped Mount Willing Road Off road Footpath 1% 31% 32% 225 143 BP-351 Bike Ped Old Greensboro Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 32% 32% Dodsons Xrd/Orange 226 144 BP-385 Bike Ped Grove Rd/White Cross 4'paved shoulders 2% 31% 32% Rd/Butler Rd 227 145 BP-302 Bike Ped Seawell School Rd On road Bicycle Lane 3% 29% 32% 228 146 BP-339 Bike Ped Brookhollow Rd/Mt On road 4' Paved Shoulder 2% °30% 32/° Willing Rd • . . Mode Project ID ion Specific Score 229 147 BP-467 Bike Ped New Hope Creek Trail/ Off road unpaved trail 2% 30% 32% Long Branch Trail 230 148 BP-398 Bike Ped Sawmill Rd On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 1% 31% 32% 231 149 BP-472 Bike Ped High Rock Rd Pedestrian path 0% 31% 32% Bradshaw Quarry Road/ ° 232 150 BP-373 Bike Ped Unspecified on-road bike improvements 0% 32% 32% Arthur Minnis Rd 233 151 BP-395 Bike Ped Mill Creek Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 1% 31% 32% 234 152 BP-361 Bike Ped Turkey Farm Rd On road From Orange County Bicycle Routes Map 4% 27% 32% 235 153 BP-466 Bike Ped Bolin Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 1% 31% 31% Extension 236 154 BP-462 Bike Ped Piney Mountain Creek Off road unpaved trail 2% ° Trail 30% 31/° 237 155 BP-436 Bike Ped Mountains to Sea Trail Multiuse Trail, Paved 1% 30% 31% 238 156 BP-388 Bike Ped Dairyland Rd 4'paved shoulders and pedestrian path 0% 31% 31% 239 157 BP-464 Bike Ped Neville Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 0% 31% 31% 240 158 BP-399 Bike Ped Laws Store Rd/Brown Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 31% 31% 241 159 BP-440 Bike Ped Lebanon Rd Sidepath along Lebanon 3% 28% 31% 242 160 BP-374 Bike Ped NC 86 On road bicycle improvement and pedestrian path 2% 29% 31% 243 161 BP-352 Bike Ped NC 54 On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 30% 31% 244 162 BP-312 Bike Ped Cole Mill Rd On road Bicycle Lane 1% 30% 31% 245 163 BP-391 Bike Ped Saddle Club Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 1% 29% 31% 246 164 BP-494 Bike Ped Little River Church Rd Pedestrian path in Little River Church Rd corridor 0% 30% 31% St Mary's Rd/New 247 165 BP-336 Bike Ped Sharon Church Rd/Holly On road 4' Paved Shoulder 1% 29% 30% Ridge Rd 248 166 BP-406 Bike Ped Saxapahaw Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 30% 30% 249 167 BP-307 Bike Ped Kerley Rd On road Bicycle Lane 2% 28% 30% 250 168 BP-471 Bike Ped Mountains to Sea Tr Off road Paved and natural surface trail 1% 29% 30% 251 169 BP-363 Bike Ped LEBANON RD Paved shoulder recommended 3% 27% 30% 252 170 BP-479 Bike Ped Green Riley Rd Off Road, Recommended Pedestrian pathway 1% 28% 29% 253 171 BP-400 Bike Ped NC 157 Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 29% 29% 254 172 BP-319 Bike Ped Walker Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 29% 29% 255 173 BP-401 Bike Ped Pearson Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 29% 29% 256 174 BP-402 Bike Ped Schley Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 0% 28% 29% 257 175 BP-389 Bike Ped Orange Grove Rd 4'paved shoulders 0% 28% 29% Mary Hall Rd and a short 258 176 BP-403 Bike Ped Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 28% 28% section of Laws Store Rd 259 177 BP-470 Bike Ped Buck Branch Trail Off road unpaved trail 1% 28% 28% Lake Orange Rd for ° ° 260 178 BP-405 Bike Ped Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 28/° 28% bicycle travel 261 179 BP-396 Bike Ped Efland-Cedar Grove Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 28% 28% 262 180 BP-392 Bike Ped High Rock Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 0% 28% 28% 263 181 BP-378 Bike Ped Highland Farm Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 28% 28% 264 182 BP-387 Bike Ped RCd 27/° 27/° Chestnut Rd Church On-road Bike Improvement and pedestrian path 0% °265 183 BP-404 Bike Ped Berry Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 27% 27% 266 184 BP-496 Bike Ped NC 57 Pedestrian pathway and on-road bike improvement 0% 27% 27% 267 185 BP-309 Bike Ped Mt Moriah Rd On road Bicycle Lane 0% 27% 27% 268 186 BP-394 Bike Ped Harmony Church Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 26% 27% 269 187 BP-340 Bike Ped Frank Perry Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 1% 26% 26% 270 188 BP-337 Bike Ped Lebanon Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder or other bike improvement 1% 25% 26% 271 189 BP-380 Bike Ped Kiger Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 24% 24% 272 190 BP-417 Bike Ped Ashe-Arboretum Sidepath 2/° 21% 24% Connector 273 191 BP-334 Bike Ped Whitfield Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 4% 20% 23% 274 192 BP-465 Bike Ped Mountain Creek Tr Off road unpaved trail 0% 22% 22% 275 193 BP-311 Bike Ped Guess Rd On road Bicycle Lane and pedestrian pathway 1% 20% 22% 276 194 BP-477 Bike Ped Pritchard's Mill Creek Trail Off road unpaved trail 0% 21% 21% 277 195 BP-314 Bike Ped Bacon Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 20% 21% 278 196 BP-332 Bike Ped Ben Johnston Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 4% 16% 21% 279 197 BP-360 Bike Ped Bivens Rd/Terry Rd On road bicycle facility 0% 20% 21% 280 198 BP-476 Bike Ped Jones Ferry Road Parallel Off road unpaved trail 1% 20% 20% Trail 281 199 BP-318 Bike Ped Ebenezer Church Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 19% 19% 282 200 BP-315 Bike Ped Bill Poole Rd/Hopkins Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 19% 19% 283 201 BP-316 Bike Ped Saint Marys Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 18% 19% 284 202 BP-317 Bike Ped Craig Rd On road 4' Paved Shoulder 0% 18% 18% 285 203 BP-379 Bike Ped Halls Mill Rd Unspecified On-road Bike Improvement 0% 12% 12% ORANGE TRANSPORTATION COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY NoKm CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT OrangeCounty Item 5.b. Subject: Orange County Short Range Transit Plan Attachment: Existing Conditions Final Draft SRTP PURPOSE: To provide comments on the Orange County Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). BACKGROUND: October 2023, Orange County contracted Nelson Nygaard to provide Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) with a SRTP. It is a 12 month planning starting November 2023 to October 2024, following best planning practices. The SRTP is a 5-year plan focused on improving the County's transit services in terms of capital and operational investments. The consultant recently completed the Existing Conditions Report (Attachment 1) and drafted the SRTP (Attachment 2). OCTS staff requests members, public review the material, provide comments, and/or recommend approval. To Date: • Existing Conditions report Finalized • 2nd rounds of public engagement scheduled • Plan drafted Next Steps: • September—TAS and OUTBoard Approval • October— Board of County Commissioner Approval TAS Recommendation: [Placeholder] 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 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. RECOMMENDATION(S): Provide comments and/or recommend approval ORANGE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN i Existing Conditions March 2024 N NELSON NYG 1 i ' 1 1 ■ -77 me TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TT RR NGGE E TROUNLANN Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Review of Past Plans and Projects................................................................................ 2-1 3 Market Analysis.............................................................................................................. 3-2 TransitDemand............................................................................................................................................3-2 Equityand Transit Need............................................................................................................................3-8 TravelFlows................................................................................................................................................3-10 ActivityCenters..........................................................................................................................................3-13 4 Existing Service Assessment.........................................................................................4-1 SystemOverview..........................................................................................................................................4-1 ServiceProfiles..............................................................................................................................................4-4 5 Transit Funding............................................................................................................... 5-1 Expensesand Revenues............................................................................................................................5-1 FundingSources..........................................................................................................................................5-2 6 Opportunities.................................................................................................................. 6-1 Appendix A Review of Past Plans.....................................................................................A-1 Table of Figures Page Figure 1: Transit Supportive Land Use Table..............................................................................................3-2 Figure2: Population Density.............................................................................................................................3-2 Figure 3: Orange County Jobs by Sector......................................................................................................3-3 Figure4: Employment Density.........................................................................................................................3-3 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 5: Population and Employment Densities......................................................................................3-4 Figure 6: Population Density Change, 2020-2030....................................................................................3-5 Figure 7: Employment Density Change, 2020-2030.................................................................................3-6 Figure 8: Recent & Future Developments....................................................................................................3-7 Figure9: Transit Need .........................................................................................................................................3-8 Figure 10: Environmental Justice Communities of Concern.................................................................3-9 Figure 11: Weekday Trips, All Day...............................................................................................................3-11 Figure 12: Saturday Trips, All Day................................................................................................................3-11 Figure 13: Weekday Trips, AM Peak............................................................................................................3-12 Figure 14: Weekday Trips, Mid-Afternoon...............................................................................................3-12 Figure15: Activity Centers..............................................................................................................................3-13 Figure 16: OCTS Service Span and Frequency...........................................................................................4-2 Figure 17: Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips by Service Type..............................................................4-2 Figure 18 Durham Tech OCC Park-and-Ride Bus Stop...........................................................................4-3 Figure 20: OCTS and Regional Fixed Route Bus Service........................................................................4-4 Figure 21: Average Daily Boardings by Hour, October...........................................................................4-5 Figure 22: Hillsborough Circulator Boardings............................................................................................4-5 Figure 23: Orange-Alamance Connector Boardings, October 2023..................................................4-6 Figure 24: Average Daily Boardings by Hour, February..........................................................................4-8 Figure 25: Orange-Chapel Hill Connector Boardings, February 2024...............................................4-8 Figure 26: Orange County Public Transit Options....................................................................................4-9 Figure 27: Demand Response Trips by Purpose, October 2023.......................................................4-11 Figure 28: Demand Response Average Daily Trips Per Hour, October 2023..............................4-11 Figure 29: ROAP Demand Response Trips, October 2023..................................................................4-12 Figure30: MOD Service Area.........................................................................................................................4-13 Figure 31: All Trips by Hour, October 2023..............................................................................................4-14 Figure 32: Mobility On Demand Destinations, October 2023...........................................................4-14 Figure 33: FY2022 and FY2023 OCTS Expenses.........................................................................................5-1 Figure 34: FY2022 and FY2023 OCTS Revenues........................................................................................5-2 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 1 INTRODUCTION The Orange County Short Range Transit Plan The focus of this Existing Conditions report is on the areas of (SRTP) guides the improvement of transit Orange County outside of the municipalities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, which are served by Chapel Hill Transit. The analysis will services in Orange County through 2030. look at Hillsborough, Mebane, and the more rural areas of the Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) provides fixed- county, identifying the opportunities and challenges in providing route bus, demand response, and microtransit services transportation services outside the Chapel Hill area. Analyses will throughout Orange County, NC. The changing conditions in the also include up to 10 miles outside of the Orange County borders, county—including new developments, rising population and jobs, which marks the fullest extent of OCTS's service area and includes and limited budgets—present an opportunity for OCTS to refine destinations in Durham and other surrounding counties. how transit investments are made. The SRTP will analyze existing Key findings for the Existing Conditions include: service performance and markets, evaluate strategies for ■ Orange County is growing and is focused on ensuring improving transit, and recommend a transit investment program planning efforts are inclusive of residents throughout the through Fiscal Year (FY) 2030. The SRTP will also guide future long entirety of the county. range planning efforts as the region continues to grow. ■ There is potential demand for fixed route transit both The Existing Conditions report is the first piece of the Orange within and between Hillsborough and Mebane. County SRTP. The report consists of five key chapters: ■ OCTS fixed route bus ridership has not fully recovered 1. A review of previous plans and projects that impact since the COVID-19 pandemic. transportation in Orange County, ■ Program-based demand response service fills a critical 2. An analysis of the underlying market conditions in Orange need in connecting rural residents with medical, County, employment, and shopping opportunities, but is limited 3. An analysis of the current services provided by OCTS, by eligibility requirements and high cost per rider. 4. A review of current and potential funding for OCTS ' Microtransit expands access to transit for the general services, and public but is currently underutilized. 5. A synthesis of the gaps and opportunities that can be There are opportunities to leverage existing funding addressed through the SRTP. sources more efficiently and identify new funding sources for improving transit. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 1-1 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 2 REVIEW OF PAST PLANS AND PROJECTS Past plans establish a baseline understanding Burlington-Graham MPO (BGMPO) of transit projects and programs considered Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2022) or planned for Orange County and the region. BGMPO's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the MPO's long- range plan that identifies major transportation needs and Reviewing past plans and projects is a critical first step to guiding solutions through 2050. The recommendations in this plan are not existing conditions work. The previously published plans and funded or fiscally constrained, unlike other regional policies reviewed included transit plans, climate plans, funding comprehensive plans. The plan includes recommendations for studies, and more, all of which focused on Orange County and/or transit infrastructure and service improvements for the Burlington, the surrounding region. The review focused on both specific Graham, and Mebane areas, with a few recommendations for transit service recommendations and higher-level funding and Orange County. These recommendations consist of creating a goals. Mebane Connector; a Mebane to Hillsborough Commuter Rail; This review sets the stage for the existing conditions analysis by enhancing service on the Orange-Alamance Connector; and providing a baseline and history of projects, changes, and future improving and adding new park and rides. visions. The following section provides a brief overview of the plans reviewed and the information that is directly relevant to the BGMPO 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan SRTP effort.The full review can be found in Appendix A. (2020) The BGMPO 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan is the Orange County Transit Plan (2017) and Update transportation plan for the Burlington-Graham region, which (2022) consists of the cities and towns of Burlington, Graham, Mebane, The Orange County Transit Plan from 2017 and its subsequent Elon, Gibsonville, Green Level, Haw River, Whitsett, Alamance; update in 2022 provide an overview of the county's transit goals Alamance County; and parts of Guilford and Orange Counties. through a single funding source. It includes information on This plan identifies the transportation needs over the next two service improvements that are planned to be funded through the decades and provides multimodal recommendations for County's transit tax for OCTS, GoTriangle, and Chapel Hill Transit. improvements. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2-1 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BGMPO Regional Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Orange County's Complete Streets and Vision The BGMPO Regional Transit Feasibility Study is an ongoing Zero Policies (2022) project that has recently completed its Operations and Fiscal Orange County's Complete Streets and Vision Zero Policies were Impact Analyses. This report contains recommendations and adopted in October 2022. The Vision Zero Policy states that the opportunities for transit funding at the local and consolidated locality will aim to meet the state's safety targets of a 50% level and an assessment of transit tax's government structure and reduction of fatalities and serious injuries by 2035, and a 100% funding. reduction by 2050. The Complete Streets Policy, which was adopted in tandem with the Vision Zero plan, strives to Orange County Climate Action Plan (2023) encourage the design and construction of safer and more The Orange County Climate Action Plan is the guiding document equitable streets and shift towards multi-mobility. for county-wide greenhouse gas reduction. This document offers a comprehensive set of strategies that are in line with state Orange County Transportation Services Title VI regulations. Transit-specific strategies revolve around increased Plan (2022) on-demand service and converting the existing vehicle fleet to an Orange County Transportation Services Title VI Plan overviews the all-electric fleet. Title VI standards and processes that OCTS must abide by. The document includes transit service standards for OCTS, including Connect 2050: The Research Triangle Region"s that all fixed-route services have between 30- and 45-minute Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2022) headways with plans to reduce these to between 15- and 30- Connect 2050 is the long-range transportation plan for the minutes. Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Orange County Transportation Services ADA Organization (DCHC MPO). The transit-related components of this Paratransit Plan (2022) plan focus on improvement of local and regional transit facilities The Orange County Transportation Services ADA Paratransit Plan and services and improving accessibility and ease of use of transit outlines the standards that OCTS must meet to provide sufficient for all users. ADA and paratransit services. OCTS currently exceeds the required service standards for coverage and abides by all federally mandated standards. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2-2 TYANSIT Existing Conditions ORANGE E CROUNLANN GoTriangle Short-Range Transit Plan (2023) pedestrian changes. For Orange County, major public GoTriangle's SRTP recommends a series of transit service transportation recommendations include the Durham-Orange improvements for the Triangle region up to FY2028. The Light Rail Transit and the North-South Corridor Bus Rapid recommendations included simplification of routes (including the Transit—a rapid transit route that runs along NC-86 and US 15- 420 and ODX) and expansion of 15-minute all-day routes. 501 from Eubanks to Southern Village. Chapel Hill Short-Range Transportation Plan City of Mebane Comprehensive Transportation (2020) Plan (2021) Chapel Hill Transit's 2020 SRTP provides a roadmap for transit The City of Mebane's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a improvements in Chapel Hill and Carrboro for the next ten years. multi-modal plan that covers roadway, public transportation, and Recommendations include service expansion and demand- bicycle and pedestrian travel. The Plan recommends a circulator response zone additions. bus route for Mebane, which would run through the main part of the City, covering key destinations, such as parks, schools, DCHC MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan community centers, and commercial destinations along the route. (2017) There is additional demand for service to Alamance Community College and to have connections to other regional routes. The DCHC MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a long- range transportation plan that covers the region and outlines plans to be implemented through 2040. The modes that the plan covers are highway, public transportation, rail, bicycle, and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2-3 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 3 MARKET ANALYSIS This chapter explores the underlying demand ■ Based on an analysis of travel patterns amongst all modes of transportation, most trips take place within for transit and transportation services in municipalities. There is also relatively strong travel Orange County using the region's geography, demand along the Mebane-Hillsborough corridor. demographics, and built environment. TRANSIT DEMAND The Market Analysis consists of four components: A main factor in determining the demand for transit is density: ■ Transit Demand: Looking at where people live and work, where people live and work, and how those areas are both currently and as the region grows concentrated. As shown in Figure 1, population and employment ■ Equity and Transit Need: Identifying the socioeconomic density may be used to indicate an appropriate level of transit characteristics that influence transit use and where those service. Areas that are higher density may be able to support characteristics are more common more frequent fixed route transit, while areas with lower density ■ Travel Flows: Mapping how people travel to, from, and may be better suited for demand response services. within Orange County Figure 1:Transit Supportive Land Use Table ■ Activity Centers: Identifying key destinations and trip generators for transit Residents Jobs Appropriate Frequency Land Use Type per Acre per Acre Types of Transit of Service Key takeaways from the Market Analysis include: `` �l��i eft 30-6 0 ■ Population density and transit demand is greatest in the Nei$t,ae us tran hoods �a-15 s-la Lncai Micro- minutes ssit Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Mebane areas. &h Alfffi 60 mins The rest of the county is rural, s-�o 2-s where demand-response Lew Density or lessor micro- Ritleshare Volunteer On Demand services may be more suitable than fixed-route transit. transit Driver Pgm ■ Most of the employment density is located within towns Rural'� <z a2 ¢� On Demand Rideshare Volunteer and cities and along major corridors. Service jobs make up Driver Pgm Source:Tly- the largest share of jobs in the county. These densities broadly indicate demand across contiguous areas, and act cumulatively to drive demand for transit. Clusters of Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN density throughout an area or along a corridor are strong Figure 2: Population Density indicators of demand, while an isolated pocket of high density alone in a rural area would not produce sufficient demand itself. __________________________________-______________________________________________________r To represent the distribution of people and jobs more accurately, this analysis uses "developed acres" to calculate density, which is GD 49 defined as the area within a quarter-mile buffer from roadways. Carr °6 Data for transit demand was sourced mainly from DCHC MPO, c Caldwell which forecasted population and employment data as part of the al''pre Ra 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), including estimates O Cedar Grove O 3; 0a Sch,y for the 2020 base year and 2030 interim year, at the Traffic e_ Analysis Zone (TAZ) level. However, more recent population data O rya is available from the 2022 American Community Survey, which is °r a,�sad Lebanon Rd " S�t1 used as a reference for growth. Additional data on development ��I was provided by Orange County and Mebane agencies. Hebane a Sim Efland �•(yl�r,•Ire Miles -- Hillsborough'; a Where People Live Buckhornlot �:`t��* As shown in Figure 2, population density in Orange County in Old 66 a NC70 2020 was concentrated in the municipalities of Chapel Hill, e r �°, a awal%Is Carrboro, Mebane, and Hillsborough: o9e Hein oT Q it Sinai Ra 501 ■ In Hillsborough, denser areas are not clustered together, but located throughout the municipality with less dense CubaaksRd .\ rn" areas between them. h1s. oasteatd Ra r-t (' r�A`�tl�l�l�1sS' Calvander r T�' ■ Mebane's population density is mainly concentrated in E% ' k.4 •oan ti White Cross �;�1 Alamance Count with some higher density pockets in � �' ' y, g y P Population Density(2020) i�r 4d2.'Chapel-H�III• t ' ' -1 ,k > Peopleper Acre ��,._ "•, 14 Orange County. 0.5 Carr`, jo• 0.5-1 Old Greensboro Rd TrE f 59i i ■ Density changes sharply at the county border with 1-2 d MRS Z 5 Durham, likely due to differing zoning and development ■5-10 _ ``h histories. -'�'-------------n'>- - Oata Sources:OCHC MP02020 z � C ............ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Where People Work Figure 4: Employment Density --------------------- ---------4 - ________ ---------------------------------- The geographic distribution of job density in Orange County in 2020 (Figure 4) is largely similar to population density, with the m highest density areas in Mebane, Hillsborough, and Chapel Hill- a6 Carrboro: r Cal G Store Bd s ■ Employment in Hillsborough is densest in the southeast 119 BB y1�\ area of the town. m Ra S`b'y9 Is Mebane employment density is clustered along 1-40, in r' c or�a the southern portion of the municipality. There are few s, oar pd jobs outside of these areas. Lebanpn Rd ay Mebane a Jobs not only generate demand from the employees that travel ��, ° there to work, but also from the potential customers, clients, and " Hillsborough 1 patients that visit a business. Jobs in the service and retail sectors tend to generate travel demand at higher rates than industry or Old NC 10 officejobs. In 2020, 59% of Orange County jobs were in service aQ0 o°`c�P ly°pl ` and retail sectors (Figure 3). � ,w �c° Ce Figure 3: Orange County Jobs by Sector e "ex� Q 9a 0 40 At Sinai Rd �Qa fiat `Industry, fi4 X O% a c' EubaaKs Rd 010 / c esteatl Rry ♦ �T Es, FAA aaDS� u , ' Employment Density Chapel Hill Jobs per Acre 'A rl, ; =4 E'<0.5 Ca rr b o ro "Y,y�,y��� .44 0.5-1l iI Old Greensboro Rd ■1-2 - 2-5 5-10 J a P ___________________oa__ ■10� .y sol r2,h °era soar«::°cxc xro z°zo o 1 zxnes N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-3 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Figure 5: Population and Employment Densities Population and Employment - ------------------------------------------------ - Density Together Together, population and employment density give a more °6 complete picture of potential demand for transit. Figure 5 shows the combined population and employment densities by TAZ. Blue °lst°,eRd O areas on the map signify areas with high employment density but as 3 lower population density, while orange represents areas with a 0 seha`9a higher population density and lowerjob density. Darker brown `¢ �� . areas have high densities of both employment and population. O oc c h 5 Mac`1`'Rd Lebanon Rd l Areas with both high population and employment density Mebane Iu include: _` ■ Downtown Hillsborough ram— r Hillsbororib ugh I wmlr�. ■ Southwest Mebane *;01e ■ 1-40 and 1-85 corridors Old NC ;m �ijy��. Areas of high employment and population density do not always °wa,; align, with pockets of high employment density further from the a o tit smwRo �M j Qa A downtown cores and some isolated areas of residential density. _ ��, <i 5°' pI Areas with mismatched densities include: Eobz\" ��; -tee` i a ■ Employment density in Hillsborough is concentrated in Fs'eddR° many of the pockets of lower population density. lf aP ` , 4Y ■ Downtown Mebane has greater population density, while Population and '� h g p p y, �,�tChapel Hilli5ll 1 ' Employment Densities ��2. a• sc employment is concentrated along 1-40. °HMEN Carr ��,"" ' ° Old Greensboro Rd ■ F t � - - i People per Acre ------ ti Chi eata sourres:CCHC M NP02020 ° i 2niles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-4 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Regional Growth Figure 6: Population Density Change,2020-2030 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Triangle Region is growing rapidly, with new housing, mixed- use developments, and job centers being planned and approved f O throughout Orange County. Using the Triangle Regional Model's o6 2030 projections, based on the 2020 base year, the Market Analysis can identify areas likely to see significant growth of Store R tl demand for transit within the SRTP timeframe. U 3= ea schtd a� y9a Population Change o Ra O CJ O` The Triangle Regional Model projected an 11% increase in tebannn Rd y st"a`ysad population between 2020 and 2030 in Orange County, growing to ' a Mebane just over 150,000 residents. According to 2022 American Q Community Survey Data, the population has already surpassed Hillsborough Q that number, with the county as a whole growing at a faster rate �a p �t�i�c�A than the Chapel Hill municipality. a, Old NC 10 Figure 6 shows the growth in number of people per acre. Outside �F ,eJe��a of Chapel Hill, there is growth of greater than 0.5 more people a eG°e Me,N 11 'wdgjd WF ' oe�9 4o Mt Sinai Rd Hy per acre in southern Hillsborough, downtown Mebane, and ;IPa sat between Hillsborough and Durham along NC-10. Because this n o Eubanks RACE map reflects change in density, it does not reflect the rate of growth throughout the different regions of the county, and may steadRy obscure the impact of developments in large TAZs. se Est.,Ol� � 5° CHapel J�•.I1 r 1 Population Change Carrboro ., r• r Growth in People per Acre 40 <0.5 5pt Old Greensboro Rd 0.5-1 Ra Qa ■1-2 'e", y m J d :5+5 Jen8s H sm dish �' ___ p.so.ra::pcec nrozozo-zoao a p i znae: N a Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-5 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Employment Change Figure 7: Employment Density Change,2020-2030 ----'------------------------------------------------------r Based on the Triangle Regional Model, employment is projected to increase at a greater rate than population, with a 19% increase f O in jobs in Orange County between 2020 and 2030 to about 89,000 �> a jobs. Newer data from the US Census estimates a greater number of jobs than the Triangle Regional Model. SrOre Ra 0 As seen in Figure 7, most of this growth is likely to be concentrated near the UNC Chapel Hill campus and hospitals, and Pa Scb/ay9a cee ,^ between Chapel Hill and Durham. Southern Mebane is also osz or expected to see an increase in employment density, while most of yr S Me1Vs Rd Lebanon Rd Orange County will likely not see a large increase in employment a density. Similar to the population density change map, not all job Mebane Q growth is reflected in the density map. Hillsborough 0 Pa a 4 B OOld NC 10 a as �`�� o� awallis n a9 y o` C M1 Sinai Rd cQd ism o R&d a Eubaot's `�,- 41l.I, � o �esteatl Ra ..6�'�C;h� �Es4' iC 54 N440 O ' Chapel Hill I O Employment Change Carrboro �6 r�r Growth in Jobs per AcreTO 4 40 0.5 Old Greensboro Rd 50t 0.5-1 001 Qa ■1-2 Ee"' i ■2 5 ■5+ a C^� t 'E Sat iCn Do°o _"----'------'-'--- -------------- Dare soarea::ocxcnpo zozo-zoaa a o i 21nu.O Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-6 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Planned Developments Figure 8: Recent&Future Developments ---------------- ----------------------------_-------------------------------------------______ _r___. Along with the MPO and Census data, planned developments show where population and employment growth will likely occur O T. over the course of the SRTP timeframe. Figure 8 shows the Carr location and size of key economic and residential developments r` Caldwell in Mebane and Orange County, including districts with economic ca'StoreRd e development plans. 5 Cedar Grove O 3' e�Fa Sch/oy'➢v Mebane expects to see a high number of both residential and non-residential developments, and residential developments are 5, planned for southern Hillsborough as well. The 1-40 corridor y�o St�at�sad Lebanon Rd between Hillsborough and Mebane is also likely to see large non- a Mebane residential developments and is zoned to encourage continuing ° � _, Q 40 Efland economic growth. ' �- -� w'.� � Hillsborough cue C �t�OUoQQa r. 'o a Buckhorn es Old G 96 a ae Qa `�J`c"0 /YO ra 0 t`5e Gto �,oQe "'a/j/S9 n o`e Hevt 4o pt Sinai Ry v cQ,J Sat O = Eubanks ��5;' a ° Eubaov's Rd Durham Calvander e5tead Ry Estes O Recent BFuture Developments White Cross s4 Resldenuai Chapel Hill O N—Residential Carrboro 40 Estimated Sq Footage per Development Old Greensboro Rd Sot Ra �° tm zm 5m 100k 5DDk 5 E sat �i0 ■Economic Development District r Dets sou,e Drsnge court'.Ciym Net— '_�eeeeeeun.: N 0 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-7 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN EQUITY AND TRANSIT NEED Figure 9:Transit Need ---------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------r While total population and employment density are crucial to understanding transit demand, the demographics and �J socioeconomic characteristics of the population are also a key o6 component in identifying the need for transit services. Many a� oa population groups, often those historically and currently Srarand marginalized, rely on transit more than the general public. To plan transit equitably, transit agencies should focus their investments e Fa SCh/ay9a on areas with high populations of these communities. 0 5y (,rJ There are multiple ways to identify and measure equity needs for yqC $t MHOS Rd Lebanon Rd Metiarie� a low- 70 Q transit, and this report uses two distinct approaches: a Transit Pia Needs Index and Environmental Justice Communities of Concern. �,; �; ° a � l. Hillsborough. The Transit Needs Index looks at the population and density of �. key demographic groups, while the Environmental Justice analysis Mgt<,HQQa 1►' ��.� ° Q�5 f ! ► looks at percentages, leading to different areas of emphasis in Old NC Gyp+�l each analysis. In addition, the Environmental Justice analysis is as rPa ��Ol based on an existing dataset from the DCHC MPO and focuses a H9.064 r, �oQH`' 0`9 MNe'� ae "t Sinai By a , solely on Orange County, while the Transit Needs Index has a a 410 wider geographic focus and was calculated for the purpose of this _ ► �tQ <�� ° � Market Analysis. , EubaHksR�fir';�.aT� � i� stea�dt� V.�fjy t'✓•C 'L 1:'��l o �F ��,� b�<t Transit Needs Index srP ."1� OS i The Transit Needs Index measures the densityof socioeconomic \�' 4.chapel HMI 54 t d ; +�_i Transit Need Carr' t C—pos to dens tyof zero vehicle groups that would most benefit from improved transit services for households'minorities,lowerincoroe Old Greensboro Rd !`-•sm — , popalat on,older adults,and population fD Ra ems*" both fixed route and demand response. To calculate the index, with adisability� HHs"o ' census block groups are assigned a score of 1 to 5 for each of the Ned` "eed` N a °n1 col I g ----- --- ------- -- following groups, based on the relative density of that group in °"°s°"rtts:A°szosz5yearEst etas Orange County, and summed for a final composite score: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-8 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ■ Zero vehicle households Population with Limited-English Proficiency ■ Racial and ethnic minorities Fiqure 10: Environmental Justice Communities of Concern ■ People with low incomes (below federal poverty level) ■ Older adults (65+) 49 ■ People with disabilities A Error! Reference source not found. shows areas of high ¢� Cam V potential transit need, with darker colors indicating higher than Storego �' e average densities of multiple target populations. Areas with the O ee 3 highest transit need include most of Chapel Hill and parts of e V, sib/ay9 Carrboro, downtown and southern Hillsborough, and most of r O r Mebane. I�� Leb"on Rd St Mo MebalT■ .7 , 0 11� a r� Environmental Justice - � .... illsb�,ugh:� The DCHC MPO incorporates Environmental Justice (EJ) into all P �♦ �''� a aspects of its planning process, working to ensure the fair �t"°" -�.►Y.• rl treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income.' The MPO identifies ��o Qo wa/lis specific Environmental Justice Communities of Concern to target: oa9e Ne�� Mtsina;ga Aa Pa s� ■ Racial and Ethnic Minorities _ _3 — Black Population a Eubanks Rd — Hispanic Population a F51e VS People with Low Incomes (below Federal w Esraso ■ Peo Poverty fye. p Y Level) 'a EnvironmentalEnvironmental ,4 ■ Older Adults (65+) Justice Areas ��. 1 hapel Hill Areas of Overlaps 1 66 F ��Carrbb`yf,pfu► r� O Overlap �� `ti�� sot ■ Zero Vehicle Households Old Greensboro Rd 1Overlap *ems 20verlap Cs�e3C1 .j�a a ■30verlap 4+Overlap E Oata Sources:"S NCa0T 1020 -'----_- -------Q--- � ' https://www.dchcmpo.org/work-with-us/environmental-justice-ej Dasgap" "'°=" J ",e= Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-9 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN The environmental justice analysis identifies Communities of Trips between Eubanks and Chapel Hill stand out during Concern based on County thresholds for the percentage of the peak commute times certain socioeconomic groups within each area. These thresholds As shown Figure 12, Saturday travel flows are slightly more locally focus on percentage of a population, rather than density, contained than weekday, and lower overall, but follow similar highlighting the presence of environmental justice communities patterns to the weekday travel flows. Strong travel flows occur in the more rural areas of the county. between: As shown in Figure 10, Communities of Concern are located 0 Mebane and the tracts on the western edge of Orange throughout Orange County, especially in the northwest and east, County, including the communities of Buckhorn and as well as in the denser municipalities. While the rural areas may Efland not have the density to support fixed route transit services, there are still communities that may need access to public Northeast Orange County and Hillsborough transportation. ■ Downtown Hillsborough and surrounding communities Many of the existing transit services in Orange County, operated TRAVEL FLOWS by both OCTS and GoTriangle, only operate for parts of the day. As shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14, travel patterns during the Using data from Replica that models average daily traffic patterns morning peak and mid-afternoon on weekdays differ only slightly. of trips on all modes of transportation, the following maps show general flows of travel between census tracts in Spring 2023. During the morning peak, between 7 and 9 AM, travel patterns are mostly similar to the travel flows of the full day, with strong On an average weekday, the strongest travel flows were typically trip links within Chapel Hill and Hillsborough (Figure 13). Unlike within the municipalities, with weaker flows across longer full day travel patterns, there are some stronger long-distance distances (Figure 11). Key travel flows outside the municipalities connections, including Durham to Chapel Hill and Chatham include: County to Chapel Hill. Travel flows are slightly lower during the ■ Trips to the center of Hillsborough from surrounding midday period (Figure 14) than in the morning. Mebane to areas Buckhorn continue to see strong travel flows. Trips to and from ■ Thousands of trips occur each day from the communities Durham are concentrated more in the north of Chapel Hill, rather between Mebane and Hillsborough (such as Efland and than to and from UNC. Flows on the US 70 and 1-40 corridor Buckhorn) into Mebane and Hillsborough, where much of between Hillsborough and Mebane remain strong. the previously discussed developments are located Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-10 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 11: Weekday Trips,All Day Figure 12: Saturday Trips,All Day t5e PERSON t5B PERSON us na Qa Qa c sot o° sot ea orf0'tl Rtl ae c otfo,tl Rtl CASWELL m` CASWELL m S) 15] Helena Mo/aARtl Helena Mo ay Rtl ea ya a D 49 a 5] C 49 5] j 'store R j m'srora R tl sn sot tl 90 soi ne a hey ns �Qa h/v c�a �m 'Ba Rd F ae Rd NmNs het9s- 1,Burlington ]a Mebane s 1,qurlington ]o Mebane Graham 40 Hillsborough 70 Graham 4o Hillsborough 70 D U R.H.A.M D U,R.H.A.M C Be 85 ALAMAN'CE 40 B5 µpa AL.AMAN'CE Ma5 yea s4 ea c"mm s'' Qa c"am ORANGE .�� O'urham ORANGE ,Qa Our am 0 E Bay � E BBS 64 ✓ p em mG hapel Hill m 0A Chapel Hill m E'Gfee"aboro Chapel N111 Rd 4a E Gree"5bora Chapel H111 RO - 4p 'E Old Greensboro Rd L—` 41 \'E Old Greensboro Rd E �f 4 Qm Qa LyStra R ,� LYst e R Travel Patterns ° Morrisville Travel Patterns ° Morrisville WeRdays All Gay C HEAT H A M Saturdays an Gay C MIA T H A M Between Census Tracts 55 Between Census Tracts 55 500-1,000 °] I —500-1,000 e] Cary' 1,000-2,000 sm 560 WAKE 1,000-2,000 sol s4a WAKE 2,000-5,000 M 2,000-5,000 7 51000+ gy APyX 111111 5,000+ 84 A a% P Census Tracts ❑Census Tracts D.8.un,-Replica2M3 ° 25 Sniles • .plea o Rs SMlles n Data saufOas:R I zoz3 N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-11 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 13: Weekday Trips,AM Peak Figure 14:Weekday Trips, Mid-Afternoon lse PERSON Ise, PERSON ns na Qa Qa c *fo 86 so1 o so1 c °+f a.tl-Rtl B8 a�tl.Rtl CASWELL m CASWELL m Isr lsr Helena,Mori He/ena_Mo�a &ecl ay Rd b Ad Qa ea D F_O1 5a1 ns µpa e Rdi�, San/� V ns µfa a Rtl" 9a a 9a Burlington °° Mebane I Rd Burling on � Yo Mebane I Graham Hillsborough 70 Graham Hillsborough 70 L, 40 - D U.P.H.A.M 40 C r- r ss Bs A�L.AMAN'CE / \ \Q / ass d A�L.AMA N'CE e O�NIG E Ra \I Durham mQ 0 R A,NIG E as DyL/rh-.mm• �i n 86 .`l. x/ e^�a 96 i 5n1 1`\/`• / F Bay e and ' t Bay elm Chapel Hill i � m o'° - Chapel Hill i y"• m s,shoro Chapel HHI Rd 40 'E a aosaara Cha 1 Hlll Rd Gre Old Greensboro Rd ��' E r, I „��� 4i \'�Gre pa Old Greensboro Rd r1, i� �I l°-`�� a Qm ) Qa LYsta Rtl �' \ LYs(a Rtl Travel Patterns Morrisville Travel Patterns Morrisville Weekdays AM Peak(7-9a) C HEAT H A M Weekdays Midday(1-3p) CHEAT H A M Between Census Tracts 55 Between Census Tracts 55 50-150 B2 ( 50-150 ai Cary' r_150-300 son uo WA K'E r_150-300 so, 540 WAKE 300-500 M 300-500 S 500- s fi4 A 500+ p " ex APex Census Tracts Census Tracts 0a[e Sources:Replica 2a23 a 2S 5ni'es 0ara Sources:Replica 2021 0 2.5 a ,.r N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-12 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN ACTIVITY CENTERS Figure 15:Activity Centers PERSON Some activity centers generate additional demand for transit that O eo sm �+or are not captured by the previous density analyses. As shown in O �Rd CASWELL a Figure 15, major activity centers and points of interest in the 151 Orange County service area include: He/.,a,Ma„anRtl ■ Higher Education campuses, including UNC Chapel Hill -----------------------=------------- and Durham Technical Community College in Hillsborough cR 48 � ■ Government/Civic institutions, such as social services m'�rOra Ry 501 departments, town halls, and DMV locations O S` ■ Hospitals and Dialysis, including UNC Hospitals in B6 Rd Burlington ,�;® S Hat Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and multiple dialysis centers ,o -Me a ne ■ Recreation/Community centers, including parks, Graham o 7 Hillsborough °- DURHAM stadiums, senior centers, and recreation centers, such as ALAMANCE k�1—f 7 I a' the Passmore Center , oo rH Rd +e ORANGE ,Qa D�ulrham ■ Shopping destinations, including shopping centers such ° W DP as Patterson Place and Tanger Outlets, as well as a' ® © p 86 � x destinations like Walmart Supercenters ae5 boroC OOChapel•H ill Q ■ Transit facilities, including the Eubanks Park and Ride EGreeos napel HH1 Rd Old Oreensb—Rd " ® cq Many of these activity centers are clustered in more densely ----------------- - populated areas, such as downtown Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, Major Activity Center: - `ys''a Re Morrisville or along key travel corridors. However, with the distributed rural Higher Edacation CHATHAM Government/Civic ss population of Orange County, residents often need to travel Medical ar Cary longer distances from less dense areas to the areas of more Recreation/Community fiol s4o WAKE Shopping concentrated activity to access healthcare, grocery stores, and ®Transit 64 Apex Orange County Public Transit Routes O social services. palasogr>,°yacoanrywmi,, it o :.5 N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3-13 Existing Conditions ORANGE E TRANSIT OUNT PLAN 4 EXISTING SERVICE ASSESSMENT The Existing Service Assessment looks at the The Orange-Chapel Hill Connector runs between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill during the middle of the day current state of transportation services when Chapel Hill Transit's Route 420 is not running. There offered by OCTS, identifying trends in service could be opportunities to improve efficiency by ensuring delivery and usage. there is no duplicate service. ■ OCTS's on-demand service is underutilized, possibly due This analysis consists of two key components, a System Overview, to the rider registration process and lack of information which explores OCTS's services as a holistic network, and Service available directly on OCTS's website. Profiles, which delves deeper into each individual service offered by OCTS. SYSTEM OVERVIEW Some key takeaways from the existing service assessment are: ■ OCTS offers service in the form of three fixed routes— Services Available Hillsborough Circulator, Orange-Alamance Connector, and Orange-Chapel Hill Connector—and demand OCTS operates the following services: response. ■ Three fixed routes: Hillsborough Circulator, Orange- ■ Ridership on OCTS's fixed route and demand response Alamance Connector, Orange-Chapel Hill Connector services has not recovered from the decrease due to the ■ Rural Demand Response Service COVID-19 pandemic. E Mobility on Demand microtransit service ■ The Hillsborough Circulator is OCTS's highest performing ■ ADA Complementary Paratransit fixed route. Utilizing only one vehicle, the route runs hourly as that is the time it takes for the vehicle to Each OCTS route and service has different hours of operation, complete the loop, ultimately resulting in the route though all fixed route buses are scheduled to operate hourly frequently running late. throughout their service period. Figure 16 depicts the service span and frequency for the three fixed route services as well as the two ■ The Orange-Alamance connector is currently partially demand response service types. suspended and covered by demand response service. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-1 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 16: OCTS Service Span and Frequency Service Performance Weekday Hillsborough Circulator Ridership on OCTS's demand response services declined Orange-Alamance Connector Orange-Chapel Hill Connector significantly in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ROAP Demand Response continued to decline in 2021. Fixed route ridership did not see the MobiliryOnDemand same steep decline in 2020 but decreased in 2018 and again in Saturday6A 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6P 7 8 9 2021 (Figure 20). Mobility On Demand The pandemic and resulting changes to commute patterns, paired Frequency with vehicle and driver shortage challenges at the agency, have Hourly led to significant on-the-ground changes to the services being Demand Response offered in recent years. These changes include route suspensions Demand Response and service hour changes, often without significant advertisement (Fridays only) to the public. These challenges and changes make exact comparisons over time difficult on the level of an individual route or service. Figure 17:Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips by Service Type 60,000 Neighboring Transit Services 50,000 Along with OCTS, three other transit agencies operate bus routes 40,000 in Orange County: Piedmont Authority for Regional 30,000 Transportation (PART), GoTriangle, and Chapel Hill Transit. OCTS also operates in neighboring Alamance County, which is served 20,000 primarily by Alamance County Transportation Authority (ACTA) 10,000 and Link Transit. o PART operates transit service in the counties to the west of 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Orange and runs one route that extends into Orange County. --*—Fixed Route Demand Response PART Route 4 offers service from UNC Chapel Hill to Mebane Cone Health Park and Ride, and to Graham, Burlington, and Source: FTA NTD Greensboro. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-2 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN GoTriangle serves Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties with six OCTS serves the Mebane Cone Health Park-and-Ride and the all-week and all-day routes, four peak-only routes on weekdays, Durham Tech OCC Park-and-Ride on the Orange-Alamance and 7 regional express routes that run during peak hours all week. Connector, and the Durham Tech OCC Park-and-Ride by the Two routes serve similar corridors to OCTS routes: the ODX and Orange-Chapel Hill Connector. the 420. The ODX is an express route that serves Hillsborough, Figure 18 Durham Tech OCC Park-and-Ride Bus Stop Efland, Mebane, and Durham during mornings and evenings. Thisx ; route runs hourly at peak times, with three trips in the morning h �� and three in the afternoon. Route 420 is a peak-only regionals route that runs from UNC Chapel Hill to Hillsborough. '; Chapel Hill Transit is a fare-free radial transit service based around the UNC Chapel Hill campus. Chapel Hill Transit operates 20 fixed routes, 9 of which operate all week and the other 11 operate on weekdays only. These routes facilitate local travel within Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Transit Amenities and Facilities -= k OCTS's bus stop amenities vary based on the size of the bus stop and nearby amenities. Working with GoTriangle, the two transit providers have made stop improvements in Orange County and the greater region. GoTriangle actively updates their Stop Improvement Map on their website with completed and in- progress bus stop amenity improvements. Shelters vary in size depending on the location, with larger shelters typically being placed at the end-of-line and park-and- rides and smaller shelters being placed at high volume ridership locations mid-route where space allows. The style of bench can also vary, with larger benches being placed inside of or nearby shelters and smaller seats located on the bus stop pole. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-3 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN SERVICE PROFILES Figure 19: OCTS and Regional Fixed Route Bus Service Fixed Route F 51 49 07 OCTS provides both regional and local service with its fixed route o- buses, shown in Figure 19. The Hillsborough Circulator is a local c�lSfore Ra �yo tet route serving key destinations in Hillsborough. Two regional tta es 3� connector routes, the Orange-Alamance Connector and the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector, connect Hillsborough with other T regional destinations and fill a midday gap for peak-only 51 Vr GoTriangle bus routes, with additional local service stops. Lebanon Rd 3 Fares are charged for the two connector routes, at a cost of $2.00 Mebane 2 _ to for the general public, $1.00 for students between ages 6 and 17, Hillsborough' and free for seniors (older than 60), children (younger than 5), persons with disabilities (ADA certified from OCTS or another transit agency). Fares must be paid using UMO Pass or a Old NC,G Passenger ID card. Cash is not an option for fare payment on OCTS routes. The Hillsborough Circulator is free to ride. Ne °� o'a r o Mt slnai Ra Analysis focuses on data from October 2019 and October 2023 503 where available, but technological and operational difficulties ,Ftlbaoka Rd`s were limiting factors to the robustness of the ridership and trip data. On-time performance is only available as an estimate for the Hillsborough Circulator, and there is limited recent ridership data for the Connector routes. Improving data collection would `chapel Hill Car rboro support a more robust analysis in future studies. a"$R°"`eg'"oringeulator "nty ° �Hillsborough Circulator Old Greensboro Rd Orange-Chapel HillCannector Orange-Alarrance Connector at'i m w/ GoTriangle Routes °es� /Ce ' Chapel Hill Transit Routes h-------------- Cb� PART Roues ------ --- Os[a Sourrea:Orange County Pubric Tranan, N Remlx,Mapbox Q o t x nnn Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-4 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Hillsborough Circulator Figure 21: Hillsborough Circulator Boardings Route Description f The Hillsborough Circulator is a one-way loop that serves major destinations in the town of Hillsborough, operating hourly Monday through Friday from 7 am to 5 pm. The route operates m with one vehicle, taking one hour to complete each loop. No fare St °a r�0ene-lus 0 5`Na is charged to ride the Hillsborough Circulator. J 9 .. .. Sa°`�at9s Route Performance Latimer St 1 WTryon St i `W.Ninq.S:t Ridership on the circulator has recovered to approximately 78% Hillsborough 70 of pre-pandemic levels, with 1,042 boardings in October 2023 compared to 1,342 boardings in October 2019. As seen in Figure 20, boardings in 2023 are more evenly distributed throughout the day, with higher activity in the midday, compared to a previous AM and afternoon peak in 2019. a5 Figure 20:Average Daily Boardings by Hour, October �i Qa es 12 r� o 10 "y 8 40 Z 6 Hillsborough Circulator Boardings f_`k 4 ootnbar 2023 s!o Or 2 Ac�ivitY >cl9vilY 0 r_HiIlsEorou9Circublor Oeta Sources:Orange CounryPu°licironsit 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 o .1 o°H,IK N AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM ■2019 ■2023 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-5 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 21 shows where boardings are concentrated along the Orange-Alamance Connector Hillsborough Circulator. High ridership areas include: ■ Large apartment complexes, including Gateway Village Route Description and Coachwood apartments on Cheshire Drive and Eno The Orange-Alamance Connector is a fixed-route service that Haven Apartments connected activity centers in Hillsborough, Efland, and Mebane ■ Key shopping destinations, including the Hillsborough during the weekday midday period when the peak-only Walmart and Rebecca Drive Food Lion GoTriangle Orange-Durham Express (ODX) is not operating. Due ■ Triangle Sportsplex and Passmore Center to low ridership, the route is currently operating as an on-demand There are distributed hoardings along the downtown portions of service, where riders would call the County to receive a ride along the route, and some limited ridership at other key stops. At key the fixed alignment. When in full operation, the Orange-Alamance timepoint stops, 16% of trips arrived more than 5 minutes after Connector ran bi-directional hourly service between 10 AM and 3 their scheduled times. PM Monday to Friday. Figure 22: Orange-Alamance Connector Boardings, October 2023 Opportunities The Hillsborough Circulator connects the denser downtown s =� environment, apartment complexes, and major shopping , destinations, but operates in a challenging built environment _ W ORANGE outside of these main destinations. Ensuring the route takes the Eflantl-CheeNs commauy cancer l gaammge most direct path possible to the key ridership areas is essential in Mebane u Efl-d b improving reliability and on-time performance. Return trips are ; Mebanetnne ° Hillsborough NealtM1 Par Nd. made less direct by the nature of a one-way loop, especially when > i Hillsborough the route operates only hourly. A counter-loop with expanded p ALAMANCE a �4 service hours is planned for the upcoming fiscal year, providing shorter travel times and more flexibility. 41 o�aee toerZBwrtllrvga O Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-6 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Route Performance Orange-Chapel Hill Connector The Orange-Alamance Connector was the lowest performing OCTS fixed-route service pre-pandemic, with 45 total boardings in Route Description October 2019. In October 2023, operating as an on-demand The Orange-Chapel Hill Midday Connector (OCH), also known as service, 16 trips were attributed to the Orange-Alamance the "Hill to Hill", connects Hillsborough and Chapel Hill during the Connector. As shown in Figure 22, all but two of those boardings weekday AM peak and the midday period when the peak-only were at the Efland-Cheeks Community Center. GoTriangle Route 420 is not operating. The OCH operates along Hwy 86, serving downtown Hillsborough, UNC Hospital Opportunities Hillsborough Campus and Durham Tech Community College, The Orange-Alamance Connector has limited service hours, Eubanks Park and Ride, and key destinations in Chapel Hill, as well operating outside of core travel times, with potentially confusing as additional local stops. The route operates Monday to Friday differences from the peak-period service offered by the from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. GoTriangle ODX. While the route is not operating on the ground, the OCTS website does not show it as suspended or replaced by Route Performance demand response. Midday service along this corridor may be Due to data collection complications, accurate October 2023 better served by demand response or microtransit service, ridership information is not available for the OCH, so the analysis integrating the trips into the already existing alternatives and looks at February data from 2020 and 2024. In February 2024, better advertising the service to the public. there were 243 boardings for the route total, compared to 546 Mebane is a growing area with strong pockets of density that may boardings in February 2020. 64% of the recent boardings be supportive of fixed route transit service, but even when the occurred on southbound trips, and northbound trips were more Orange-Alamance Connector is fully operational, there is limited common in the late morning to early afternoon, whereas bus service available locally. southbound trips were distributed evenly across the day. Figure 23 shows the distribution of average daily boardings by hour for the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector for February 2020 and February 2024. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-7 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Figure 23:Average Daily Boardings by Hour, February Figure 24: Orange-Chapel Hill Connector Boardings, February 2024 12 O 10 5 H"ci 8 �l Q Hillsborough 111 6 4 ae 2 W .a oe 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 o'^°ell AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM �Q ■2020 ■2024 ORANGE H,slaal as As seen in Figure 24, boardings are most common at UNC Chapel Hill, in downtown Hillsborough, and at UNC Hospital Hillsborough Eubanks Eubanks µd Campus, with low ridership along the rest of the route. Opportunities Namasep °B The Orange-Chapel Hill Connector serves to fill the midday , ` OORHAN Crane chapol Hill Connector BoaMings Chapel Hill service gap of Route 420 as well as provide service to local stops fear°y2024 s\ Ef\e^ during the AM period while the 420 is operating. Given the „";n °"r"°r° aaa,pbRe imbalance in northbound and southbound boardings, it is likely that riders are taking the OCH in one direction and the 420 in the other. Strong coordination between OCTS and GoTriangle is essential in serving those riders, as well as potential riders who may not know that is an available option. Identifying if there are unnecessary or duplicative trips between the OCH and 420 would also streamline service and potentially save money for either agency. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-8 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTNNGGE E CROUNLANN Demand Response & M icrotransit Figure 25: Orange County Public Transit Options Along with the paratransit provided within 3/4 mile of fixed route Public Transit in Orange County, NC service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, OCTS START HERE: Need some help? Call the Dept. on Aging's provides two types of non-fixed route service: program-based Transportation Helpline at 919-717-1853 Do you need a ride rural demand response service and a publicly available within the next microtransit service called e Oran Count Mobilityon Demand 7days? g Y Is there a bus (MOD). Both service types operate throughout all of Orange stop 3/4ofa No Yes No ----------------------------- mile from where ------------- County, and serve key destinations in Mebane and Durham. In you live? addition, both Chapel Hill Transit and GoTriangle operate MOD Do you have a disability? Yes Are you 60 paratransit services within their respective service areas: EZ Rider Fixed Routes or older? and GoACCESS. A guide to the different service types from the _Yes No Are you60 i Orange Count Department of Aging is shown in Figure 25. The Do you live in or older? Yes g Y p g g g Town of Chapel No following sections will detail the programs under rural demand Hill erc°rrb°`°? No Yes No response as well as the MOD program. Do you live in MOD Yes the town of EDTAP MOD Customers typically use these services roundtrip. Orange County Hillsborough? MOD RGP Fixed Routes records trips separately for each direction. For mapping purposes, Do you live within EDTAP MOD triporigins are defined as residential locations or the starting3/4ofamilofrom Yes Fixed Routes GoTriangle point of a trip between two non-residential locations. Trip aooeraoo? MOD Do you live in Orange County but destinations are defined as non-residential locations or the end Fixed Routes outside the town limits of Chapel point of a trip between two non-residential locations. Yes No OCPTADA Hill,Carrboro,orHillsborough? MOD MOD No Fixed Routes Fixed Routes Yes EZ Rider EZ Rider GoACCESS MOD EdTap Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-9 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Rural Demand Response • Transport to work or training for DSS clients transitioned off TANF or Work First within 12 months, Workforce Service Description Development Program participants, "disadvantaged public" and or general public. Rural Demand Response service in Orange County consists of ■ Job interviews,job fairs,job readiness activities/training, multiple disparate programs that provide door-to-door service GED classes, transportation to work (scheduled by based on location and eligibility: the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program (EDTAP), the Employment passenger), Transportation Assistance Program (EMPL), the Department of • Children of working parent transported to child care. Social Services Work First Program (DSS), and Rural General RGP services are available to any member of the public, and are Public (RGP). These services are marketed to the public based on advertised on the OCTS website, but no trips were taken via that eligibility, not grouped together by funding as they are for the program during the study period. purposes of this analysis. Service Performance Demand Response service is available Monday through Friday from 7 AM until 5 PM, and trips must be booked two days in In October 2023, OCTS provided 1,502 completed demand advance by 5 PM. Trip funding is based on the eligibility of the response trips through the project categories. EDTAP funded rider and trip purpose. EDTAP-eligible riders include Orange 1,035 of those trips, DSS was the funding source for 456 trips, and County elderly (60+) or disabled residents travelling for the EMPL funded 11 trips. Due to the nature of eligibility-based following eligible trip purposes: services, each trip's purpose is recorded, and Figure 26 shows the number of trips taken for each eligible purpose, broken down by ■ Job interviews,job fairs,job readiness activities/training, funding source. GED classes, transportation to work, Group field trips/ tours to community special events ■ Human Services agency appointments, public hearings, committee meetings ■ Medical appointments, pharmacy pick-ups, shopping, personal care, banking etc. The Employment Transportation Assistance Program (EMPL) and DSS Work First Program provide trips for the following purposes: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-10 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TT RANGGE E TROUNLANN Figure 26: Demand Response Trips by Purpose,October 2023 Demand Response trips in October 2023, with larger dots 600 553 indicating more trips to or from that location. Demand Response riders tend to travel from disparate home locations in less dense 500 areas to concentrated destinations in the municipalities, in 400 364 particular: 300 260 ■EMPL • Carolina Dialysis, in Carrboro and Mebane 200 145 92 ■DSS ■ Hillsborough Recovery Solutions 100 ' ' 43 38 4 2 1 ■EDTAP Passmore Senior Center o ■ Downtown Hillsborough e�`Ua\ �e�� 36% of Demand Response trips picked u their passengers within Qa� a�.o �\.� �a Qra� p p p P P g 10 minutes of the scheduled pick-up time. Opportunities Figure 27: Demand Response Average Daily Trips Per Hour,October 2023 Demand Response services are fragmented, with multiple funding 16 sources and different flows of customer information. It can be 14 hard, especially for new riders, to identify which service they may 12 be eligible for, where each one operates, or how to book a trip. 10 The website, Rider's Guide PDF, and backend data do not all 8 match, and this could discourage potential users. This also 6 complicates funding and reimbursement, in particular for 4 Medicaid-eligible trips. 2 0 I ' _ For current users, Demand Response services are not consistently 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 11 12 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM on time, and require significant advance notice, lowering their AM AM PM convenience compared to traditional fixed-route transit or other transportation options. Improving response time and on-time Figure 27 shows the average daily Demand Response trips per performance could attract new users as well as improve the hour, with clear peaks in demand from 8 to 10 AM and from 3 to experience of current riders. 4 PM. Figure 28 shows the home and destination locations of all Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-11 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR SHORTGE RANGE TROUNLANN Figure 28: ROAP Demand Response Trips,October 2023 --------------------------------------------r ,6 • store qd c`o O ne • • fis 3= e Pa • •• • •ch/ey9a ce � • c cr0 n' I' Lebanon Rd o • 5�oc 9\Mat`ls Rd 3 Mebane• $ •, • • • �► � �/ •� :• Hillsborough m 0A • 4� Av�a • � a`0 es • �• • Old NC 10 • m • O e0a • r"`c� /YCo� 0 fit° oQ Ewa/%Is • `• o. m Ne'd� •o` 9a O o0 it Sinai qao, �Qa wt O = • ��� o Q Eubaoks Rd �• n o •• Festeat� ��' • f Bfi Esto so.0 • 0 sc Demand Reponse Travel Flows Chapel Hill ootoberzoza •Origin Location Carrboro •� ', tia •Destination Location • IW Old Greensboro Rd sat Total Riders per Location est`1 • v � . es C 5 10 25 50 _ J e • {{� d ' ______________ E �•�C Data so...s:0.an9ecoantrpatamT it o 0 1 214„a. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-12 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Mobility on Demand Figure 29: MOD Service Area ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Service Description o Orange County MOD (Mobility On Demand) is an on-demand microtransit service available to the general public within Orange County and with service extending to Mebane and downtown a'`SereRa CZ= O Durham. MOD service operates Monday to Thursday 8 am — 5 U 3 pm, Fridays 8 am —9 pm, and Saturdays from 9 am— 5 pm. Trip e Rb sch/y9a fares are $5 per zone travelled through, with the zones and , service area shown in Figure 29. c aC and Ij Lebanon Rd 3�`o StN Mebane o Service Performance o ' Hillsborough In October 2023, service was available on weekdays only, and 29 5,3 trips were completed with an average of fewer than 2 trips per 7 day. Trips were most commonly taken during the AM peak and at O a °'° noon (Figure 30). P eQa « �co ¢G`o 4J �Wdlliy. a a�9 Ne'eP e '9v Due to the limited number of home locations, only destinations H Sna/Rtl -Q6 O are shown in the ridership map in (Figure 31). The Seymour _ �t £�) 5 Euba�Ks Rd Center on Homestead Road was the most popular MOD destination. 52% of MOD trips complete their pick-up within 10 o a F51eddaa O minutes of the scheduled pick-up time. Es'eso, Chapel Hill Carrboro Q Old Greensboro Rd Q Rb �a is9 � Demand Responseand ,ocaaFz s a Mobility-On-Demand ' h Service Areas ---w �o Coioso"m:0-,,Co-,Nblmw—a e o i e ko Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-13 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure 30:All Trips by Hour,October 2023 Figure 31: Mobility On Demand Destinations,October 2023 ----------- 12 10 5, 8 06 4 6 r Car 4 Store Rtl in 4 0 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM Lebanon Rd `r'm St�aNs Rd 3 Mebane a Opportunities Orange County MOD is significantly underused, given the Hillsborough as m potential demand within the service area. Much of Orange County is not suited to fixed-route transit, and demand response service Old NC 10 requires longer waiting periods and can face eligibility constraints. There is not currently a service area map available on the OCTS website for MOD—a potential rider must first register online or a o C7 Mt Sina;Rtl via app with a third party to see the full extent of service offered through MOD, which adds an unnecessary barrier to ride. Cost , EubaO's Rd and payment may also pose barriers to potential riders compared a °steadRy to the more subsidized Rural Demand Response services and the Estas technology requirements for booking and payment. Identifying O Chapel Hill O other barriers to use through public engagement will help shape Carrboro Mobility-On-Demand 4° the advertising and service characteristics of MOD to ensure that October Degtina0l°ns Old Greensboro Rd 501 2023 Ra ea � m the funding is being put to the best use for Orange County. Total Riders per Location °sEe`, e 916101. ---------- ---------------------- ---- y h4 °ata so°roe::Orange coumy r°n°on°°°a ° i N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4-14 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN 5 TRANSIT FUNDING Funding drives the amount of transit service EXPENSES AND REVENUES and capital projects Orange County can provide its residents, workers, and visitors. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, OCTS spent approximately $2.3 million on all its expenses, for both fixed route and demand response This chapter review OCTS's annual expenses and revenues, services (Figure 32). Partly due to inflation, expenses in FY2023 including a look at the agency's current federal, state, and local totaled approximately $3.7 million. For both years, personnel funding mechanisms. It also begins to explore other potential costs were highest, followed by operating costs. Capital purchases funding sources for future transit improvements. Key takeaways made up the smallest proportion of the total expenses. include: As shown in Figure 33, OCTS made approximately $2.2 million in ■ OCTS's expenses exceed revenues, creating a funding gap revenues in FY2022 and $2.5 million in FY2023. About 13% of that makes it difficult to provide needed transit services. revenues came from the federal government, with a mix of 5307 ■ OCTS utilizes federal, state, and local funding sources. and 5311 funds. Just under 10% came from North Carolina's Rural Over 75% of funds come from local sources, including the Operating Assistance Program (ROAP). Over 75% of funds came Orange County Transit Tax and other county funds. from local sources, including Orange County government funds, ■ There are other federal, state, and local funds that OCTS Orange County Transit Plan transit tax reimbursements, fares, and can utilize to increase its revenues. charges for services. Fares made up about 1% of OCTS revenues. Figure 32: FY2022 and FY2023 OCTS Expenses FY2022 FY2023 CategoryDemand Response Fixed Route TotalDemand Response Fixed Route Total Administrative $186,733 $80,028 $266,761 $338,612 $207,789 $546,401 Operating $591,229 $253,384 $844,613 $944,214 $513,389 $1,457,603 Capital $4,766 $2,042 $6,808 $0 $192,434 $192,434 Personnel $978,338 $244,585 $1,222,923 $1,184,426 $296,106 $1,480,532 Total Expenses $1,761,066 $335,454 $2,341,105 $1,282,826 $913,612 $3,676,970 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5-1 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TTRRANGGE E TROUNLANN Figure 33: FY2022 and FY2023 OCTS Revenues FY2022 FY2023 Source Amount %of Total Amount %of Total Federal 5307 Urbanized Area Formula $133,787 6.17% $141,102 5.60% 5311 CTP Funds $154,976 7.14% $184,580 7.33% Federal Total $288,763 13.31% $325,682 12.94% State ROAP Funds $197,845 9.12% $211,284 8.39% State Total $197,845 9.12% $211,284 8.39% Local Transit Tax* $765,987 35.31% $948,482 37.68% Local Government Funds $767,112 35.37% $952,896 37.85% Fares $12,419 0.74% $27,610 1.39% Charge for Services $136,888 6.31% $51,493 2.05% Local Total $1,682,406 77.57% $1,980,481 78.67% Total Revenue 2169 014 2 517 447 *Note:The Orange County Transit Tax is a reimbursement of Local Government Funds and does not include funds set aside for the Transit Plan Update process. state, and local levels. This list builds upon work completed FUNDING SOURCES through the BGMPO Regional Transit Feasibility Study. OCTS's annual expenses exceed its revenues, and additional investments are needed to fulfill the level of transit need Federal Sources identified in Orange County. To increase its revenues, OCTS can work to fully utilize existing funding sources, including the Orange Section 5307 County Transit Tax, and tap into new ones. The following is a non- Section 5307 is FTA's Urbanized Area Formula Program. These exhaustive list of the funding sources available at the federal, funds are available for transit agencies that operate within a Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN census-designated urbanized area. Section 5307 funds can be The federal share is not to exceed 80 percent of the net project used towards up to 80% of capital costs and 50% of operating cost. costs. These funds are distributed through MPOs with a set allowance per transit agency. Carbon Reduction Program The Carbon Reduction Program is a new funding source through Section 5310 the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Funds are administered through Section 5310 is formula funding targeted towards transportation the NCDOT. The program provides funds for projects that reduce needs of older adults and people with disabilities. The federal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the transportation sector. share is up to 80%for capital projects and 50% for operating assistance. Example uses of eligible Section 5310-funded activities Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality include the purchase of buses and vans, wheelchair lifts and The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement ramps, mobility management programs, travel training and Program is a long-standing source of grant funding for transit-related information technology systems, including transportation programs that reduce air pollution and vehicle scheduling, routing, and one-call systems. Section 5310 funds are miles travelled. It is often used by transit agencies for upfront reserved for agencies with locally coordinated human service capital costs, like the acquisition of on-demand vehicles. plans. Section 5311 State Sources Section 5311 is a formula grant program for rural areas, providing Rural Operating Assistance Program capital, planning, and operating assistance. The federal share is up to 80% for capital projects, 50% for operating assistance and 80% The Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) is a state-funded for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) non-fixed route public transportation program administered by the North paratransit service. Carolina DOT'S Integrated Mobility Division. Formula-based programs that fall under ROAP include: Section 5339 ■ Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program Section 5339 is FTA's Bus and Bus Facilities Program. This (EDTAP) program funds replacement, rehabilitation and purchase of buses ■ Employment and Transportation Assistance Program and related equipment, and construction of bus-related facilities. (EMPL) ■ Rural General Public Program (RGP) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN A local match is not required for EDTAP and EMPL, but a in 2022, with funding for MOD and other transit services in minimum 10% local match is required for RGP. ROAP funds can Orange County. also be used to leverage FTA Section 5310 and 5311 funds. The Plan is funded through a series of Orange County taxes and State Maintenance Assistance Program fees approved by voters: The State Maintenance Assistance Program (SMAP) provides state ■ Half-Cent Sales and Use Tax funds designed to assist urban, small urban, and regional transit ■ 5% Vehicle Rental Tax service providers with funding the non-federal share of ■ $3 increase to the GoTriangle Regional Vehicle operational expenses. Funds are allocated annually through a Registration Fee formula. Funds can be used only for FTA Section 5307-eligible ■ $7 County Vehicle Registration Fee operating costs and cannot exceed the amount of the local fund match. Medicaid Transportation Non-emergency medical transportation provided by OCTS is Transportation Demand Management funded by Orange County's Department of Social Services, which Public organizations responsible for the promotion of gets reimbursed from the state's Medicaid program. North Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities may apply Carolina expanded access to Medicaid in December 2023, so for matching funds for strategies that promote the use of OCTS may be able to provide more medical trips soon. transportation options other than single-occupancy vehicles. The program funds up to 50% of the total expenses associated with Fares TDM programs, including the creation of a new TDM Plan for an OCTS charges a variety of fares for its services. For fixed routes, agency. the Hillsborough Connector is free of charge, while the Orange- Alamance Connector and the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector are Local Sources $2 for the general public. Demand response services range from fare-free to $12.75, depending on eligibility and type of service. Orange County Transit Plan The Mobility on Demand service is $5 one way. Changes to the Originally adopted in 2012 as the Bus and Rail Investment Plan, fare structure can influence the funding available for transit the Orange County Transit Plan was updated in 2017 and service in Orange County, though fares are a small piece of total provides for funding to OCTS, GoTriangle, and Chapel Hill Transit revenue. for improvements to transit services. The Plan was updated again Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 5-3 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 6 OPPORTUNITIES OCTS serves essential transportation needs in Hillsborough and rural Orange County through a patchwork of fixed route, rural Improve Existing Services demand response, and MOD services, coordinated with multiple transit and human services agencies throughout the region, and Invest in Demand Response outside of main towns and connects rural residents to all urban areas in and around the corridors county. The SRTP will build upon the identified gaps and • Strengthen the Hillsborough Circulator, focusing on on- opportunities when recommending improvements to time performance, travel time, and service hours transportation in Orange County. ■ Improve performance by expanding the fleet and Based upon the findings of the Existing Conditions report, OCTS continuing to recruit operators. can continue to improve transportation and grow alongside the Explore New Service Opportunities communities of Orange County by focusing on making it easier to ■ Explore options for free and low-cost service to grocery ride existing services, making it easier to pay for transportation, stores, social services, and senior centers improving the operations of existing services, exploring the 0 Increased access to employment opportunities, including development of new services, and better leveraging currently non-traditional work hours available funding. Key opportunities under each of these improvement categories include: Invest in a Mebane circulator in partnership with other transit providers Make Services Easier to Use ■ Identify potential capital improvements to improve speed ■ Communicate with the public about available services, and reliability, such as transit emphasis corridors. including better advertising for all services, particularly MOD, and clarifying the on-demand status of the Orange- Better Leverage Available Funding Alamance Connector ■ Balance available resources to favor more productive and ■ Invest in better bus stop amenities needed services ■ Improve pedestrian and bike access to transit ■ Ensure Medicaid-eligible trips are being reimbursed to the fullest extent possible ■ Coordinate services with regional providers, including GoTriangle, Chapel Hill Transit, PART, ACTA, and Link ' Explore ways to leverage additional transit tax and federal Transit dollars Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 6-1 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TT RR NGGE E TROUNLANN Improve Fare Payment ■ Streamline fare payment methodology across services ■ Explore possibility of subsidized passes for MOD These findings will be supplemented by robust public outreach to understand what current and potential riders want most from OCTS, and integrated into proposals for further review at a later stage of the SRTP. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 6-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN APPENDIX A REVIEW OF PAST PLANS Reviewing past plans and projects sets the stage for the existing ■ Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning conditions analysis by providing a baseline and history of Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation projects, changes, and future visions. The project team reviewed Plan (2017) plans and projects relevant to transit in Orange County and the ■ City of Mebane Comprehensive Transportation Plan surrounding region, including transit plans, climate plans, funding (2021) studies, and multimodal transportation plans. The plans reviewed The review of each plan focused on both transit-based elements are listed below. such as routes, services, and corridors that have been identified ■ Orange County Transit Plan (2017) and Update (2022) for transit investments, along with higher level elements, such as ■ Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization funding and county-wide goals. A summary of each plan is as (BGMPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2022) follows. ■ BGMPO 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2020) ■ BGMPO Regional Transit Feasibility Study (2024) Orange County Transit Plan ■ Orange County Climate Action Plan (2023) Update (2022) ■ Connect 2050: The Research Triangle Region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (2022) The Orange County Transit Plan Update (2022) allocates transit ■ Orange County's Complete Streets and Vision Zero tax district revenues for the next 20 years based on community Policies (2022) needs, values, and priorities, and includes both previously programmed and new projects. The Orange County transit tax is ■ Orange County Transportation Services Title VI Plan 1/2-cent sales tax that is also collected during vehicle rentals and (2022) registration. In 2022, revenues for this tax were nearly $9M. These ■ Orange County Transportation Services ADA Paratransit revenues go towards Orange County Public Transportation, Plan (2022) Chapel Hill Transit, and GoTriangle, along with funding ■ GoTriangle Short Range Transit Plan (2023) infrastructure-related transit improvements. ■ Chapel Hill Short Range Transit Plan (2020) The plan's goals and values include promoting greater quality of life through facilitating travel in the region, easing access to the Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-1 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TT RR NGGE E TROUNLANN region's wealth of colleges and universities, and ensuring transit — Improvements to the Hillsborough Circulator, service for as many residents as reasonably possible. including expanded hours and a counter-direction Relevant Findings: loop ■ The 2012 Interlocal Agreement for Orange County — Hillsborough-Durham Midday Connector distributes transit tax revenues to the three transit — New peak-only fixed route services: a Cedar Grove agencies: 64% for Chapel Hill Transit, 24%for GoTriangle, Peak Connector and a White Cross Commuter Service and 12%for Orange County Public Transportation — Transit amenities in Hillsborough, including a new ■ Transit tax revenues make up 34% of OCPT's budget, transit center and park and ride facility compared to 13% for CHT and 4% for GoTriangle. ■ Mobility On-Demand Service Expansion is funded through transit tax revenues. The expansion is slated to be completed in two phases-2022 and 2024—and will cost approximately 1.1 M to complete. ■ In addition to the On-Demand Service Expansion, transit tax revenues have been slated to fund projects from the 2012 or 2017 Orange County Transit Plans. For OCPT, these projects are 15 OCPT bus stop signs, Hillsborough Park-and-Ride, AVL, and Planning for the new OCPT Transit Plan. ■ The revenue generated by the transit tax district is not enough to fund all projects, so OCPT has a list of seven identified 'unfunded priorities'. These are identified in the case of additional funding becoming available so that there is already a list of potential uses for such funds. OCPT's unfunded priorities do not include cost estimates. — Vanpool Subsidy Program Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-2 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Figure A: OCPT MOD Project Sheet Figure B: OCPT MOD Service Area projects. obili 0n-Demand service . rovides a critical on-demand Lervice tion for residents who e nearfixed-route transit SERVICE IMPROVEMENT reas shaded in orange) ORANGE COUNTYPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION q0 36-60— 0 25m1 5mi ®• P"kon OCPT's Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) service provides life-line service in difficult to serve locations currently lacking transit options. Route:Orange County Public Transportation MOD The Mobility-On-Demand service provides a critical on-demand is Improvements:Two(2)phases extending service hours transit option for Orange County residents living in areas That and coverage lack fixed-route transit service. - This projects expands the days _ Description: and hours when this affordable Phase 1:Expand hours of service and coverage area; transportation option is available Phase 2:Improve coverage area,expand hours and for ALL residents of Orange days of service County in two phases. Cost:$438,741(Phase 1)increasing to$650,588 (Phase 2) Net New Revenue Hours:4,400 Implementation Year.2024(Phase 1),2026(Phase 2) e core values. Equity:Provides transit service in locations that currently have little to no service,including lower income.rural communities. •� U�10 _ Ii Q option for all. of Orange County. m Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-3 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Burlington-Graham M PO transit services in areas that either lack transit services today or would benefit from improvements to existing services. (BGMPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2022) BGMPO Metropolitan BGMPO's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is the MPO's long- Transportation Plan 2045 (2020) range plan that identifies major transportation needs and The BGMPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2045 is the solutions through 2050. The recommendations in this plan are not region's transportation plan, which consists of the cities and funded or fiscally constrained, unlike other regional towns of Burlington, Graham, Mebane, Elon, Gibsonville, Green comprehensive plans. The plan includes recommendations for Level, Haw River, Whitsett, Alamance, and the counties of transit infrastructure and service improvements for the Burlington, Alamance and parts of Guilford and Orange. This plan identifies Graham, and Mebane areas, with a few recommendations for the region's transportation needs over the next twenty years. Orange County. The relevant recommendations consist of: Relevant OCPT Findings: ■ A Mebane Connector, which would cover the City of The Alamance County Transportation Authority (ACTA) Mebane and connect to the proposed Mebane - recommended two fixed routes for Mebane: the Mebane Hillsborough Commuter Rail via the Downtown Mebane Circulator and the ACC to Mebane Connector. These both rail station. fall under the MTP 2045 Unfunded List, which was ■ A Mebane to Hillsborough Commuter Rail, which would compiled by transit agency staff and the Steering run for 13 miles from Downtown Mebane Station to Committee. These were both classified as 'Medium' Hillsborough and potentially beyond. regarding the funding feasibility in the 2020-2045 ■ Enhanced service on the Orange-Alamance Connector by timeframe. Both the Mebane Circulator and the ACC to increasing headways Mebane Connector would have an estimated capital cost ■ Improving and adding new park and rides in Orange for vehicles during the first 10 years of operations of County, Graham, and Mebane. $160,000, and each would have an annual operating cost Note that there are additional recommendations for Graham and of$48,863 and $48,878, respectively. Mebane that would not have any interaction with Orange County Refers to the recommendation of other plans for Public Transit that are not listed here. The fiscally unconstrained improved on-demand service hours and vehicles across recommendations here would provide greater connectivity and Orange County Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-4 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FigumC: Mebane Connector Option 1 FigumE: Mebane Connector Option 3 � FiQumD: Mebane Connector Option 2 n - ` ~ Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A,5 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BGMPO Regional Transit Orange County Climate Action Feasibility Study (2024) Plan (2023) The BGMPO Regional Transit Feasibility Study focused on The Orange County Climate Action Plan (CAP) is the guiding identifying opportunities to better coordinate and expand transit document towards greenhouse gas reductions, looking to act as a service in the region. There are proposals that include agency comprehensive strategy guide that is in line with state consolidation or partnerships that do not include OCPT as an regulations. As a holistic Climate Action Plan, transit strategies are impacted/consolidated organization, but OCPT would be just a subset of the outlined strategies for greenhouse gas indirectly impacted as the agency would still coordinate with the reduction by 2030 and 2050. Transit-specific strategies revolve larger agency on regional transit needs. around increased on-demand service and converting to an The study also presents an overview of funding available funding electric fleet. opportunities, including those that are currently utilized and Relevant Findings: potential local funding opportunities. Available federal funding . Extend service hours by 3% and coverage by 6% by 2030 programs include: ■ Implement changes to address gaps in Northern and ■ Section 5307 Southern Orange County by 2030. ■ Section 5310 ■ OCTP's transit fleet accounts for just 1% of carbon ■ Section 5311 emissions created by the county government and its ■ Section 5339 operations ■ The Carbon Reduction Program ■ Transitioning to smaller, energy-efficient buses or vans is Available state funding programs include: a priority to make progress by 2050 ■ Rural Operating Assistance Program ■ Expansion of Orange County mobility on Demand is a ■ State Maintenance Assistance Program priority and part of the strategy of exploring innovative public transportation options Potential new local funding sources include: Increase in registered zero-emission vehicles in North ■ Vehicle registration fee Carolina to be 1,250,000 by 2030, and 50% of new vehicle ■ 1/4 -cent sales tax sales to be zero emissions. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-6 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Connect 2050: The Research Orange County's Complete Triangle Region's Metropolitan Streets and Vizion Zero Policies Transportation Plan (2022) (2022) Connect 2050 is the long-range transportation plan for the two Orange County's Complete Streets and Vizion Zero Policies were organizations that oversee transportation planning in the adapted in October 2022. The Vizion Zero Policy states that the Research Triangle Region: The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning locality will aim to meet the state's safety targets of a 50% Organization (CAMPO) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro reduction of fatalities and serious injuries by 2035, and a 100% Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). This plan reduction by 2050. To do so, Orange County strives to improve describes analysis and public engagement that resulted in a set of safety by developing a Transportation Safety Plan, create safer planned investments. The transit-related components of this are: streets, and deliver equity-driven transportation projects. local and regional transit facilities and services, including rapid This goes hand-in-hand with the Complete Streets Policy, which bus and rail lines; transportation demand management marketing was adopted in tandem with the Vision Zero plan. The complete and outreach efforts that increase the use of alternatives to peak streets policy strives to encourage the design and construction of period solo driving; technology-based transportation services and safer and more equitable streets. using advanced technology to make transit and road investments more effective. Orange County Transportation ■ Adopted regional transit project for high frequency bus service on the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector by 2050 in Services Title VI Plan (2022) the form of a High Capacity or Express Bus. Orange County Transportation Services Title VI Plan overviews the ■ Transit is an emphasis, but there is not much focus on Title VI standards and processes that OCTS must abide by. OCPT-related transit. Included in this document are also transit service standards that ■ Points to the 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update for OCTS has stated, including that all fixed-route services have more information regarding OCPT-specific transit plans. between 30- and 45-minute headways with plans to reduce these ■ Summarizes funding, transit, demographics, and transit to between 15 and 30 minutes. demand from other plans. This plan additionally includes guidelines surrounding Title VI analysis and Environmental Justice analysis prior to system Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-7 ORANGE COUNTY Existing Conditions SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN changes or new facility construction. This plan also provides only services to reflect changing travel patterns. Relevant findings guidelines on public engagement. to Orange County are: ■ Ridership on the ODX and 420 have not recovered to pre- Orange County Transportation pandemic levels. Services ADA Paratransit Plan ' ODX ridership is heavily peak oriented, with nearly all passengers riding to Durham in the morning and from (2022) Durham in the afternoon. The Orange County Transportation Services ADA Paratransit Plan ' To improve speed and reliability for riders, route outlines the standards that OCPT must meet to provide sufficient alignment changes were recommended for both the ODX ADA and paratransit services. OCPT currently exceeds the and 420, with the potential for future service frequency required service standards for coverage and abides by all federally and span improvements beyond the time period of the mandated standards. Orange County operates ADA service within SRTP. 3/a-mile of each side of fixed route corridors 5 days a week from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Users must schedule their ride at least a day Chapel Hill Short-Range in advance in order to receive this service. Transportation Plan (2020) In addition to ADA service, OCTP offers MOD services, which do not require advanced scheduling, and can pick up a passenger as Chapel Hill Transit's 2020 SRTP provides a roadmap for transit quickly as 30 minutes from the time of reservation. improvements in Chapel Hill and Carrboro for the next ten years. Recommendations include service expansion and demand- response zone additions. Additionally, Chapel Hill Transit wants to GoTriangle Short Range Transit ensure simple, direct, and consistent transit by minimizing route Plan (2023) deviations, operating along more direct paths and utilizing major arterials, and simplifying passenger facing materials. GoTriangle's Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) provides a Recommendations in this SRTP that are particularly relevant to comprehensive assessment of the transit environment, service, OCPT is the consolidation of paratransit services where they and performance of regional transit in Durham, Orange, and overlap and continuing to look for effective ways to serve Wake Counties, and offers a set of recommendations up to FY28. commuter demand between service areas. The recommendations included simplification of routes, strengthening all-day regional connections, and adjusting peak- Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-8 TYANSIT Existing Conditions SHOR TT RR NGGE E TROUNLANN DCHC M PO Comprehensive travel within the city, as opposed to destinations outside of the city. Additionally, there is demand for service to Alamance Transportation Plan (2017) Community College and to have connections to other regional routes. The DCHC MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a long- range transportation plan that covers the region and outlines plans to be implemented through 2040. The modes that the plan covers are highway, public transportation, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian changes. For Orange County, major public transportation recommendations include the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit and the North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit—a rapid transit route that runs along NC-86 and US 15- 501 from Eubanks to Southern Village. Both of these routes would serve routes that have been identified as key commuter paths, relieving the need for automobile transit to job centers and other key destinations. City of Mebane Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2021) The City of Mebane's Comprehensive Transportation Plan is a multi-modal plan that covers roadway, public transportation, and bicycle and pedestrian travel. The City of Mebane does not currently run any form of local transit and is reliant on surrounding transit agencies to cover the needs of their residents. To change this, the plan recommends a circulator bus route for Mebane, which would run through the main part of the city, covering key destinations, such as parks, schools, community centers, and commercial destinations along the route. This route would provide a needed form of transit for Mebane residents to Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates A-9 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Short Range Transit Plan 2025 to 2030 • ,;; ` ,tt., ,�. - : . DRAFT August 2024 N NELSON 'f ' NYGAARD s J . ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Table of Contents Page 1 Overview..............................................................................................................................1 Orange County Transportation Services.................................................................................................1 OrangeCounty Transit Plan ........................................................................................................................1 ShortRange Transit Plan..............................................................................................................................1 2 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................2 CurrentService.................................................................................................................................................2 Demandfor Transit.........................................................................................................................................3 ServicePerformance.......................................................................................................................................4 PublicEngagement Key Findings..............................................................................................................4 3 Project Goals, Objectives, and Metrics............................................................................6 4 Recommended Strategies.................................................................................................7 StrategyTypes..................................................................................................................................................7 TransitService Strategies..............................................................................................................................7 Policyand Program Strategies.................................................................................................................15 CapitalImprovement Strategies..............................................................................................................17 5 Next Steps......................................................................................••.................................21 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 1 OVERVIEW Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC MPO) Executive Board, and Orange County the GoTriangle Board of Trustees. Transportation Services Short Range Transit Plan Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) provides fixed- g route bus, demand response, and microtransit services The projects and priorities identified in the Orange County Transit throughout Orange County, NC and to surrounding communities Plan and its updates inform the short-term planning efforts of within 10 miles. OCTS is one of three main public transit providers transit agencies that operate in Orange County, including OCTS. in Orange County, primarily serving the municipalities of The Orange County Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) guides the Hillsborough and Mebane and the unincorporated areas of the improvement of OCTS transit through 2030. The SRTP analyzes County. Chapel Hill Transit provides service in Chapel Hill and existing service performance and markets, evaluates strategies for Carrboro, and GoTriangle connects the major regional improving transit, and recommends a year-by-year transit destinations. investment program through 2030. Development of the SRTP was overseen by the Core Technical Team, a group of key Orange County Transit Plan stakeholders meeting regularly to review and provide feedback throughout the SRTP process. Members of the Core Technical In 2012, voters in Orange County approved a half-cent sales tax Team include representatives from municipalities in the service to fund transit service and transit infrastructure improvements in area, regional agencies, and the other transit providers in the the county. Revenues from the Transit Tax support transit services county. Funding for identified projects is provided through provided by OCTS, Chapel Hill Transit, and GoTriangle, and are multiple sources, in addition to the funding allocated through the allocated based on the needs, values, and priorities laid out in the Orange County Transit Plan. Orange County Transit Plan and subsequent updates. The 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update guides the allocation of revenue from the transit tax over the next 20 years. The Orange Transit Governing Boards include the Governance ILA parties, which consists of the Orange Board of County Commissioners, the Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 1 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 2 EXISTING Figure 1: Current OCTS Fixed Route Service ---------------------------'--------------------------------- CON DITIONS F o 0 m ,a Current Service -Sar o e Ry OCTS provides both regional and local service with its fixed route 8 Ra 3` sn%yAd buses, shown in Figure 1. The Hillsborough Circulator is a local l¢ route serving key destinations in Hillsborough. Two regional o connector routes, the Orange-Alamance Connector and the Lebanon Rd de Orange-Chapel Hill Connector, connect Hillsborough with other Mebane a _ a ,a regional destinations and fill a midday gap for peak-only '��440 - ¢ Hillsborough �¢ GoTriangle bus routes, with additional local service stops. Each OCTS route and service has different hours of operation, though all fixed route buses are scheduled to operate hourly throughout Old NC ` a their service period. NeWape 9O Along with the paratransit provided within 3/4 mile of fixed route MtSlnarRtl �Qa service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, OCTS Rd provides two types of non-fixed route service: program-based a Euba¢RS x rural demand response service and a publicly available o eateadR, Z' ae microtransit service called Orange County Mobility on Demand `a'°s O (MOD). Both service types operate throughout all of Orange Chapel Hill Q Carrboro 8 Count and serve key destinations in Mebane and Durham. Orange County public Y Y Transit Routes Old Greensboro Rd Fa a Hlllsboroogh Clrcolator Orange-Chapel Hill Connector _ �o¢ee L C� —Orange-Nlamance Connector .- - y oataseer<.::or-ceeatrwwbr,rreadt a o I ihi. N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Demand for Transit Figure 2: Population and Employment Densities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A major factor in determining the demand for transit is density: where people live and work, and how those areas are O Carr concentrated. Population and employment density may be used Caldwell to indicate an appropriate level of transit service. Areas that are m r4ore qd In higher density may be able to support more frequent fixed route r ; Cedar Grove O 3` transit, while areas with lower density may be better suited for aaa scry,y40 9a demand response or microtransit services. ` a* as O Population density and transit demand is greatest in the Carrboro, ebanonRd y° s"e`"sad Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Mebane areas. The rest of the a Mekahe county is rural, where demand-response services may be more Efland -r€ -F_ y Miles H'lls6oroug - suitable than fixed-route transit. Most of the employment density Air* is located within towns and cities and along major corridors. �� Service jobs make up the largest share of jobs in the county. G"`kh°r° B Old NC 70 o L7 Pa Together, population and employment density give a more GoeQa ,d" Nea�'� � a complete picture of potential demand for transit. Figure 2 shows the combined population and employment densities by Traffic Gu Eubanks 0"\ Analysis Zone. Blue areas on the map signify areas with high o Eub Rd Durham anNs k - employment density but lower population density, while orangeCalvander a eddR° represents areas with higher population density and lowerjob ESrP O O White Cross density. Darker brown areas have high densities of both Existing 2020 Chapel Hill Population and C a r rh o r o employment and population. Employment Densities x■■■ Old Greensboro Rd Based on an analysis of travel patterns amongst all modes of A■ _ ---- °ces _ transportation, most trips take place within municipalities. There is People per pore y n= — - musoero::ocxc xvo zozo �its'kj also relatively strong travel demand along the Mebane- Hillsborough corridor. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 3 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Service Performance boardings per revenue hour, and it has recovered to approximately 78% of its pre-pandemic ridership. The Orange- Ridership on OCTS's demand response services declined Alamance Connector, on the other end of the spectrum, is significantly in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and currently partially suspended and covered by demand response continued to decline in 2021. Fixed route ridership did not see the service, and it had the lowest ridership of the three fixed routes same steep decline in 2020 but decreased in 2018 and again in before its suspension. 2021 (Figure 3). Figure 3:Annual Unlinked Passenger Trips by Service Type Public Engagement Key 60,000 Findings 50,000 The first phase of engagement for the plan took place from 40,000 March 4 to March 31, 2024. Target audiences included transit 30,000 riders, Orange County residents, traditionally underserved communities (both riders and non-riders), and other community 20,00o stakeholders. The project team held a series of pop-ups at bus 10,000 shelters, community centers, and community events across 0 Orange County (Figure 4). Standalone polling boards featuring 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 project details and simple questions were placed in transit tFixed Route --*--Demand Response shelters at key bus stops in Orange County. A short survey was distributed both online and in print form in English and Spanish Source: FTA NTD to Orange County stakeholders and 13 community centers, libraries, and apartments. A total of 191 participants completed The pandemic and resulting changes to commute patterns, paired the survey. with vehicle and driver shortage challenges at the agency, have led to significant on-the-ground changes to the services being Locations where participants were most interested in seeing offered in recent years, including route suspensions and service better transit services included between Hillsborough and Chapel hour changes. These challenges and changes make exact Hill, from unincorporated Orange County into the municipalities, comparisons over time difficult on the level of an individual route and between Hillsborough and Mebane. Survey and pop-up or service. The Hillsborough Circulator is OCTS's highest respondents favored midday weekday service the most, followed by Saturday service, while polling board respondents were most performing fixed-route service in both total ridership and Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 4 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN interested in peak commute service and expanded morning and Figure 4: Pop-Up Event at Seymour Senior Center evening hours. Participants desired improvements to transit services, including reliability, frequency, extended coverage, on-demand options, �y and accessible information such as real-time tracking apps. Additionally, they emphasized the importance of improving ---- ` ' access to public transit through facilities like park and ride facilities, bike lanes, and pedestrian infrastructure. A second round of public engagement in August and September 2024 will gather feedback on this draft plan through similar strategies of pop-ups and a distributed survey. �- .. - - —ORANGE TMWNCvt 1 _ 1 . i Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 3 PROJECT GOALS — Increase community awareness of all modes of transportation including transit, bike and pedestrian, OBJECTIVES, AND vehicle, and all other modes ■ Transportation &Access for All METRICS — Prioritize transit service that increases transit access for the most people to the most places An evaluation framework allows Orange County to prioritize ■ Affordable &Attainable Quality of Life recommendations and evaluate projects, policies, and programs — Prioritize transit service connections to affordable for their ability to achieve the goals and values of the Orange County Transit Plan and Orange County Strategic Plan. The Core housing, recreation, and arts and cultural Community Values from the Orange County Transit Plan Update opportunities. provided the foundation for evaluating the proposed strategies, — Identify priorities and resources necessary to and objectives for each value were taken directly from either the implement the Orange County Transit Plan. Transit Plan Update or the multimodal transportation section of For evaluation purposes, metrics were created to measure how the Strategic Plan. The Core Values and related Objectives well a project supported each objective, with a total of nine final include: metrics in the evaluation framework. Each strategy was scored ■ Equity from one to three points per metric. Methods of measurement — Prioritize the transit needs of underserved or transit- varied depending on the type of strategy, and both quantitative dependent residents; includes historically disinvested and qualitative approaches were used. Final scores based on the communities of color, lower-income neighborhoods, evaluation framework helped to prioritize different strategies and seniors, and rural communities. spend Orange County's funds in accordance with their core values. Full methodology details and strategy scores are available ■ Economic Prosperity in Appendix B: Strategies Evaluation. — Prioritize increasing access to jobs and opportunities ■ Environmental Sustainability — Prioritize accessible and convenient transit service in areas with existing or planned higher density development. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 6 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 4 RECOMMENDED Plan may differ slightly from those in Appendix B based on engagement feedback and technical considerations. STRATEGIES Transitrvi r i Service Strategies es Strategy Types Short Term projects should be implemented early in the SRTP timeframe, and resources are available within the current known A broad range of strategies for improving public transportation in budget. Short term transit service strategies include: Orange County were developed based on findings from the ■ Mobility on Demand Service Improvements Existing Conditions report, the first round of public engagement, and other adopted transportation plans. Strategies were ■ Discontinue Orange-Alamance Connector categorized into three types: ■ Hillsborough Circulator Improvements Phase 1 1. Transit service strategies— both new services and ■ Mebane Circulator operational changes to existing services, including fixed- ■ Hill to Hill Consolidation Phase 1 route, on-demand, and rural demand response services Medium Term projects should be implemented later in the SRTP 2. Policies and programs—strategies that target agency timeframe, and may require additional funding sources and grant policies or administrative activities applications. Medium term transit service strategies include: 3. Capital improvements— physical infrastructure projects Demand Response Weekend Service beyond basic bus stop signs. Long Term projects should be pursued after the SRTP timeframe All strategies were presented to the Core Technical Team and ends, as funding is currently unavailable. Long term transit service adjusted based on feedback before moving to evaluation. strategies include: Strategies were slotted into the available budget and the 2025 to 2030 timeline before being reviewed by stakeholders and the ■ Hillsborough Circulator Improvements Phase 2 public. The timeframe of the SRTP was broken into two key ■ Hill to Hill Consolidation Phase 2 periods: short-term strategies that should be implemented E MOD Service Span Expansion starting in 2025 through 2027 and medium-term strategies that should be implemented from 2028 through the end of 2030. Long-term strategies are those that would be implemented in 2031 or later. Final strategies found in the Short Range Transit Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 7 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN MOBILITY ON DEMAND SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Short Term Background: Orange County MOD is underused, given the potential demand within the service area. Microtransit service is well suited for the density of much of Orange County and can provide the public with high-quality and low-cost transportation options for those who cannot or choose not to drive. PERSON Strategy Overview: Create zones for faster, cheaper trips within municipalities and rtlRa consistent wait times for rural trips. The ability to book trips by making a phone call CASWELL will also be added. No changes to hours of service are proposed within the SRTP timeframe. "° ------------------------------------ — - r-------------------- • Hillsborough-Mebane Zone: Shorter wait times within this zone �O U • North and South Orange Zones: Dedicated vehicles for each zone to make I 'stl,e"tl consistent wait times n ! µPa U d t • Southeast Zone: Trips cannot both start and end in this zone Burlington srarysR, 1 Mebane • Hillsborough Graham Cross-County: This zone will extend 10 miles out from the Orange County o` 1, DURHAM border, covering rural and urban key destinations in neighboring counties. ALAMANCE MR° Trips cannot both begin and end within this zone. � e,� �� Durham `ee ,� ORANGE 1 y Existing Proposed (E) Span of Service m ,°rp Dh peJy 11 m o C"apel H1\I Rtl 54 Q - ERfgBos all Greensboro R° ���< w ¢°r Monday to Thursday 8 AM — 5 PM 8 AM — 5 PM ----- -------------------------------, Friday 8 AM —9 PM 8 AM —9 PM r Mobilit On Demand Morrisville Service Area CHATHAM O C7 Hillsborough-Mebane Zone Cary Saturday 9 AM — 5 PM 9 AM — 5 PM IN North Orange Zone O WAKE IN South Orange Zone IN Southeast Orange Zone 0 Apex A Cross-County Zone orange[ounryeub �nnee O Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 8 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN DISCONTINUE ORANGE-ALAMANCE CONNECTOR Short Term Background:The Orange-Alamance Connector is a low ridership route that offers redundant service with the GoTriangle Orange-Durham Express (ODX). The rider base of this route is likely better served by on-demand service zones, since they will have more direct access to destinations. Strategy Overview: Formalize the elimination of the Orange-Alamance Connector and reinvest the resources into other transit service projects. With the improved MOD service zones, residents along the Mebane-Hillsborough corridor will still have access to transportation service, as well as continued service from the GoTriangle ODX during peak hours, the new Mebane Circulator, and improved Hillsborough Circulator. Existing Proposed 6 Span of Service Monday to Friday 10 AM — 3 PM w ORANGE Frequency Monday to Friday 60 minutes - Mebane ���-- a Efland 0 40 Hillsborough sa`i a ALAMANCE os� -p4Q 00 Hillsborough-Mebane Corridor ---Discontinued Orange-Alannance Connector —GoTriangle ON(Peak-Only) o O Hillsborough-Mebane MOD Zone =North Orange MOD Zone =South Orange MOD Zone Cross-County MOD Zone Oala Sources:Orzrge County Public Trzreit,Goiriangle �Xiies N, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 9 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN HILLSBOROUGH CIRCULATOR IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 Short Term Background: The Hillsborough Circulator is the highest ridership OCTS route and is the primary option for Hillsborough residents to travel between key destinations in the city without a car. The route often runs behind 0°<Ke Rd schedule, as it takes approximately 60 minutes to complete one trip and it runs every hour. The Hillsborough Circulator also only runs in one direction, making residents ride the full loop, even if they only need to get to the stop before R° i—� m= they board. Ch%t a \ 'c Strategy Overview: Create an improved Hillsborough Circulator service that is °r^e1"e'St\ more efficient, on-time, and frequent. The improved service will be split into ,D WH, o two separate routes, Hillsborough Circulator A and Hillsborough Circulator B. _ Pa z _ O", ■ Reduce route deviations at Rainey Ave (Fairview Park), Orange Grove Latimer St W-bny°nst 3` L�W Kinq•St� Road, and Scotswood Road (Food Lion) to improve schedule reliability Hillsborough ,^ by decreasing the running time. d �9jmocKs N R ■ Split route into two patterns, which can both be run in under 45 minutes. OA ■ Expand the service hours and increase frequency of both routes. ProposedExisting 3 Qa es Span of Service "Ida,,, 3' o Monday to Friday 7 AM — 5 PM 6:30 AM —6:30 PM _ y Frequency Hillsborough Circulator Monday to Friday 60 minutes 45 minutes Proposed Improvements s Proposed Hillsborough Circulator Proposed Hillsborough Circulator B ---Current Hillsborough Circulator Data Sources:Orange County Public Transit A 0 0.25 0.5 Miles IV Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 10 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN MEBANE CIRCULATOR Short Term Background: The City of Mebane has planned to establish a local bus route, which will take place in the form of a circulator that serves key destinations throughout Mebane. The Orange-Alamance Connector, proposed to be discontinued, currently serves smaller area of Mebane. StrategyMebanOverview: Implement the Mebane Circulator as adopted in the PropoediAliugn or p p Proposed Alignment Mebane Comprehensive Transportation Plan and the BGMPO Metropolitan D-S —,o edneb°0ea�°�i°c° Data Sources:Orange County Public Transit Z` !��E•Stage[oachRd Transportation Plan. The Mebane Circulator will run every 60 minutes from 7 AM —6 PM on Monday through Friday and will not initially offer weekend service. Existing Proposed W°e,ta,St wC/ay St =r 2y W Holt St W,Ho„•Sr Span of Service MebaneEye test 5 ,e Monday to Friday - 7 AM —6 PM Frequency Monday to Friday - 60 minutes 5 y S S�Sd. 40 5 5 Sth.St +o ,N.soo pd f 9 40 0 0.15 0.3 Miles N Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 11 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN HILL TO HILL CONSOLIDATION PHASE 1 Short Term Background: The Orange-Chapel Hill Connector provides midday and local coverage between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, while GoTriangle Route 420 operates during the peak commute hours only and with fewer local stops. The similar but still differing route patterns can confuse riders, and there is some service redundancy in the current schedule. Strategy Overview: When GoTriangle shifts Route 420 to run on Highway 40 after the current highway reconstruction project is complete, the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector will also shift to match the alignment of Route 420 exactly, with the - Hillsborough same stops. Local connections in Hillsborough can be made to both Hillsborough Circulator loops. This Phase does not fully consolidate the two routes, and rather focuses on running them along the same route pattern and to be less redundant, qq' BS allowing for full consolidation in the future. e� Existing 420 Existing OCH ProposedOCH G Jar Span of Service � 40 ry�sina4 Rd Monday to Friday 6—9:30 AM, 8:30 AM —4:30 PM 8:30 AM —3:30 PM ORANGE 3:30-7 PM b Frequency Eubanks E4baghs Pa Q Monday to Friday 30 minutes 60 minutes 60 minutes Roman es O if R H A M Chapel Hill si Hill to Hill Consolidation Phase 1 —Proposed Orange-Chapel Hill Connector Carrboro —Future GoTriangle Route 420(Peak Only) Ri q 9A Ro ---Current Orange-Chapel Hill Connector sa ca,aseurces:orange ceuitty Pudic TrensM,corxengk � �rro !J Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 12 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN DEMAND RESPONSE WEEKEND SERVICE Medium Term Background: Program-based demand response riders are not peak-oriented, and many riders use it to get to non-work destinations. Currently, hours on Saturday are limited and not clearly defined, and no service is offered on Sunday. This limits the types of medical trips that OCTS can provide, cutting off a potential funding source. Strategy Overview: Operate program-based demand response services from 9 AM to 5 PM on both Saturdays and Sundays. ProposedExisting Span of Service Monday to Friday 8 AM — 5 PM 8 AM — 5 PM Saturday "Limited" 9 AM — 5 PM Sunday - 9 AM — 5 PM Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 13 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN LONG-TERM STRATEGIES MOD SERVICE SPAN EXPANSION Background: In conjunction with the expended MOD service HILLSBOROUGH CIRCULATOR zones that are part of the short-term strategies, MOD service hours should be expanded to adequately serve the riders of IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2 Orange County, as there is local transit demand for services Background:After the Hillsborough Circulator has been split into outside traditional commuting windows. Service hours are not two routes, increasing and improving the service is necessary. expected to be expanded during the implementation of the Transit demand during peak hours is not necessarily much higher short-term service improvement measures. than it is during the off-peak hours, and there are a lot of riders Strategy Overview: Service hours will be expanded on all days of that utilize the service for running errands. the week, and Sunday service will be implemented. In the current Strategy Overview: Implement Saturday service, which will have service, Friday has expanded evening hours, and Monday through 9 AM — 5 PM spans with buses every 30 minutes. In addition to Friday have service beginning at 8 AM instead of 9 AM on this, service spans and frequencies will be improved for Monday Saturday. New service spans will be 9 AM — 10 PM on Monday— through Friday, with spans from 6:30 AM — 6:30 PM and buses Friday, with Sunday service from 9 AM —8 PM. every 30 minutes. HILL TO HILL CONSOLIDATION PHASE 2 Background:After operating the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector and GoTriangle Route 420 with more coordination and reduced redundancy, service levels can be improved through full consolidation of the two routes. Strategy Overview: Fully consolidate the Orange-Chapel Hill Connector with GoTriangle Route 420 along the Highway 40 alignment. Peak operation of the route will require three 40' buses to accommodate ridership demand and maintain frequency. The service will run from Monday— Friday 6 AM —7 PM with peak frequencies of 30 minutes and midday frequencies of 60 minutes. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 14 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Policy and Program TRANSIT INFORMATION Strategies CAMPAIGN Short Term recommended policies or programs that OCTS could implement in the early years of the SRTP with currently available Short Term administrative funding include: Background: Many Orange County residents do not fully ■ Alternative Fare Payment understand how to ride transit and what their transit options are. The transit information campaign would cover fixed routes, ■ Transit Information Campaign mobility on-demand, and ADA services. ■ Improve Demand Response Booking Strategy Overview: The promotional campaign would provide Medium Term policies or programs that require OCTS to apply information on services, their destinations, how to use each for additional funds include: service, and other information that is relevant to the service. On- ■ Hire Mobility Manager demand service would be a key focus, specifically around the ■ Conduct Fare Study expanded service zones and where they cover, and how to book trips would be the main emphasis. ALTERNATIVE FARE PAYMENT Improving the availability of transit information is an additional component of the transit information campaign, including the Short Term publishing of real-time travel information using live GTFS data. Background: MOD and Orange-Chapel Hill Connector vehicles IMPROVE DEMAND RESPONSE are not able to take cash as fare payment, which can create barriers for people without easy access to mobile banking. BOOKING Strategy Overview: Provide cash loading options for fare payment cards to better serve people with limited banking or Short Term smartphone access, and work to integrate with other transit Background: Riders expressed confusion about how to book agencies in the region that utilize UMO Pass. demand response trips during public feedback opportunities. Most of the confusion came around how and where to book trips—online, over phone, by app—and the application process. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 15 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Additionally, the Medicaid reimbursement process will be Other grants could provide the necessary funding to implement improved, making it easier for OCTS to submit for reimbursement. this new position. Strategy Overview: Ensuring the demand response application process is streamlined so that prospective riders are able to book CONDUCT FARE STUDY services more quickly is one of the first steps. This streamlined application process will be simpler and quicker for applicants. This Medium Term process is already underway at OCTS. This streamlined process will include implementing additional, to be determined, measures Background: Fare costs vary across agencies and modes in that will help OCTS submit for Medicaid reimbursement. Orange County and can sometimes act as a barrier to transit access. There is interest from the public and key stakeholders to explore the viability of free or reduced fares for the different types HIRE A MOBILITY MANAGER of transit services in Orange County. Strategy Overview: The fare study would cover each individual Medium Term mode, including fixed route and on-demand. The potentiality for Background: Orange County currently has a Mobility Manager reduced MOD fares will be studied to determine if OCPT could role that is run through the Department of Aging and focuses provide the same level of service and continue to make solely on outreach to older adults and assisting with their improvements with decreased fare revenue. The viability of fare- transportation. However, Orange County could use a Mobility free fixed route service will also be studied on a route-basis. With Manager that covers on-demand services, in addition to the role reduced fares, it is important that OCPT will have enough funds to within the Department of Aging. continue future planning efforts. Strategy Overview: Create a new Mobility Manager position that has a wider focus, one covering the management of all information and travel training needs for on-demand services. This person would oversee the application process for on- demand services and would be the primary contact for anything on-demand related in Orange County. This role could continue to be funded through 5310 grant funds, but the funds from this grant may not sufficiently cover the cost of an increased role. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 16 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Capital Improvement 4 Strategies Each capital improvement strategy represents a type of capital project with multiple locations recommended for each type. These strategies do not include capital projects that are required for basic operation of the transit service strategies, such as new 4 bus stops for new services. Site locations were prioritized into s`} medium and long term based on the evaluation matrix, inclusion a of the projects in other adopted plans, and existing infrastructure at each site. The three types of capital improvement strategies include: _.� ._zoos O6 ■ Bus Stop Improvements ■ Rural Mobility Hubs 1 °' j0ranqSSoSty ■ Walking Access to Transit r— r yy sd Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 17 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN BUS STOP IMPROVEMENTS Background: Bus stop improvements are an effective way to improve transit experience for riders. Bus stop improvements include various amenities, such as shelters or benches, and can be paired with capital improvement strategies on walking access to transit. Bus stops that have high ridership are often the targets of bus stop improvements since more riders will benefit from the improvements. Strategy Overview: Upgrades to existing bus stops, including amenities like a shelter, bench, passenger information, ADA upgrades, or establishing a new physical stop where passengers are currently boarding and alighting without any infrastructure. C. Medium Term Bus Stop Improvements 11-1 le Proposed Locations Store Rd • Mebane Community Park Q Bus Stop Improvement Cedar Grove ■ Cornelius St/Rainey Ave ss — Hillsborough Circulator A , ■ Orange Grove Road — Hillsborough Circulator B ■ NC 86 Cornerstone Court — Mebane Circulator Data Sources:Orange County Public Transit Q. i n C 57 r r cD Lebanon Rd Mebane a ' 70 70 Miles Efland as Hillsborough 70A r OM€PS Buckhorn Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 18 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN RURAL TRANSIT HUBS Background: Rural transit hubs are an effective way to improve the transit experience for residents of rural areas who may not have a large stop or transit hub nearby. These transit hubs are intended for low-density areas that are within MOD zones. Residents in rural areas may not be as familiar with transit options, so having a place where additional information can be provided is useful for rider understanding of the system and service options. StrategyOverview: Locations in lower-density areas of Orange CountyRural Transit Hubs °der 0 0 y g proposed Locations SrOre Ra with information on booking MOD rides and space to wait. Amenities 0° Rural Transit Hub Cedar Grove G include bench, shelter, and informational signage. — HillsboroughCirculatorA Hillsborough Circulator �t+a Mebane Circulator Medium Term Data Sources:Orange County Public Transit y r a 57 ■ Efland-Cheeks Community Center ; Leban°n Rd ■ NC Driver's License Office } A 6 e ■ Efland Hub Mebane; 0 e 0 70 ■ Supper Club Blvd Miles 4o Eflande Hillsborour3h ■ Cedar Grove Community CenterQ/v/ op �a Long Term Buckhorn ■ Fairview Park/Dorothy Johnson Community Center ■ Mebane Memorial Garden Q`r e o a ao9 Ne'a� ■ Orange High School 0 4D ■ NC 54/Mebane Oaks Road r Da IN m Eubanks ■ White Cross Hub CubaO'SRd a c "ed Calvander stead R White Crass 54 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 19 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN WALKING ACCESS TO TRANSIT Background: For local services, transit riders typically walk between the bus stop and their home or final destination. Unsafe walking conditions can discourage transit use and limit the number of people orjobs accessible within the typical "walking distance" of a transit stop. Improving these walking conditions can help increase transit ridership and improve the safety of those traveling Strategy Overview: Improve access to bus stops with pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks, safe crossings, and ADA upgrades. Medium Term • Faucette Mill Road/Cornelius Street Walking Access to Transit c0-1 Proposed Locations °je R., CD ■ NC 86 Aldi a Walking Access to Transit Cedar Grove ■ Mebane Food Lion ss �� — Hillsborough CirculatorA ■ NC 86 Cornerstone Court — Hillsborough Circulator B �Ra — Mebane Circulator Long Term Data Sources:Orange County Public Transit ■ N Scotswood Blvd (access to US CD 57 70/Food Lion stop) L ■ Orange Grove Rd Lebanon Rd ■ Orange High School CD Mebane 70 7° ' Efiland Miles a° Hillsborough 7oa �,a a o i zr+ues Buckhorn Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 20 ORANGE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 5 NEXT STEPS Phase 2 of public engagement will run from August 19to September 11, 2024, to gather feedback on the strategies proposed in this document. Similar to Phase 1, a series of in- person pop-up events, virtual and in-person presentations, and a widely distributed survey will serve to inform the public about the project as well as offer an opportunity to comment on specific proposals and the timeline. After the conclusion of the engagement period, public feedback will be incorporated into the Short Range Transit Plan, with a full final version of the report, including all appendices, to be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners in October 2024 for approval. Project implementation will begin in 2025. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 21 ORANGE TRANSPORTATION COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY NoKm CALIQLLNA PUBLIC TRANSIT OrangeCounty Item 5.c. Subject: 2024 Safe Routes to Schools Attachment: Scope of Work Existing Conditions Final Draft SRTP PURPOSE:To provide comments and/or approve the 2024 Orange County Safe Routes to School (SRTS). BACKGROUND: Beginning 2024, Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) was authorized to update the County's 2014 Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) program (link) in-house using County resources through an approved Scope of Work (Attachment 1). Detail information on the federal Safe Routes to School program can be found on Federal Highway Administration here (link).This update includes and is not limited to: • Planning level analysis of existing transportation around schools • All Orange County public schools • Youth involvement in the planning process • Implementation —STBG, TAP and others OCTS used its on-call service contract with WSP to conduct the Existing Conditions analysis. Consultant conducted a comprehensive field study of each Orange County public school,focusing on a 2-mile radius. They coordinated the analysis with the schools to ensure peak hour data was collected to identify any issues associated with walking and biking to and from schools. The SRTS Existing Conditions Report (Attachment 2) was submitted to the school administration and the town of Hillsborough for any feedback as well as the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard). The Orange County SRTS update has gone through a public process in accordance with the Department's Public Involvement Plan and approved Scope of Work. Public Involvement: • March 7, 2024—OCTS, WSP, and Orange County Public Schools hosted Stakeholder Meeting to gather feedback • July 8, 2024—OCTS hosted Public Engagement event with Orange County Public Schools per the approved Scope of Work and gathered feedback • July 9 to August 9— Existing Conditions Report with Recommendations out for public review o No comments received to date WSP also provided recommendations to address any issues identified in the Existing Conditions report and comments received from the public. OCTS in consultation with WSP drafted the 2024 Orange County Safe Routes to School Plan (Attachment 3) and recommend its approval. 600 Hwy 86 N - Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Phone (919)245-2008 - Fax (919) 732-2137 orangecountync.gov/transportation TAS Recommendation: [Placeholder] 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 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): Provide comments and/or recommend approval Safe Routes To School G M Scope of Work i � �Z9�743 Contents Scope of Work 2 Task A — Analysis of Existing Conditions 2 Key Deliverables : 2 Task B — Public Engagement 2 Key Deliverables : 2 Tack C — Draft Plan 3 Key Deliverables : 3 Task D — Final Plan Approval 3 Key Deliverables : 3 005 Safe Routes To School 56 M 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 — January 2024 kick- off - December 2024 Final Plan to Board of County Commissioners 3 . Infrastructure and non - infrastructure plan around all 13 Orange County public schools 4 . Public Engagement during Summer (June and July ) only, limited to principals, vice principals , school security, and school transportation director . Task A — Analysis of Existing Conditions Staff will conduct a general planning level analysis of the current program and transportation network around all Orange County public schools , this includes : • Study of the current plan and accomplishments • Infrastructure — Route - multimodal inventory and planning of all facilities near schools o Scope : Limited to external elements ( e . g . public right- of- way, access/egress, surrounding neighborhoods ) This is the key task for this project . Staff will collect all relevant data from publicly available sources , field work ( off of school property ) , and independent research ( e . g . data collection , US Census, school enrollment, 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 : • GIS map of all 13 Orange County public schools • Charts, graphs , tables and associated narrative • Multimodal network analysis • Existing Conditions Report Should individual schools wish to reevaluate their internal traffic issues, the Orange County Safe Routes to School will recommend that each school independently seek a Municipal School Transportation Assistance ( MSTA ) study with North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT ) for additional support . In order to initiate an MSTA study between a school and NCDOT, the school will need to submit the attached form located in appendix and any other information requested by NCDOT . Task B — Public Engagement Staff will use the recently approved department Public Involvement Plan to conduct public engagement during the summer (June and July ) when school is not in session . This includes and not limited to : • One summer (June and July ) meeting with Principals , Vice Principals, Security staff, and Transportation Director o Only those interested in participating in public process need to attend • All 13 Orange County Public Schools are invited to the public process • One round of public workshop during the summer ( June and July ) • OUTBoard and formal Public Hearing before BOCC � OGS Safe Routes To School S Scope of Work I tabf143 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 : • 1 summer (June and July ) individual meeting with Principals, Vice Principals, Security staff, and Transportation Director • 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 before getting they take action . The final approved plan will be presented the Orange County Board of County Commissioners for public hearing and subsequent action . Key Deliverables : • Draft alternatives and recommendations • Draft Orange County Safe Routes to School Plan Task D — Final Plan The project will begin in December 2023 and is planned to end before the end of June 2024 . The table below shows the task-wise schedule through the project . Task January - May June -July August - October - September December 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 oc��=a Safe Routes To School Jf� lH Scope of Work ► (�`�d� • Updated graphics and maps Safe "outr % Schic' Existing Conditions Analysis Orange County, North Carolina Prepared by WSP Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 1 Table of Contents 1. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3 Background.......................................................................................................................................................................3 2. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................................4 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................4 Overview..............................................................................................................................................................................4 1 - AL Stanback Middle School.............................................................................................................................6 2 - New Hope Elementary.......................................................................................................................................9 3 - Cedar Ridge High School................................................................................................................................14 4 - Grady A Brown Elementary School.........................................................................................................18 5 - Central Elementary School...........................................................................................................................23 6 - Hillsborough Elementary School.............................................................................................................26 7 - Orange Middle School.......................................................................................................................................31 8 - Orange High School..........................................................................................................................................35 9 - Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School.........................................................................................40 11 - Gravelly Hill Middle School..........................................................................................................................44 10 - Partnership Academy High School......................................................................................................49 12 - River Park Elementary School..................................................................................................................52 13 - Pathways Elementary School................................................................................................................... 57 3. Preliminary Recommendations............................................................................................62 4. Resources.......................................................................................................................................64 Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 2 1. Introduction Background The Orange County Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis outline the existing traffic conditions, pedestrian infrastructure,strengths, and deficiencies of 13 public schools in Orange County.The Existing Conditions Analysis is the first step towards identifying action steps to address the deficiencies at each school that are preventing active transportation.This report addresses 13 schools in Orange County: • AL Stanback Middle, • New Hope Elementary, • Cedar Ridge High, • Grady A Brown Elementary, • Central Elementary, • Hillsborough Elementary, • Orange Middle, • Orange High, • Gravelly Hill Middle, • Efland Cheeks Global Elementary, • River Park Elementary, • Partnership Academy, and • Pathways Elementary. The analysis of the existing conditions acts as a resource to further engage schools and identify how travel to and from schools can be made safer, and how to provide safe opportunities for the students to walk or bike to school.There are a multitude of reasons for the lack of active travel to school.A few of these reasons include valid concerns about traffic safety surrounding the schools, the absence of sufficient non-motorized transportation, land use policies, and school consolidation.As a result, more parents are driving their children to school, morning traffic congestion is worsening, and children are getting less exercise. Residents in Orange County can change this cycle,just as those in other communities across the country have done. The North Carolina Department of Transportation's Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) has a long history of promoting active travel to and around schools.The IMD continues to work with numerous communities across the state to develop pedestrian and bicycle plans.This is the first step in improving non-motorized transportation infrastructure within a municipality. IMD provides a number of other services, including safety education, bicycle use training,crossing guard training, and helmet promotions throughout the state. NCDOT first identified safe routes to school as a safety priority in 2000.The North Carolina Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program was established in 2005 to coordinate with the federal program.The program works with schools, local governments and agencies, advocacy and non-profit organizations, and public health professionals at a grassroots level to identify improvements that can help make bicycling and walking to and from school a safe and healthy transportation alternative. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 3 2. Existing Conditions Introduction Defining the existing conditions of the study area is an important first step towards creating an SRTS Action Plan. It documents the physical conditions of the study area, participant observations and the pedestrian and vehicle norms within each individual school that eventually decide the issues the Action Plan must mitigate.The existing conditions were documented through on-site visits, publicly available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, and information provided by each school. Infrastructure barriers and deficiencies were identified using the policies and patterns of the area around each school community. Using this information, a school overview was created to define the existing infrastructures strengths and deficiencies. A comprehensive approach was used to analyze existing conditions including the collection of data from site work, field interviews, and area mapping.A thorough inventory of the existing conditions at each school is compiled to provide a baseline to measure the outcomes of the SRTS Program. Field assessments and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data were used to develop the baseline profiles of the existing conditions. Field assessments were used to assess the existing infrastructure, travel patterns, and user behavior.This included a thorough on-site assessment of existing infrastructure within the school zone, and an evaluation of both traffic and behavioral patterns exhibited by roadway users during drop off and pick up.Staff logged the important features of both the physical and behavioral components of the transportation environment within the school zone and spoke with police officers,teachers, and administrators.The field assessments broadly analyze school traffic patterns, characteristics of the transportation network users, and the existing infrastructure strengths and weaknesses within the school zone. GIS data was used to find relevant points-of-interest, crash histories,existing bike and pedestrian facilities, and walk and bike zones. GIS data was also used to analyze bicycle and pedestrian facilities and gaps. Overview The 13 schools being examined for this study are part of the Orange County school system and all reside inside or near the Town of Hillsborough.The Town has made improving the active transportation around schools a high priority. Cooperation between schools, citizens, and local officials is necessary for improvements surrounding the schools. Figure 2.1 shows an overview map of the 13 schools. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 4 Figure 2.7:Schools Overview rV N I Orange County caneedhi-Sapani 1 d9Q P' sofsn c j 57 J I i I 86 I f lee I ! ! f — — _ s ———— Acres OFiii crest •,1 J O O N ange � F1t*lhts —Ff 70 _ ¢ Rosewood ` ® , Mount.:.in Hillsborough ® \NeStTen Pop 70 � � l �cp Mountain i 0 0 5 S shine Acres )ppa 7 Seven Mills r of Farms �. 86 Orange County Schools Overview D Schools Q Orange Middle School O OAL Stanback Middle School O Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School , kn New Hope Elements School � P Elementary Partnership Academy © 00 © Cedar Ridge High School (D Gravelly Hill Middle School p OGrady A Brown Elementary School ® River Park Elementary School New Ho Walnut Cove © Central Elementary School ® Pathways Elementary School O Hillsborough Elementary School — Railroad dea Nay E_tates OOrange High School Park 0 0.5 1 2 Mlles Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 5 1 - AL Stanback Middle School Al Stanback Middle School serves grades 6 to 8 and has a total enrollment of 644 students. It is located in south Hillsborough on Benton Drive and Storey Lane just off of NC 86.Traffic volumes along Benton Drive and Storey Lane are low,while traffic volumes along NC 86 range from 5,600 to 11,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the school.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school. No students walk or bike to school. Table 1.1:AL Stanback Middle School Characteristics Grades Serviced 6th-8th Total Enrollment 644 Number of Buses 14 Number of Students Riding the Bus 424 in the AM;457 in the PM Number of Students Walking 0 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 185 Special Needs Population 114(18%) Land Uses Surrounding School Rural, Low density residential Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones Entire school zone Crossing Guards Sherriff directing traffic in AM Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling Yes—students are not allowed to walk or bike to school Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity Front lot:74 spaces; Back lot:20 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 3 staff in the AM and PM The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for AL Stanback Middle School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.2. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are no AL Stanback students walking or bicycling to school. On-site observations noted no elementary school pedestrians or cyclists walking in the vicinity of the school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for AL Stanback: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers are generally respectful of other cars and follow the rules. • The car rider drop off and pick up occurs at the entrance along Benton Drive.The car line queues along Benton Drive, but it was not observed backing up to NC 86. • Staff indicated that the carpool line backs onto NC 86 sometimes, especially in the beginning of the school year before after-school sports start. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 6 • Exiting traffic was a little backed up on Benton Drive, but not substantial. • The left-turn lane on NC 86 can back up at times. • The morning drop-off line queues along the westernmost driveway and down Benton Road.The afternoon pick-up car line queues around the easternmost driveway near the sports fields to prevent significant backups. • Traffic was slightly backed up on Benton Drive in the afternoon by a few vehicles, but not significant. • Crossing guards were not present. However,staff indicated a sheriff sometimes directs traffic at the intersection of Benton Drive and NC 86. • The shoulder on NC 86 is narrow and the terrain is difficult for walking. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • Due to its location in a very sparse residential neighborhood,there is no through traffic along Benton Drive and the car queues do not cause significant traffic issues or concerns. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There is no clear pedestrian crossing signage on any of the roads surrounding the school. • There are multiple two-lane, rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • Traffic is significant, especially during school start and end times, along the primary route to school, NC 86. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.1 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.2:Key Infrastructure Gaps at AL Stanback Middle Road Orientation Gap NC 86 Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Storey Lane Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Benton Drive Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 7 Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Benton Drive and NC 86: Benton Drive ends at NC 86 as an unsignalized intersection. Due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along NC 86,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Photos Y � i ' W as NC 86 right-turn lane onto Benton Drive Looking west along Benton Road to NC 86 9 A _ s). NC 86 left-turn lane onto Benton Drive Afternoon pick-up line along the school driveway Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 8 2 - New Hope Elementary New Hope Elementary School serves grades Pre-Kindergarten to 5 and has a total enrollment of 559 students. It is located in south Hillsborough along New Hope Church Road just off of NC 86.Traffic volumes along New Hope Church Road range from 1,800 vehicles per day east of NC 86 to 5,100 vehicles per day west of NC 86.Traffic volumes along NC 86 range from 5,600 vehicles per day south of New Hope Church Road to 8,500 vehicles per day north of New Hope Church Road.The school is currently overcapacity based on projected land use in the area and future residential development projections.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school. No students walk or bike to school. Table 1.3:New Hope Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced Pre K-St' Total Enrollment 559 Number of Buses 7 Number of Students Riding the Bus 316 in the AM;391 in the PM Number of Students Walking 0 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 243 in the AM;168 in the PM Special Needs Population 16 (3%) Land Uses Surrounding School Rural, Low density residential Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards No Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity Front lot:60 spaces; Back lot:77 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones No Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 16 staff in the AM;15 staff in the PM The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for New Hope Elementary School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.2. 3ehavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are no New Hope students walking or bicycling to school. On-site observations noted no elementary school pedestrians or cyclists walking in the vicinity of the school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for New Hope: • Motorist behavior was observed as poor. Many drivers try to cut in line and make illegal U-turns in the road.Through traffic passes in the center turn lane at full speed. • There are three driveways into the school. Car rider drop off and pick up occurs at the westernmost driveway. Cars queue around the easternmost and westernmost driveways.The middle driveway is for buses only. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 9 • Cars are not supposed to turn left into the school.They are supposed to get in the car queue to turn right.This necessitates that cars coming from the west make a U-turn to enter the car queue. • Several vehicles arriving from the southwest were observed making a U-turn on New Hope Church Road to get in the car queue. Field staff observed several near misses with a car driving straight and a car making a U-turn. • The majority of motorists turn right out of the school towards NC 86. • The morning carpool queue wraps all the way around the third/easternmost driveway and onto New Hope Church Road past the last school driveway.Traffic backs up onto New Hope Church Road by 7:17AM and backs up past the third driveway entrance by 7:25AM.Traffic does not clear until after 7:40AM. • Through traffic was observed passing in the two-way left-turn lane. • Buses were observed crossing through the morning carpool line and passing in the two-way left-turn lane. • All traffic in the two-way left-turn lane causes a conflict for exiting traffic. • The signal at the intersection of New Hope Church Road /NC 86 queues all the way to the carpool exit line and does not include a protected left phase/exclusive turn lane. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone pavement marking is found along New Hope Church Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are multiple two-lane, rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • Traffic is significant,especially during school start and end times, along the primary routes to school, NC 86 and New Hope Church Road. • Overall,the carpool queue is not efficient or suitable for the morning drop off.Very few cars can drop off at one time and cars wait in the queue for an excessive amount of time.Additionally, many students were tardy in the morning due to the excessive amount of time to get through the car line. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.2 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 10 Table 2.4:Key Infrastructure Gaps at New Hope Elementary Road Orientation Gap Highway 86 Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes New Hope Church Road Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: New Hope Church Road and NC 86: New Hope Church Road and NC 86 intersect at a signalized intersection. Due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along NC 86,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. New Hope Church Road and 1-40 Off/On Ramps: New Hope Church Road crosses 1-40 at a grade separated interchange.There are two stop controlled off ramps and two on ramps to I- 40 on New Hope Road.These intersections are very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 11 Photos Am 'l School traffic turning left in center turn lane, while Bus crossing through the line of cars 2 cars also try to pass in the center turn lane d� Afternoon pick-up line along New Hope Church Road Looking southwest down New Hope Church Road towards the intersection with NC 86 Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 12 Figure 2.2:AL Stanback Middle and New Hope Elementary Overview IN �¢Qa 0 70 i O i o \_ram i! I / \ / Oj \ r` ANC 10 \\ r Y♦ I �� t /ice pavisRd �� I �../`� I► � 1 / 1 ► 1 � �� � ! ♦ I r� v� a ►►►1 I 8D \> J � i 1 ! ! Mt sina+Rd I + \ 1 /►J v O AL Stanback Middle School Existing Sidewalk r © New Hope Elementary School - Existing Shared Use Path A L Stanback MS Existing Bike Facility Q New Hope ES _, 20 Minute Walk Band O Pedestrian Crashes _, 10 Minute Bike Band Bike Crashes Park 86 Railroad D 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 13 3 - Cedar Ridge High School Cedar Ridge High serves grades 9 to 12 and is located in southwest Hillsborough along New Grady Brown School Road just off of Orange Grove Road.The school has a total enrollment of 1,103 students.The traffic volume along New Grady Brown School Road is 3,200 vehicles per day,while Orange Grove Road has an average daily traffic volume of 4,600 vehicles per day. There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school. Approximately 20-30 students walk to school. Table I.S.Cedar Ridge High School Characteristics Grades Serviced 9th-12th Total Enrollment 1103 Number of Buses 17 Number of Students Riding the Bus 503 in the AM;615 in the PM Number of Students Walking 20-30 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 500 Special Needs Population Unknown Land Uses Surrounding School Rural, Low density residential,Agricultural Presence of Bike Racks Yes No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic in the AM and PM Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling Unknown Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students Unknown Existing Parking Capacity 600 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 4-5 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Cedar Ridge High School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.3. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 20-30 students walking to school. On-site observations noted a number of elementary school pedestrians that walked from Orange Grove Road east of the school and from Grady Brown Elementary School across the street.A small number of pedestrians walked from Orange Grove Road west of the school.Additional information describing the travel norms for Cedar Ridge High School is listed below: • Motorist behavior was observed as poor. Many drivers park on the side of the road to avoid the afternoon car queue and make illegal U-turns in the road. • Staff noted that approximately 20 walkers come down Orange Grove Road and then east along New Grady Brown School Road.Walkers mainly come from the apartment complex and mobile home park nearby. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 14 • There were only minor backups of automobile traffic during drop-off times.Traffic does back up during the morning in the right turn lane into the school. • In the afternoon, approximately 15-25 vehicles parked along New Grady Brown School Road to avoid the pick-up queue. Most of these vehicles were then observed making U- turns in the road to leave the school. • In the afternoon, traffic was heavily backed up at the New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road intersection. • There are currently no sidewalks or crosswalks for walkers crossing the Orange Grove Road bridge over I-40,which has very narrow shoulders. Staff noted that a student has been hit walking in the area. Parents parking on the side of New Grady Brown School Road further limited a safe place for walkers. • In the afternoon, several students were observed crossing Orange Grove Road bridge over I-40.Several students were observed crossing New Grady Brown School Road to go to New Grady Brown Elementary School. One student was observed crossing the New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road intersection to access a residence east of the intersection. • The sheriff directing traffic expressed concerns over the level of traffic and said that it's a problem. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone signage is found along New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are multiple two-lane, rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • Through traffic is significant, especially during school start and end times, along the primary routes to school, New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road. • Traffic speeds are an issue along all adjacent and nearby roadways.The speed limit along Orange Grove Road and New Grady Brown School Road is 40 mph and 30 mph within the school zone. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.3 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 15 Table 2.6.Key Infrastructure Gaps at Cedar Ridge High Road Orientation Gap New Grady Brown School Road Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Orange Grove Road Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Oakdale Drive Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Timbers Drive Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Arbors Lane Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road: New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove meet at a signalized intersection. Due to high traffic volumes and the high volume of turning traffic, this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Orange Grove Road and 1-40: Orange Grove Road bridges over 1-40 at a grade separation.The shoulder along the bridge is very narrow, making this a very unsafe location for pedestrians. There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Orange Grove Road and Oakdale Drive: Oakdale Drive ends at Orange Grove Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection. Due to high traffic volumes,this intersection is difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 16 Photos d � I'llll�,l Id Cars parked on the side of the road during Traffic from the afternoon pick up is heavily afternoon pick up. One car makes a U-turn in backed up at the New Grady Brown School the road. Road and Orange Grove Road intersection i\. Student crossing the intersection at New A sheriff is directing traffic in the morning at the Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove school entrance and exit. Road Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 17 4 - Grady A Brown Elementary School Grady Brown Elementary serves grades Kindergarten to 5 and is located in southwest Hillsborough along New Grady Brown School Road just off of Orange Grove Road. Surrounding land use is mostly rural, low density residential with some agricultural.The traffic volume along New Grady Brown School Road is 3,200 vehicles per day,while Orange Grove Road has an average daily traffic volume of 4,600 vehicles per day.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school. No students walk or bike to school, but some Cedar Ridge High students do cross the street to travel to and from the elementary school. Table 7.7.Grady Brown Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced K-5t" Total Enrollment 415 Number of Buses 8 Number of Students Riding the Bus 189 in the AM;251 in the PM Number of Students Walking 0 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 200 Special Needs Population 80 (19%) Land Uses Surrounding School Rural, Low density residential,Agricultural Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic occasionally Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 90 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones No Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 20 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Grady A Brown Elementary School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.3. 3ehavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are no students walking or bicycling to this school.On-site observations noted no elementary school pedestrians or cyclists walking in the vicinity of the school, but there were a small number of high school students walking between the high school and elementary school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Grady A Brown: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers are generally respectful and follow rules. • There is one point of entrance and exit for carpool traffic with a center turn lane on New Grady Brown School Road. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 18 • Morning traffic was observed backing up to New Grady Brown School Road by 7:20AM and lining up in the center turn lane. • Through traffic was observed passing in the center turn lane coming from the west, but not a lot of non-school traffic was observed. • Vehicles were observed zippering into the carpool line from both directions. • Staff were observed passing the backed-up traffic to enter a separate staff entrance. • Vehicles were observed in both the morning and afternoon making a U-turn along New Grady Brown School Road to get into the shortest queue. • Moderate back up was observed in both directions in the morning. • Vehicles turning left out of the school have a limited line of sight due to the vehicles in the center turn lane,creating safety concerns. • A sheriff was present directing morning traffic, but staff noted they are not present every day. • Heavy back up was observed from both directions in the afternoon.Traffic coming from the east backs up almost to the intersection with Orange Grove Road. • In the afternoon,vehicles lined up in the center turn lane sometimes block the left turn exit out of the school. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage is found along New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are multiple two-lane, rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.4 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 19 Table 2.8:Key Infrastructure Gaps at GradyA Brown Elementary Road Orientation Gap New Grady Brown School Road Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Orange Grove Road Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Oakdale Drive Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Timbers Drive Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Arbors Lane Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road: New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove meet at a signalized intersection. Due to high traffic volumes and the high volume of turning traffic, this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Orange Grove Road and 1-40: Orange Grove Road bridges over 1-40 at a grade separation.The shoulder along the bridge is very narrow, making this a very unsafe location for pedestrians. There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Orange Grove Road and Oakdale Drive:Oakdale Drive ends at Orange Grove Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection. Due to high traffic volumes,this intersection is difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 20 Photos F Looking west along New Grady Brown School Looking west along New Grady Brown School Road at cars turning right into the school for the Road at cars turning left into the school for the afternoon pick up afternoon pick up 'fie- Y�! 1 fF 1 _ �O F ET Pedestrian signage on New Grady Brown School Sheriff directing traffic exiting out of the school Road Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 21 Figure 2.3.Cedar Ridge High School and GradyA Brown Elementary School Overview 0 57 0 o I � (3D o � � q O 1_ 1 I 7 Ben �� '`' 70 i West Teh Rd Johnston Ra '— _, �>o i - ► . 4 � � o ' a 1 --- Q 0 1 1 o_; E / q © 86 - ./ \ '�o 1 ¢ 1 O 1 � 1 � p?C� �aL�SR 00 o a O © Cedar Ridge High School — Existing Sidewalk OGrady A Brown Elementary School — Existing Shared Use Path a 0 Cedar Ridge High Boundary r_i 20 Minute Walk Band Gr�tr 0 Grady Brown Elementary Boundary r—1 10 Minute Bike Band 1�0 O Pedestrian Crashes Park — Railroad 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Bike Crashes Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 22 5 - Central Elementary School Central Elementary serves grades Kindergarten to 5 and is located northeast of downtown Hillsborough along Hayes Street.The total enrollment of this school is 291 students. Surrounding land use is mostly residential.Traffic volumes along Hayes Street are low,while W King Street has an average daily traffic volume of 1,300 vehicles per day.There is a sidewalk along the north side of Hayes Street from Nash Street to the school.Approximately 5 students walk to school. Table 1.9:Central Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced K-5t" Total Enrollment 291 Number of Buses 6 Number of Students Riding the Bus 134 in the AM;168 in the PM Number of Students Walking 5 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 113 Special Needs Population 36 (12%) Land Uses Surrounding School Residential Presence of Bike Racks Yes No Walk Zones Yes Crossing Guards Yes Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 70 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 6 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Central Elementary School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.4. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 5 Central Elementary students walking to school.On-site observations noted several elementary school pedestrians that walked from Hayes Street west of the school Field staff noted the following travel norms for Central Elementary: • Motorist behavior was observed as fair. Drivers were respectful of pedestrians and other vehicles, but occasionally did not follow the rules. • Crossing guards were present with a stop sign to let vehicles in and out. Police were also present to assist. • In the afternoon queuing backs up in both directions past Foust Street and Spruce Street. • Safety concerns include school buses passing without a passing lane during queuing. • Vehicles will ignore signage restricting left turns out if there is no crossing guard. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 23 • Some walkers were observed arriving from the back side of the school, Foust Street, Latimer Street, and Nash Street. • Cyclists were observed coming from both directions along Hayes Street. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • There is sidewalk along the north side of Hayes Street from North Nash Street to Central Elementary School and a sidewalk along the west side of North Nash Street. • Pedestrian crossing signage is found along Hayes Street. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are no school zone markings along Hayes Street. • Sections of Hayes Street south of the school have narrow shoulders and overgrown vegetation, making it difficult for walking. • There are no sidewalks or sidewalk gaps found on adjacent roadways.There are no bicycles facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.5 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.10:Key Infrastructure Caps at Central Elementary Road Orientation Cap W King Street Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Hayes Street Both directions No bike lanes. No sidewalk on the south/east side. No sidewalk on the west side east of the school. Latimer Street Both directions No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Hayes Street and W King Street: Hayes Street ends at W King Street at a stop sign-controlled intersection.This location has narrow shoulders and overgrown vegetation that makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross safely.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 24 Photos Students and a parent walking to school. Driveway entrance for car queue. Cars waiting Entering off of Hayes Street through the to turn left driveway exit v I ° w Imo' _S ra v _ `I Looking east along Hayes Street at traffic Looking west along Hayes Street. Through turning left into the school. traffic is passing on the left side. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 25 6 - Hillsborough Elementary School Hillsborough Elementary serves grades Kindergarten to 5 and is located northeast of downtown Hillsborough along W Union Street and N Nash Street.This school has a total enrollment of 438 students.Surrounding land use is mostly residential.Traffic volumes along W Union Street are low,while N Nash Street has an average daily traffic volume of 1,400-2,000 vehicles per day. Hillsborough Elementary is located in a residential neighborhood.The school is currently overcapacity based on projected land use in the area and future residential development projections.There are some sidewalks along the east side of North Nash Street opposite the school and along the north side of West Union Street adjoining the school. Approximately 20-30 students walk or bike to school. Table 1.11:Hillsborough Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced K-5t" Total Enrollment 438 Number of Buses 4 Number of Students Riding the Bus 44 in the AM;89 in the PM Number of Students Walking 20 Number of Students Cycling 2 Number of Students Driven 365 Special Needs Population 72(16%) Land Uses Surrounding School Residential Presence of Bike Racks Yes No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 115 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 15-20 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Hillsborough Elementary School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.4. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 20-30 Hillsborough Elementary students walking or cycling to school. On-site observations noted several elementary school pedestrians walking from W Union Street, N Nash Street, and Occoneechee Street. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Hillsborough Elementary: • Motorist behavior was observed as fair. Drivers are respectful and obey speed limits, but there is a high volume of through traffic that passes in the left lane. • Traffic backup along N Nash Street is a major concern, leading to several near misses. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 26 • There are two drop-off and pick-up areas for the car riders. Grades K-1 drop off and pick up at the W Union Street entrance.Grades 2-5 drop off and pick up at the N Nash Street entrance. • Moderate non-school traffic was observed along N Nash Street including semi-trailers. • Walkers enter at the school bus drop-off entrance. • Some school and non-school pedestrians were observed walking along W Union Street and N Nash Street. • In the afternoon, traffic for the K-1 pick up backed up onto N Occoneechee Street with minor through traffic. • Traffic backs up along N Nash Street in the right and left turn lanes for the 2-5 pick up. The school has separate entrance lanes for right turn traffic and left turn traffic.The left turn traffic backs up to W Corbin Street and the right turn traffic backs up past the intersection of N Nash Street and W Union Street. • Through traffic passes in the opposite lane on N Nash Street.Through traffic is moderately heavy in the afternoon.Several near misses were observed. • Buses also pass in the opposite lane on N Nash Street to get around the car line, creating safety concerns. • Vehicles were unable to exit left onto Nash Street because traffic was backed up and blocking the exit. • The intersection of Hayes Street, N Nash Street, and W Union Street is a skewed intersection creating safety concerns. • Vehicles were observed blocking the crosswalk at the school entrance on and the crosswalk to the parking across the street on W Union Street. • Crossing guards were not present. However, a police car with lights on was situated at the grades 2-5 drop-off area. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage is found along N Nash Street. • There is a bike rack located on campus. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • There are sidewalks and pedestrian crossings along the north side of W Union Street. • There is sidewalk located along the west side of N Nash Street across the street from the school. • There are crosswalks at the intersection of N Nash Street and Hayes Street. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There is a lack of connecting sidewalks on nearby roadways.There are no bicycle facilities on adjacent roadways.Table 2.6 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 27 Table 2.12:Key Infrastructure Gaps at Hillsborough Elementary Road Orientation Gap W Union Street South side No sidewalk or bike lanes N Nash Street East side No sidewalk or bike lanes Occoneechee Street Both Sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: W Union Street and N Occoneechee Street:W Union Street and N Occoneechee Street meet at a four-way stop intersection. Due to morning and afternoon traffic backups and through traffic passing on the left side,this intersection can be difficult for pedestrians to cross.The only sidewalk is located on W Union Street west of the intersection. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 28 Photos 4�x , X S ,ti s r :t.. Looking south along N Nash St at the pick-up Looking north along N Nash St at left-turn pick- line for grades 2-5.A bus is passing on the left, up line for grades 2-5. while a car coming from the opposite direction is also passing. Standing on W Union Street looking west at the ; skewed intersection with N Nash Street andlI ell? Hayes Street. mail Crosswalks on W Union Street in front of the school Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 29 Figure 2.4:Central Elementary School and Hillsborough Elementary School Overview N V A 57 o �loo O O a Fav O Go rnor,6 N p �\ a r J � 0; 1 1 / 00 Qeh-Johnston Rd � / \ ` a \ 0 _ U v 70 v C 1 ,tea o U � t New Grady n 8roy �0 O v �o� I , \86 `o a © Central Elementary School Existing Sidewalk 0 Hillsborough Elementary School Existing Shared-Use Path Central, Hillsborough Elementary Boundary r_ 20 Minute Walk Band p o O Pedestrian Crashes r_; 10 Minute Bike Band Bike Crashes Park 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Railroad Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 30 7 - Orange Middle School Orange Middle, previously known as C.W.Stanford,serves grades 6 to 8 and has a total enrollment of 521 students. It is located in northeast Hillsborough along Orange High School Road just off of US 70 and the surrounding land use is mostly residential with some commercial.The traffic volume along Orange High School Road is 3,500 vehicles per day, while US 70 has an average daily traffic volume of 13,500 vehicles per day.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the school, other than a short section of sidewalk along Orange High School Road.Approximately 15-20 students walk to school. Table 1.13:Orange Middle School Characteristics Grades Serviced 6th-8th Total Enrollment 521 Number of Buses 14 Number of Students Riding the Bus 274 in the AM;320 in the PM Number of Students Walking 15-20 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 200-250 Special Needs Population 4-6(1%) Land Uses Surrounding School Residential,Commercial Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic occasionally Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling Walkers must have written permission Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 100 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 2-5 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Orange Middle School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.5. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 15-20 Orange Middle students walking to school. On-site observations noted a number of middle school pedestrians walking from the direction of Orange High School. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Orange Middle: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers are generally respectful and pull of to the shoulder to allow other traffic to pass. • There is one entrance and exit out of the same driveway for carpool traffic. • During the morning drop off, motorists were observed queuing along Orange High School Road and traffic was backed up in both directions.Traffic cleared quickly once the sheriff arrived to direct traffic in the morning. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 31 • During the afternoon pick up,traffic backed up in both directions along Orange High School Road.Vehicles were observed pulling onto the shoulder to wait until the afternoon bell.Through traffic was observed passing through the left lane at full speed, creating safety concerns. • Staff noted that some walkers come from the direction of Orange High School down the street and walkers are not released in the afternoon until 3:55PM. • Some cars pull into the driveway exit lane while the carpool traffic is also leaving the exit lane creating the potential for an accident. • Buses must pass in the left lane to get past the cars lined up on Orange High School Road and into the bus lot. • There is not a crossing guard present, but office staff said there is occasionally someone directing traffic during pick-up times when available. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • There is some sidewalk along the immediate school entrance. • There is a short section of sidewalk along Orange High School Road, but it doesn't connect to any other sidewalk. • There is a crosswalk across Orange High School Road at Ann Road. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • The high speeds and high traffic volume along US 70 presents a serious safety threat for pedestrians and bicyclists. • There is no sidewalk connecting to the crosswalk. • The shoulder along Orange High School Road is narrow and has a steep drop off along certain parts. • There are no bicycle racks located on campus. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.7 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.14:Key Infrastructure Caps at Orange Middle Road Orientation Gap Orange High School Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes US 70 Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Ann Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Joyce Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Harold Latta Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 32 Gwen Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings were noted in the 2013 Safe Route to School Strategic Action Plan. They are still barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Orange High School Road and US 70: Orange High School Road ends at US 70 as a signalized intersection. However,due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along US 70, this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. Orange High School Road provides the primary access to the school,so any student walking from US 70 must utilize this intersection.Students living south of US 70 will have to cross this very busy 3-lane roadway. Gwen Road and US 70: Gwen Road ends at US 70 at a stop sign-controlled intersection. Due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along US 70,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. N Scotswood Boulevard and US 70: N Scotswood Boulevard provides access to the Churton Grove Community, a 330-acre residential area. Scotswood Boulevard currently ends at US 70 at an unsignalized intersection.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. High traffic speeds and volumes along US 70 make this intersection difficult for pedestrians to cross. Due to the lack of east-west connectivity in the Churton Grove area, many of the students living in this community might choose US 70 as their preferred route if walking or bicycling to school. NC 86 and NC 57: NC 86 and NC 57 meet at a signalized intersection northwest of the school. Students living northwest of the school may choose to use this intersection to access the school from Holman Drive.Traffic volumes can be high during the peak hours.There are currently no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. Orange High School Road and Orange Middle School Entrance:This unsignalized intersection provides primary access to the school.Although speeds are not high during arrival and dismissal times due to the school traffic, there is a significant amount of traffic at this location. Currently,there is a short section of sidewalk and one curb ramp along school property but no pedestrian crosswalk. Orange High School Road and Harold Latta Road: Orange High School Road meets Harold Latta Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection.Students living in this neighborhood may choose to use this intersection to access the school via Orange High School Road.There are currently no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this intersection. Due to the unusual geometry, pedestrian paths should be clearly defined at this intersection. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 33 t 7 i M n: R f — d A ' [_ i IV ,cam X } 6Lrl p 'tr % '4`C`R ser 8 - Orange High School Orange High serves grades 9 to 12 and has a total enrollment of 1,200 student. It is located in northeast Hillsborough along Orange High School Road just off of US 70 and the surrounding land use is mostly residential with some commercial.The traffic volume along Orange High School Road is 3,500 vehicles per day,while US 70 has an average daily traffic volume of 13,500 vehicles per day.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school.Approximately 15-20 students walk or bike to school. Table 1.IS.Orange High School Characteristics Grades Serviced 9th-12th Total Enrollment 1200 Number of Buses 22 Number of Students Riding the Bus 470 in the AM;472 in the PM Number of Students Walking 15 Number of Students Cycling 2 Number of Students Driven 730 Special Needs Population Yes(#unknown) Land Uses Surrounding School Residential,Commercial Presence of Bike Racks Yes No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards No Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students Yes Existing Parking Capacity 600 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 3 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Orange Middle School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.5. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 15-20 Orange High students walking or cycling to school.On-site observations noted several high school pedestrians walking through the practice football field to the nearby neighborhood. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Orange High: • Motorist behavior was observed as poor. Many drivers park on the side of the road to avoid the afternoon car queue and make illegal U-turns in the road, creating safety concerns for students and other drivers. Parents also cut into the car queue, park in visitor spots, and park in the woods causing a lot of potential for accidents. Other traffic speeds through the school zone. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 35 • The car queue in the morning is short with relatively little to no queuing. Sometimes traffic turning left into the school causes a small back up of no more than 5 cars, but clears quickly. • The car queue in the afternoon is heavier, however,there is no backup onto Orange High School Road. • Approximately 10-15 cars park on the side of Orange High School to avoid waiting in the car queue. Cars park on both sides of the road and make a U-turn in the road to leave. Students walk out to the cars,sometimes crossing the street. Field staff observed a near miss between a vehicle and student. • Students walking to and from school cut across the practice football field to walk from the nearby neighborhood. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Sidewalks in the immediate vicinity of the school are adequate. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • The high speeds and high traffic volume along US 70 presents a serious safety threat for pedestrians and bicyclists. • There are no crosswalks or pedestrian signage in the vicinity of the school. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways and there is no sidewalk connectivity to nearby neighborhoods.Table 2.8 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.16.Key Infrastructure Gaps at Orange High Road Orientation Gap Orange High School Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes US 70 Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Ann Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Joyce Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Harold Latta Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Gwen Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Orange High School Road and US 70: Orange High School Road ends at US 70 as a signalized intersection. However,due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along US 70,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 36 treatments at this location. Orange High School Road provides the primary access to the school,so any student walking from US 70 must utilize this intersection.Students living south of US 70 will have to cross this very busy 3-lane roadway. Gwen Road and US 70: Gwen Road ends at US 70 at a stop sign-controlled intersection. Due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along US 70,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. N Scotswood Boulevard and US 70: N Scotswood Boulevard provides access to the Churton Grove Community, a 330-acre residential area. Scotswood Boulevard currently ends at US 70 at an unsignalized intersection.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this location. High traffic speeds and volumes along US 70 make this intersection difficult for pedestrians to cross. Due to the lack of east-west connectivity in the Churton Grove area, many of the students living in this community might choose US 70 as their preferred route if walking or bicycling to school. Orange High School Road and Harold Latta Road: Orange High School Road meets Harold Latta Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection.Students living in this neighborhood may choose to use this intersection to access the school via Orange High School Road.There are currently no sidewalks or pedestrian treatments at this intersection. Due to the unusual geometry, pedestrian paths should be clearly defined at this intersection. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 37 Photos e� 7 Looking north along Orange High School Road Students walking on the opposite side of the at school entrance road to get to a car u. Cars pulled off to the side to avoid the car Traffic passing on both sides while cars are queue.A bus is passing the cars partially in pulled off to the side the left lane Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 38 Figure 2.5:Orange Middle School and Orange High School Overview N A �d/kerRa 57 a boo o — 10 86 ��d O J/ o ` C!J Fa O Uce�e CL 41 o 70 ti J � � f O00 + 7 \ r O / N 1 70 Qa O�f I n O ` G 4 Ota��e New_GradV Bror$,,S, O o C' OOrange High School Existing Sidewalk QOrange Middle School Existing Shared-Use Path o Q Orange Middle Boundary r— 20 Minute Walk Band Q Orange High Boundary — _; 10 Minute Bike Band O Pedestrian Crashes Park o Bike Crashes Railroad o 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 39 9 - Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School Efland Cheeks Global Elementary serves grades Kindergarten to 5 and has a total enrollment of 561 students. It is located in west Efland along Fuller Road just off of US 70 and the surrounding land use is mostly residential and undeveloped.Traffic volumes are low on Fuller Road and School House Road,while US 70 has an average daily traffic volume of 7,600 vehicles per day.The school is currently overcapacity based on projected land use in the area and future residential development projections.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school.Approximately 15 students walk to school. Table 1.17.Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced K-5t" Total Enrollment 561 Number of Buses 8 Number of Students Riding the Bus 275 in the AM;320 in the PM Number of Students Walking 15 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 292 Special Needs Population 5 0%) Land Uses Surrounding School Rural residential Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 81 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 10 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.6. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 15 Efland Cheeks students walking or cycling to school. On-site observations noted several elementary school pedestrians walking from School House Road, Lucia Lane,Tinnin Road, and Fuller Road. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Efland Cheeks: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers are respectful and obey speed limits. • In the morning,traffic backs up onto Fuller Road and School House Road. Cars must queue east of the school on Fuller Road and then onto School House Road.Cars are not allowed to access Fuller Road from US 70.They must enter the car line on Tinnin Road from US 70. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 40 • In the afternoon,traffic backs up to Tinnin Road. Cars block driveways of residences along School House Road. • Security officer was observed directing exiting traffic out to US 70 during the morning drop off. Once traffic started backing up the officer directed exiting traffic back to Fuller Road. • In the afternoon, several students walkers were observed using School House Road and Fuller Road. Parents walk to the school to pick students up.There is an obsolete driveway parents and students use to cut from School House Road to the school. • Safety concerns include blind curves along School House Road and Fuller Road. • Traffic is significant, especially during school start up and end times, along the Highway US 70 E which is a primary route to enter the school.Traffic along School House Road and Fuller Road is calm and slow. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Few strengths were noted due to the lack of pedestrian and bicycle facilities.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • There is one school zone sign along the section of Fuller Road entering the school from US 70.There is clear school zone signage along US 70. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • Traffic is relatively slow and calm and there is no through traffic. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • Richmond Road connecting to Fuller Road is currently 45 mph. • There is limited school zone signage along Fuller Road entering the school from the east where Fuller Road connects with Tinnin Road. • There are multiple two-lane roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.9 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.18:Key Infrastructure Gaps at Efland Cheeks Global Elementary Road Orientation Gap Fuller Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes School House Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Tinnin Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Richmond Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes US 70 Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 41 Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Fuller Road and US 70: Fuller Roads ends at US 70 as a stop sign-controlled intersection. Due to high speeds coupled with high traffic volumes along NC 70,this intersection is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Fuller Road and School House Road: Fuller Road and School House Road meet at a stop sign- controlled intersection.The dense vegetation at this intersection creates a blind corner when turning left onto School House Road from Fuller Road and when turning onto Fuller Road from School House Road, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross safely.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Richmond Road and School Side Entrance:The side driveway of Efland Cheeks ends at Richmond Road as a stop sign-controlled intersection.The speed limit on Richmond Road is 45 mph, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross safely. In addition,cars coming off of US 70 may be travelling quickly.There are no sidewalks or pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 42 Photos low Blind corner at School House Road and Fuller Standing on Fuller Road looking north at the Road school entrance � u 5 I y A .f «I Afternoon pick-up line on School House Road. Several parents walking to pick up students. Afternoon pick-up line on School House Road Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 43 11 - Gravelly Hill Middle School Gravelly Hill Middle serves grades 6 to 8 and has a total enrollment of 418 students. It is located in west Efland along W Ten Road and the surrounding land use is a mix of rural residential, commercial, industrial, and undeveloped.Traffic volumes along W Ten Road range from 1,100 to 3,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the school.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school, other than a sidewalk along W Ten Road on the school's property and a crosswalk.Approximately 2 students walk to school. Table 1.19:Gravelly Hill Middle School Characteristics Grades Serviced 6th-8th Total Enrollment 418 Number of Buses 9 Number of Students Riding the Bus 175 in the AM and PM Number of Students Walking 2 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 250 Special Needs Population 116 (28%) Land Uses Surrounding School Rural residential,Commercial, Industrial, Undeveloped Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones Yes Crossing Guards No Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students Yes Existing Parking Capacity 50 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 4-6 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Gravelly Hill School.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10- minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.6. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 2 Gravelly Hill students walking or cycling to school. On-site observations noted one middle school pedestrian walking from W Ten Road to houses across the street. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Gravelly Hill: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers are respectful and obey speed limits. Cars do occasionally block the crosswalk, but there are no pedestrians around. • There is one entrance to the school and left and right turn exit lanes out of the school. • There is light traffic along W Ten Road during the morning and light to moderate traffic in the afternoon. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 44 • During the afternoon pickup,vehicles backup to W Ten Road.Traffic backs up past the right turn lane—cars do pull over on the shoulder.Traffic backs up to the end of the left turn lane. • Through traffic will use the center turn lane to pass.Traffic is able to safely pass in both directions. • One walker was observed in the afternoon. • There are no crossing guards or sheriffs present to direct traffic. • Safety concerns include limited sight distance for cars exiting left out of the school due to the vehicles backed up along W Ten Road.Additionally,vehicles must pull into the crosswalk to see around the cars in the right turn lane. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage is found along W Ten Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • There is sidewalk on the section of school property adjacent to W Ten Road. • There is a crosswalk at the school entrance along W Ten Road. • There is a bike rack located at the school. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are multiple two-lane, rural roadways that pose safety barriers for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • W Ten Road presents a serious safety threat for pedestrians and bicyclists because of its lacking infrastructure, high speeds, traffic volume, and hilly terrain. Either side of W Ten Road presents engineering challenges for sidewalk or trails since there is no curb and gutter. • The speed limit within the school zone is 45 mph. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadway, other than the sidewalk on school property.Table 2.10 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.20:Key Infrastructure Gaps at Gravelly Hill Middle Road Orientation Gap W Ten Road Both sides No sidewalk outside of school property. No bike lanes Key Crossing Issues Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 45 The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: W Ten Road and School Entrance:The main entrance to Gravelly Hill Middle is located on W Ten Road.While there is a crosswalk at this location, it does often get blocked by cars exiting and entering the school driveway, making it a difficult location for pedestrians to cross. Additionally,the speed limit in the school zone is 45 mph, making it dangerous for pedestrians to cross across W Ten Road. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 46 Photos Sidewalk along W Ten Road in front of school Crosswalk at school entrance Traffic in the left-turn lane during the afternoon pick up K: Cars blocking the crosswalk during afternoon pick up Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 47 Figure 2.6.Efland Cheeks Global Elementary and Gravelly Hill Middle School Overview N Cf m O 70 I '1 \ Ben ' Ten Rd Johns i ton03 Rq o v 0 0 �a O Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School �ZS Gravelly Hill Middle School u c 0 Efland Cheeks Global Elementary Boundary Q Gravelly Hill Middle Boundary i s O Pedestrian Crashes 17 Bike Crashes - z r_; 20 Minute Walk Band 2 r_ 10 Minute Bike Band 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Railroad Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 48 10 - Partnership Academy High School Partnership Academy serves grades 9 to 12 and has a total enrollment of 54 students. It is located in east Hillsborough along Corporate Drive just off of US 70 Alternate and the surrounding land use is mostly residential and commercial.Traffic volumes are low on Meadowlands Drive and Corporate Drive,while US Highway 70A has an average daily traffic volume of 6,400 vehicles per day.There are some sidewalks in the vicinity around the school along Meadowlands Drive and US Highway 70A. No students walk or bike to school. Table 1.27:Partnership Academy High School Characteristics Grades Serviced 9th-12th Total Enrollment 54 Number of Buses 4 Number of Students Riding the Bus 28 in the AM;31 in the PM Number of Students Walking 0 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 20 Special Needs Population 50% Land Uses Surrounding School Residential,Commercial Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards No Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 23 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 7 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Partnership Academy.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.7. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are no Partnership Academy students walking or cycling to school.On-site observations noted no pedestrians or cyclists walking in the vicinity of the school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Partnership Academy: • Motorist behavior was observed as good. Drivers obey speed limits and are respectful of other traffic. • No students were observed walking or cycling during the site visit. • Due to the small school size, there is no traffic back up.The morning car line is never more than 2-3 cars and the afternoon car line is never more than 4-5 vehicles at peak times. • There are no crossing guards or sheriffs directing traffic. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 49 Existing Infrastructure-Strengths The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage is found along Corporate Drive and US 70A. • There are crosswalks along US 70A at the intersections with Prestwood Dr and Quincy Cottage Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • There are sidewalks along portions of Meadowlands Drive, US 70A, and nearby neighborhood roads. • There is no through traffic on Corporate Drive or Meadowlands Drive making these roads safer for walking. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • Traffic is significant along US 70A and poses a safety barrier for school-age cyclists and pedestrians. • There are no bicycle racks on campus. • Within the surrounding the area,there is no curb and gutter. Drainage ditches and right-of-way are an obstacle to further sidewalk or side path development. • There are no sidewalks or sidewalk gaps on adjacent roadways.There are no bicycle facilities on adjacent roadways.Table 2.11 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.22:Key Infrastructure Gaps at Partnership Academy Road Orientation Gap Corporate Drive Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. US 70A Both sides No sidewalk from Meadowlands Dr to 650 feet west. No sidewalk east of Orange County SportsPlex. Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Corporate Drive and Meadowlands Drive:There is currently no pedestrian crossing treatment from Corporate Drive across Meadowlands Drive to connect to the sidewalk.Corporate Drive is stop controlled and the traffic along Meadowlands Drive coming from US 70 is free flowing at the intersection. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 50 Photos School campus and parking lot Cars entering school entrance during morning drop off 4 ➢ i� - u r H School entrance Cul-de-sac at the end of Corporate Drive Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 51 12 - River Park Elementary School River Park Elementary, previously known as Cameron Park, serves grades Kindergarten to 5 and has a total enrollment of 558 students. It is located near downtown Hillsborough along St Mary's Road and the surrounding land use is mostly residential and commercial.The traffic volume along St Mary's Road is 3,100 vehicles per day in the vicinity of the school.The school is currently overcapacity based on projected land use in the area and future residential development projections.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school, other than a small sidewalk directly in front the school.Approximately 25-30 students walk to school. Table 1.23.River Park Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced K-5t" Total Enrollment 558 Number of Buses 7 Number of Students Riding the Bus 220 in the AM;351 in the PM Number of Students Walking 25-30 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 350-400 Special Needs Population 11 (2%) Land Uses Surrounding School Residential,Commercial Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards Sheriff directing traffic and serving as crossing guard occasionally Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 78 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones No Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 5-10 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for River Park Elementary. An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes, existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.7. 3ehavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 25-30 students walking or cycling to school. On-site observations noted 24 students walking to school mainly from Lydia Lane.A few students walked from St Mary's Road west of the school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for River Park Elementary: • Motorist behavior was observed as fair. School traffic was respectful of other drivers, but did not always yield to pedestrians. • In the morning, traffic is backed up moderately in both directions.There is a high volume of school traffic. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 52 • In the afternoon,traffic is backed up significantly in both directions. Some through traffic passes in the left lane from both directions,while some through traffic waits in the car line.Some through traffic turns down Lydia Lane and E Tryon Street to avoid waiting in the queue. • Due to the long queues on St. Mary's Road,several dangerous maneuvers were witnessed during the observation period. One car was observed turning left out of the school while families were crossing the crosswalk.Vehicles were observed turning out of the school while traffic is going by on St Mary's. Multiple vehicles were observed making a U-turn on St. Mary's Road to get out of the school carpool line. • Most of the 24 students that walked to school came from from Lydia Lane and 3-4 families walked from the west along St Marys Road. Families were observed using the crosswalk to cross St Mary's Road. • Traffic backs up into the crosswalk during the morning and afternoon,which limits the line of sight for pedestrians, creating safety concerns. • A sheriff was observed directing traffic and serving as crossing guard in the morning. The sheriff did not arrive until 7:33AM after several students had already walked to school.A sheriff directed traffic in the afternoon but did not assist with pedestrians crossing. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths River Park Elementary's location near downtown Hillsborough makes it a prime location for students to walk or bicycle to school.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone and pedestrian crossing signage is found along St Mary's Road. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front and side.There is a small section of sidewalk along St Mary's Road at the school front. • There is a crosswalk with crossing signage across St. Mary's Road at the intersection with Lydia Lane. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • There are multiple roadways in the area that pose safety barriers for elementary student pedestrians and bicyclists. • Neighborhoods to the north of US 70 do not have a safe crossing to the roads that lead to the school. • Besides the crossing on St. Mary's Road at the intersection of Lydia Lane,there are no other marked crosswalks within the vicinity of the school. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.12 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 53 Table 2.24:Key Infrastructure Gaps at River Park Elementary Road Orientation Gap St. Mary's Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. Lydia Lane Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. East Queen Street Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. North Cameron Street Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. South Cameron Street East side No sidewalk or bike lanes. East Tryon Street North side No sidewalk or bike lanes. Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: St Marys Road and Lydia Lane: Lydia Lane ends at St Marys Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection.While there is already a crosswalk at this location, the high volume of traffic along St Marys Road still creates safety concerns for pedestrians. In addition,the crosswalk is located next to the left-turn lane out of the school,creating potential conflicts for turning traffic and pedestrians crossing. St Marys Road and E Tryon Road: E Tryon Road ends at St Marys Road at a stop sign-controlled intersection. E Tryon Road meets St Marys Road as it comes out of a curve, creating a dangerous location for pedestrians.There is a sidewalk on the south side of E Tryon Road, but no pedestrian crossings at this location. St Marys Road,Cameron Street,and E King Street:St Marys Road,Cameron Street, and E King Street meet at a stop sign-controlled skewed intersection. Due to the unusual geometry of this intersection, is very difficult for pedestrians to cross.There is a crosswalk at E King Street and sidewalks along both sides of E King Street,the west side of St Marys Road, and the west side of S Cameron Street. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 54 Photos Exit lanes out of school.Left-turn lane is right next to crosswalk Morning traffic backed up on St Marys Road L ' a< Sidewalk in front of River Park Elementary Crosswalk on St Marys Road Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 55 Figure 2.7:Partnership Academy and River Park Elementary Overview IN 57 �3 °lo o '1 r Governor-�J��e �t Q Fau o PMill II o po pry r AAB6 ®i r t ' I 5 I 41 { O 00 t - 1 � ���ohnston ado a � � u ._— O E ! �� New.Grady Bro I `� O r�,n o f X 86 -� Partnership Academy Existing Sidewalk River Park Elementary School — Existing Shared Use Path r' CO Q River Park Elementary Boundary _ 20 Minute Walk Bands o O Pedestrian Crashes i_�� 10 Minute Bike Band o Bike Crashes Park Railroad 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 56 13 - Pathways Elementary School Pathways Elementary serves grades Pre-Kindergarten to 5 and has a total enrollment of 370 students. It is located in north Hillsborough along Strouds Creek Road just off of NC 57 and the surrounding land use is mostly agricultural and residential.Traffic volumes are low on Strouds Creek Road,while NC 70 has an average daily traffic volume of 6,400 vehicles per day.There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities on the roadways in the vicinity of the school, other than a small section of sidewalk along Strouds Creek Road.Approximately 8 students walk to school. Table 1.25:Pathways Elementary School Characteristics Grades Serviced Pre-K-St" Total Enrollment 370 Number of Buses 5 Number of Students Riding the Bus 105 in the AM;126 in the PM Number of Students Walking 8 Number of Students Cycling 0 Number of Students Driven 130 Special Needs Population 0 Land Uses Surrounding School Residential,Agricultural Presence of Bike Racks No No Walk Zones None Crossing Guards No Policies that Restrict Walking or Bicycling No Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Taught to Students No Existing Parking Capacity 94 spaces Presence of Car Waiting Zones Yes Number of Staff Managing Drop off/Pick up 16 The following pages highlight the data collected pertaining to the strengths and weaknesses of the existing pedestrian environment for Pathways Elementary.An overview map showing the bicycle and pedestrian crashes,existing infrastructure, a 20-minute walking radius, and a 10-minute biking radius is included in Figure 2.8. Behavioral Components of Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic Patterns There are approximately 8 students walking to school.On-site observations noted several elementary school pedestrians walking from the Stroud's Creek neighborhood adjacent to the school. Field staff noted the following travel norms for Pathways Elementary: • Motorist behavior was observed as fair to good.Traffic appears to go faster than the posted speed limit of 25mph along Strouds Creek Road, but drivers are respectful overa 11. • There are separate drop-off and pick-up zones for the Pre-K and K-5 grades. • There were no backups of traffic during the morning drop off.Traffic for the K-5 pick up does backup onto Strouds Creek Road past Village Grove Court. • Cars and buses were observed passing in the left lane to get into the school entrance.A few cars traveling to Tumbling Brook Lane also had to pass on the left. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 57 • Parents were observed walking from the neighborhood to pick up students.A few students were observed walking home alone,which is not allowed according to school staff. • Safety concerns include vehicles passing in the left lane while vehicles are exiting the school at the same time and cars turning left out of Tumbling Brook Lane having limited sight distance due to the line of cars. • Other safety concerns include no crosswalks across the Pre-K car entrance where students were observed crossing. Existing Infrastructure-Strengths Pathways Elementary's location on a dead-end road makes it a viable location for walking and biking to school from nearby residences.The following observations were noted as existing system strengths: • Clear school zone signage is found along Strouds Creek Road and NC 57 as well as school zone pavement markings on NC 67. • There are on-campus sidewalks along the building front, adjacent to the carpool drop- off line. • There is a sidewalk connection from Village Grove Court to the first school driveway entrance. • There is no through traffic on Strouds Creek Road and Tumbling Brook Lane is a gated community with no through traffic. Existing Infrastructure- Deficiencies There are multiple issues related to infrastructure deficiency and traffic issues that warrant improvement,create safety hazards, and prevent children from walking and cycling to school safely. Key weaknesses, barriers, and obstacles include the following: • Traffic is significant along the primary route to school NC 57. • There are no crosswalks or curb ramps located on adjacent roadways. • There is no on campus sidewalk connecting from Strouds Creek Road to the school. • There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities found on adjacent roadways.Table 2.13 summarizes key locations where insufficient infrastructure creates barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 2.26:Key Infrastructure Caps at Pathways Elementary Road Orientation Gap Strouds Creek Road Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. Tumbling Brook Lane Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. Village Grove Court Both sides No sidewalk or bike lanes. Key Crossing Issues The following crossings are barriers to safety and prevent children from walk and cycling to school safely: Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 58 Strouds Creek Road and School Eastern Entrance:The eastern driveway to Pathways Elementary meets Strouds Creek Road a stop sign-controlled intersection. Pedestrians walking from the Stroud's Creek neighborhood use this crossing to walk to and from school. Due to number of vehicles turning in and out of this driveway, this intersection difficult for pedestrians to cross.There is a sidewalk coming from the Stroud's Creek neighborhood, but there are no sidewalks along the western side of the intersection.There are no pedestrian crossings at this location. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 59 Photos i a h 2s � �I I Sidewalk in front ofStroud's Creek End of sidewalk at the eastern driveway neighborhood Bus passing in the left lane to get into the bus lot Afternoon pick-up line Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 60 Figure 2.8:Pathways Elementary School Overview N e Rd O�a0q Edmund Latta Rd Kenion Rd --- — Phelps Rd / r- r , \ � t FdUcett f Governor-��t�e ! �. PM// � Rd - � r 9A ® Pathways Elementary School \ Q Pathways Elementary Boundary J� 7 \ Existing Sidewalk 1 f ! a ' Existing Shared Use Path fl Existing Bike Facility ' 70 _; 20 Minute Walk Band r_; 1D Minute Bike Band ,� I I� 86 Park — Railroad Ota : 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 61 4. Resources Greene Transportation Solutions &Greenways Incorporated.Safe Routes to School Strategic Action Plan for Orange County, North Carolina. 2013. Retrieved from https://www.ora ngecou ntync.gov/Docu mentCenterNiew/4119/Adopted-Safe-Routes-to-School- SRTS-Plan-large-file-PDF North Carolina Department of Transportation. NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Mapping Application [map]. Last updated November 9,2023. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5 ed4 (accessed June 12, 2024). North Carolina State University Institute for Transportation Research and Education. Operations Research and Education Laboratory. "Orange County Schools Out-of-Capacity Table". October 26, 2023. Safe Routes to School Existing Conditions Analysis 62 3. Preliminary Recommendations This section discusses preliminary recommendations based on initial field visits and data collection.These recommendations focus on schools where students are already biking and walking in order to increase safety for those who most need it. Recommendations should be refined through additional public and stakeholder engagement. Cedar Ridge High School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Cedar Ridge High including the following: • Decrease speed limits along New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road. Additionally, implement speed enforcement mechanisms to prevent the current traffic from speeding. • Install no parking signs along New Grady Brown School Road to deter parents from parking on the side of the road during afternoon pick up. • Construct sidewalks or a multi-use path on New Grady Brown School Road and Orange Grove Road. • Construct a pedestrian bridge adjacent to Orange Grove Road that crosses over 1-40 to provide safe passage. • Add a crosswalk and pedestrian signage on New Grady Brown School Road at Grady Brown Elementary. Central Elementary School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Central Elementary including the following: • Extend the sidewalk along Hayes Street further west past the school. • Construct sidewalks along Latimer Street and W King Street. Hillsborough Elementary School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Hillsborough Elementary including the following: • Construct sidewalks along N Occoneechee Street. • Extend the sidewalk along W Union Street further east. • Install flashing pedestrian signage at the crosswalks on W Union Street, N Nash Street, and Hayes Street. Orange Middle School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Orange Middle including the following: • Construct multi-use paths from Harold Latta Drive and Holman Drive to the school side entrance. Safe Routes to School Draft Plan 1 Orange High School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Orange High including the following: • Install no parking signs along Orange High School Road to deter parents from parking on the side of the road during afternoon pick up. • Construct sidewalks along Harold Latta Road, Governor Drive, and Dairy Farm Drive. Efland Cheeks Global Elementary School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Efland Cheeks Global Elementary including the following: • Construct sidewalks along Fuller Road, School House Road, and Tinnin Road. Gravelly Hill Middle School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Gravelly Hill Middle including the following: • Install a "do not block crosswalk"sign at the crosswalk at the school driveway entrance. • Install pedestrian crossing signage on W Ten Road. River Park Elementary School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to River Park Elementary including the following: • Add a HAWK signal to the current crosswalk to increase pedestrian visibility. • Construct sidewalks along St Mary's Road and Lydia Lane to connect to the school. • Decrease speed limit along St Mary's Road.Additionally, implement speed enforcement mechanisms to prevent the current traffic from speeding. Pathways Elementary School Preliminary recommendations to increase safety for students who are walking or biking to Pathways Elementary including the following: • Decrease speed limit along Strouds Creek Road.Additionally, implement speed enforcement mechanisms to prevent the current traffic from speeding. • Construct a sidewalk along Strouds Creek Road to the school entrance. • Add a crosswalk and pedestrian signage at the easternmost driveway entrance to the school. Safe Routes to School Draft Plan 2 NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT TIP/WBS# Description LET/Start Completion Cost Status Project Lead Date Date SS-6207T Portions of Twenty-One(21)Routes.Curve Warning Sign 9/20/2023 9/30/24 $200,000 Planning and design activities underway. Dawn McPherson 51112 Installation. Construction started. SS-6207A NC 54 Pedestrian improvements between SR 1902 2/15/2024 10/31/2024 $171,000 Planning and design activities underway. Dawn McPherson 50337 (Manning Drive)and SR 1937(Old Fayetteville Road)in Materials have arrived and work has Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Improvements will include refuge begun. islands,crosswalks and pedestrian signals. Improvements to be completed by state forces. 51130 Eliminate slip ramp on SR 1120(Mt.Willing Road)at SR 5/20/2024 Summer 2024 $75,000 Funding approved by BOT.Traffic Matthey Whitley 1117(Oak Grove Church Road) Services revision complete.Construction by Maintenance complete. P-5701 B Construct Platform, Passenger Rail Station Building at 7/1/2024 FY2025 $7,200,000 PE funding scheduled 7/1/2020. Planning Matthew Simmons 46395.1.1 Milepost 41.7 Norfolk Southern H-line in Hillsborough and deisgn activities underway 46395.3.3 HL-0045 Repair Bridge#241 on Exchange Park Lane over Eno River 9/26/2024 FY2027 $153,800 Agreement executed, Hillsborough to Town of from South Churton Street to Faribult Lane in Hillsborough prepare environmental documents and Hillsborough/Stephen plans. Review of final plans underway. Robinson EB-5721 Upgrade existing off-road path and construct new section of 9/26/2024 FY2025 $2,400,000 Bids opened 7/17/23-Bids rejected. Town of Chapel path of Bicycle Route#1 from Cleland Drive to Willow Drive Project on Hold.Chapel Hill to seek Hill/Stephen Robinson in Chapel Hill additional funding and relet at a future date. EL-4828A Construct Morgan Creek Greenway Phase 1 in Carrboro 10/24/2024 FY2026 $372,000 Review comments provided to Carrboro in Town of June 2023 for revisions and resubmittal. Carrboro/Stephen Resubmittal under review. Robinson C-5181 Jones Creek Greenway Project-Fill Gap between the 11/21/2024 FY2026 $654,000 Environmental document approved Town of Carrboro Upper Bolin Trail and Twin Creeks Greenway and 8/14/23. NCDOT to review plans once Carrboro/Stephen also implement program to support on-vehicle trips to Morris Carrboro develops and submits. Robinson Grove Elementary School HS-2007J Install a new crosswalk with Rapid Rectangular Flashing 11/21/2024 6/30/2025 $300,000 Planning and deisgn activities underway Suzana Matts Beacons(RRFB), raised center island,pedestrian signage, and approximately 125 linear feet of sidewalk on NC 86 at Critz Drive in Chapel Hill Page 1 DCHCMPO Aug 2024 NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT TIP/WBS# Description LET/Start Completion Cost Status Project Lead Date Date BL-0044 NC 54 from Westbrook Drive in Carrboro to west of US 1/16/2025 7/31/2025 $1,311,000 Construction funding to be requested once Trung Nguyen 49998.1.1 15/501/NC 86(South Columbia Street)interchange in municipal agreements are executed. Chapel Hill. Construct sidewalk and install pedestrian Chapel Hill MA executed,Carrboro MA signals,crosswalks,and refuge islands at selected locations. has also been executed. Utility Relocations Underway. BR-0092 Replace Bridge#37 on NC 86 over New Hope Creek 8/19/2025 FY2028 $2,900,000 Planning and design activities underway Alexander Foster C-5650 Construct sidewalk on one side of SR 1919(Smith Level 12/4/2025 FY2028 $1,718,000 Carrboro approved to incorporate water Town of Road/S.Greensboro St.)from Public Works Drive to the line work into design. Env doc returned w Carrboro/Stephen northern end of Old Pittsboro Road in Carrboro comments on 12/10/21. Document to be Robinson updated to include additional limits for resurfacing. NCDOT waiting on revised HO-0013 Chapel Hill from Franklin Street and Rosemary Street,and 2/26/2026 FY28 $2,100,000 Project approved by BOT and assigned. Stephen Robinson 51177.1.1 the streets in between from Merritt Mill Road to Henderson Municipal agreement executed. 51177.2.1 Street in downtown Chapel Hill. Install new mast arm and 51177.2.2 51177.3.1 curb and sidewalk improvements. 1-3306AC 1-40 at NC 86-Upgrade to superstreet from Northwood Drive 5/19/2026 FY2029 $4,350,000 Planning and design activities underway Radha Attaluri to Ramp C/D at 1-40 interchange BP7-R009 Replace Bridge#11 on SR 1336(Halls Mill Road) 9/17/2026 FY2029 $2,900,000 Planning and design activities underway Daniel Dagenhart ROW acquisisition complete. EB-5886A Construct sidewalk/MUP/bike lanes on Estes Drive from SR 9/17/2026 FY2029 $848,000 Municipal agreement needs to be Town of 1772(North Greensboro Street)to south of Norfolk Southern requested and executed to begin work. Carrboro/Stephen Railroad Tracks in the Town of Carrboro Robinson EB-5998 Construct MUP on US 15/501 from Willow Drive to SR 9/30/2026 FY2028 $2,044,000 Municipal agreement needs to be Town of Chapel 1741/SR 1838(Old Durham Chapel Hill Road)in Chapel Hill requested and executed to begin work. Hill/Stephen Robinson EB-5886B Construct sidewalk/MUP/bike lanes on Estes Drive from 10/1/2026 FY2028 $3,104,000 Municipal agreement executed and project Town of Chapel south of Norfolk Southern Railroad to NC 86(MLK Jr. Blvd.) development underway. Hill/Stephen Robinson in Chapel Hill Page 2 DCHCMPO Aug 2024 NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT TIP/WBS# Description LET/Start Completion Cost Status Project Lead Date Date 1-5958 Pavement Rehabilitation on 1-40/1-85 from West of SR 1114 11/17/2026 FY2028 $8,690,000 Planning and design activities pending Trung Nguyen 45910.1.1 (Buckhorn Road)to West of SR 1006(Orange Grove Road) 45910.3.1 B-6037 Replace Bridge#49 over Norfolk Southern Railway on NC 4/20/2027 FY2031 $10,600,000 Planning and design activities underway Brandon Green 86 BP7-R013 Replace Bridge#90 on SR 1940(Damascus Church Road) 9/16/2027 FY2030 $800,000 Planning and design activities underway Daniel Dagenhart Plans at 25% EB-5880 Construct sidewalk on the north side of SR 1005(Jones 9/30/2027 FY2029 $441,000 Municipal agreement needs to be Town of Ferry Road)from Davie Road to SR 1010(West Main St.)in requested and executed to begin work. Carrboro/Stephen Carrboro Robinson EB-5890 Construct sidewalk on Barnes Street from King Street to SR 9/30/2027 FY2029 $230,000 Municipal agreement needs to be Town of 1005(Jones Ferry Road)in Carrboro requested and executed to begin work. Carrboro/Stephen Robinson BR-0247 Replace Bridge#29 on US 70 Business/NC 86 over Cates 11/16/2027 FY2029 Pending Preliminary activities pending Bryan Key Creek 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 BP7-R015 Replace Bridge#86 on SR 1942(Jones Ferry Road) 9/6/2029 FY2031 $1,700,000 Planning and design activities underway. Daniel Dagenhart Detour needs improvements so will need to see if resurfacing funds available or switch to TIP project.TBD U-5845 Widen SR 1009(South Churton Street)to multi-lanes from 1- 7/16/2030 FY2033 $49,238,000 PE funding approved 5/14/15, Planning Radha Attaluri 50235.1.1 40 to Eno River in Hillsborough and Design activities underway, 50235.2.1 Coordinate with 1-0305B which was 50235.3.1 formerly 1-5967. Page 3 DCHCMPO Aug 2024 NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO - UNDER DEVELOPMENT TIP/WBS# Description LET/Start Completion Cost Status Project Lead Date Date BP7-R007 Replace Bridge#63 on Pleasant Green Road 9/5/2030 FY2033 $2,500,000 Planning and design activities underway Daniel Dagenhart I-0305B Interchange improvements at I-85 and SR 1009(South 10/15/2030 FY2033 $16,900,000 PE funding approved 9/8/17, Planning and Colin Mellor 34142.1.5 Churton Street)in Hillsborough Design activities underway,Coordinate 34142.3.3 with 1-0305 and U-5845.(1-0305B was 34142.3.4 formerly 1-5967) 34142.2.4 R-5821A Construct operational improvements including 6/17/2031 FY2033 $7,000,000 PE funding approved 10/10/17,design Suzana Matta 47093.1.2 Bicycle/Pedestrian accommodations on NC 54 from SR activities currently suspended, 47093.2.2 1006(Orange Grove Road)to SR 1107/SR 1937(Old Coordinating with NC54 West Corridor 47093.3.2 Fayetteville Road). Study 1-0305(A) Widening of 1-85 from west of SR1006(Orange Grove Road) 1/20/2032 FY2036 $132,000,000 PE funding approved 6/5/18, Planning and Colin Mellor 34142.1.2 in Orange Co.to west of SR 1400(Sparger Road)in Orange design activities underway, Project 34142.2.2 Co. reinstated per 2020-2029 STIP(funded 34142.3.2 project)and delete project 1-5983 1-0305C Interchange improvements at 1-85 and NC 86 in 11/16/2032 FY2035 $20,900,000 PE funding approved 10/10/17, Planning Colin Mellor 34142.1.6 Hillsborough and Design activities underway, 1-0305C was formerly 1-5984. U-4726DF Bicycle detection at signalized intersections in Carrboro TBD TBD $36,000 Plans at 90%completion-Plan review Town of comments returned back to the Town of Carrboro/Stephen Carrboro for revisions.To be Re-Let. Robinson SS-6207AF SR 1004(Efland-Cedar Grove Road)at SR 1306(Lebanon TBD TBD $25,000 Planning and design activities underway TBD 51427 Road),west of Hillsborough.Convert intersection to all way stop traffic control(without flasher). Page 4 DCHCMPO Aug 2024 North Carolina Department of Transportation 8/6/2024 Active Projects Under Construction -Orange Co. Contract TIP Location Description Contractor Name Resident Contract Bid Availability Completion Work Start Estimated Progress Completion Number Number Engineer Amount Date Date Date Completion Schedule Percent Date Percent C204632 1-3306A WIDENING 1-40 FROM 1-85 IN ORANGE COUNTY TO THE DURHAM THE LANE Cvijetic,PE, $236,457,869.00 9/27/2021 9/1/2025 10/28/2021 6/17/2026 43 42.69 COUNTY LINE AND 1-40 WESTBOUND IN DURHAM COUNTY NEAR US- CONSTRUCTION Bojan 15/501. CORPORATION C204806 RESURFACING 27 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS CAROLINA SUNROCK Howell,Bobby J $4,512,658.45 3/15/2023 9/15/2024 5/22/2023 9/15/2024 60 56.61 LLC C204905 10 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS CAROLINA SUNROCK Howell,Bobby J $3,783,925.02 4/1/2024 10/1/2025 7/2/2024 LLC DG00631 R-5787FA INTERSECTIONS OF VARIOUS US,NC AND SR ROUTES.UPGRADING EASTERN Howell,Bobby J $919,609.00 3/18/2024 3/18/2026 5/21/2024 3/18/2026 30 32.39 OF NON-COMPLIANT ADA CURB RAMPS EARTHSCAPRES AND CONSTRUCTION LLC DG00633 R-5787K INTERSECTIONS OF VARIOUS US,NC AND SR ROUTES.UPGRADING HOLLINS Howell,Bobby J $992,602.20 3/18/2024 3/18/2026 5/6/2024 3/18/2026 18.6 35.35 OF NON-COMPLIANT ADA CURB RAMPS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC Page 1 of 1 CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* July 30, 2024 Colleen McGue, Planning Manager DCHC MPO 4307 Emperor Blvd, Suite 110 Durham, NC 27703 RE: FY 2024 5310 Application Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) is submitting an application for the Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities funds for: • Traditional Capital: 3 ADA passenger vans - $250,000 o Dedicated County transit services for seniors and disabled • Traditional Mobility Management Program (MMP)—Go Orange - $100,000 o Implement Short Range Transit Plan for seniors and disabled The purpose of this letter is to serve as the official assurance of: • 20% local match required for 3 ADA passenger vans - $50,000 • 20% local match required for MMP - $20,000 Sufficient funds are allocated in the OCTS department budget to provide local match should the grant be approved. This letter serves to certify that the total cost for both projects is $300,000 and requires local matching funds in the amount of$70,000.All application material is attached to the letter including: • Section I — DCHC MPO 5310 FY24 Application • Section 11 - Project Understanding • Section III — Budget Request • Section IV—OCTS Service Area Map County greatly appreciate all that the DCHC MPO does for the department and more importantly, the residents of Orange County. Please forward any questions, comments or concerns to me at ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov. Sincerely, Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director Orange County Transportation Services CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* Section I — DCHC MPO 5310 FY24 Application Date: 7/30/2024 Project Title: OCTS 3 ADA Passenger Vans for Seniors and Disabled Section l: Applicant Information Applicant Legal Name Orange County Transportation Services Contact Person/Title: Nishith Trivedi,Transportation Director Address: 606 N. NC 86 City Hillsborough State NC Zip Code 27278 Telephone#919-245-2007 DUNS#091575191 Request Type (Check all that apply) ❑X Continuation of an ❑X New Project ❑Operating X❑Capital ❑X Mobility Existing Project Management* *Application for mobility management funding is encouraged as this funding can be used to assist in program administration through funding staff responsible for administering the program and can be the main point of contact for DCHC staff. Organization Type (Check all that apply) ❑X Local Government Authority ❑ Private Non-Profit Organization ❑X Public Operator of Public Transportation ❑ Private Operator of Public Transportation Systems Systems Supplemental Information ❑ Copy of current IRS W-9 Taxpayer Identification Form (new applicants only) 0 Service Area/Route Map (if applicable) 0 Current Letters of Support for Project Certifications—See Appendix A ❑ Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy or Drug-Free Workplace Policy 0 Local Share Certification 0 Title VI Plan Certification 0 EEO Certification 0 Lobbying Certification ❑X Traditional Project Certification Eligibility—Units of Local Government (if applicable) ❑ Private Non-Profit Organization Certification Eligibility(if applicable) CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* Section 11: Project Understanding Needs and Benefits The following questions should be answered for all projects, unless otherwise noted. If you need additional space, please attach as separate document. CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* 1. Project Description (at least 500 words) Project 1: 3 ADA passenger vans Orange County will procure 3 ADA passenger vans to improve transit access and services identified in the DCHC MPO Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan. These vehicles are necessary to also implement the same priorities identified in the County's Short Range Transit Plan.OCTS expanded its public transit service area to 10 miles into surrounding counties and needs the vehicles to ensure on-time service to these new areas. Project Budget: • Total project cost$250,000 • $200,000(80%)Federal+$50,000(20%)Local match • County will continue funding service improvements after project completion Project 2:Mobility Management Program(MMP)—Go Orange OCTS seeks to implement a fare free program to meet the public transit needs for its seniors,disabled and other social and health needs. This specific Mobility Management Program—Go Orange—mirrors those of other transit providers in the area,like Chapel Hill Transit's EZ Rider and Go Triangles Go Pass. Project Budget: • Total project cost$100,000 • $80,000(80%)Federal+$20,000(20%)Local match • County will continue funding service improvements after project completion The 2 projects help the County and DCHC MPO accomplish several strategies identified in the plan: • More regional route options covering larger service areas with more frequency • Provide more on-demand service rather than demand response for flexibility in travel • Provide more transportation for seniors in Durham and Orange County • Determine applicable fund sources for cross-county transportation service • Reduce travel and waiting times through more efficient planning • Offer deviated or weekend routes to places that are important for social and health purposes OCTS is always recruiting new drivers and has the staff support to successfully implement both projects. The department will work with Department on Aging,Department of Social Services and others to meet the growing needs of the County residents and DCHC MPO support for such projects as this will help OCTS accomplish this goal. � ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORA E�Y TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COU NoKrtL CARQLLNA OrangeCoullty 2. Estimated number of individuals to be served annually by your project List Existing—Current Projected Seniors 60 years of age and over Projects Serving Seniors) 300 Weekly 500 Dail Individuals with Disabilities 100 Weekly 150 Dail General Public 200 Weekly 400 Dail Total 600 Weekly 1,050 Dail 3. Unmet Need Describe the unmet transportation need that the proposed project seeks to address and the relevant planning effort required. Include the specific community served by this project, and provide relevant demographic data and/or maps. Both projects are designed to meet the needs of Orange County as identified in the following County Plans: • 2022 Strategic Plan(link) • 2024 Short Range Transit Plan—Adoption Oct 2024 • Transportation Multimodal Plan—Adoption Oct 2024 • Master Aging Plan(link) • Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan(DCHC MPO and CPRPO) Related data consists of: Table 1.1 Oran ge County Age Projections AGES 2020 OA CHANGE 1 f t41 total 149,013 179,629 19.9% 0-17 25,762 17% 26,932 15% 4.5% 19.41E 63,710 43% 71,838 4�0% 12.8% 45.59 27,827 191A 32,981 19% 183% 60+ 31.714 21% 46,878 26% 47A% 65+ 22,634 1 38,006 21% 67_ a 95+ 1, 8 1% 7,167 4% 264.2% Figure 1:Source County Master Aging Plan CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.ARULINA PUBLICTRA SII Active Voters 6o bears Old and Older by zozo Census Blocks S:aswolJ County Pr:scl_i Gaurly • + i f L } i + } f k i ■ I '•k r h } T � ■ ■F—+ �1 F � #•. � �_ 0- , Imo- • � 0 0■ ■ h .. 0r i_f ■ + ■ f�11 T T # +I ! � •Lf1 Soy.f � ■ 1 -�ILylimns ti •# plus Valvrs 6D Yvars Old and Dyer •l { 1- IU k Figure 2:Source County Master Aging Plan CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* 4. Implementation Plan a. Describe key personnel assigned to this project and your agency's ability to manage the project. Project 1: 3 ADA passenger vans • Orange County Fleet Services procures the vehicles typically with a two month turn around from quote to close-out • OCTS currently has sufficient drivers and always recruiting more to meet the increasing demand for transit services • Transportation Director and Business Officer meet with County Finance department weekly to ensure funds are secured for the project from start to completion Project 2:Mobility Management Program(MMP)—Go Orange • July 2024,OCTS started covering all cost for public transit services for all departments in the County including Department on Aging and Social Services. • OCTS seeks financial support from regional partners to continue improving the transit services to the County senior,disabled and other residents,especially those going to and from Durham County b. Provide an operational plan for delivering the service. Include routes and service maps, if applicable, as well as key milestones and estimated completion date (for capital projects). • 2022 Strategic Plan(link) • 2024 Short Range Transit Plan—Adoption Oct 2024 • Transportation Multimodal Plan—Adoption Oct 2024 • Master Aging Plan(link) • Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan(DCHC MPO and CPRPO) • County Transit Plan(link) • ADA Paratransit Plan(link) CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* 5. Partners, Collaboration, and Outreach Describe how the project will be coordinated with public and/or private transportation and social service agencies. Include information specific to low-income populations and populations with Limited English Proficiency. Both projects are required to help the County meet the Environmental Justice Communities of Concern (link), now called Underserved Communities. This includes LEP, Elderly (seniors), Zero Car Households, low-income,minorities and other socioeconomics. OCTS will implement both projects through partnership with multiple County Departments like Department on Aging, Social Services, Criminal Justice Resource Department,Health Department,Equity and Inclusion, and many more. OCTS currently has Memorandum of Understandings with these departments and working on establishing the same with others for a comprehensive service network. 6. What is your plan for assessing project performance? County is working with WSP to improve upon the Transit Dashboard(link)and create a comprehensive Transportation Dashboard. This shows the impact of transit investments in the County. 7. Identify some major milestones this project expects to accomplish and the anticipated timeframes. Milestone Anticipated Date of Accomplishment Quote and Purchase 10/1/2024 Delivery and Inspection 11/1/2024 Close Out 12/1/2024 Draft MMP—Go Orange 10/1/2024 Public Engagement 11/1/2024 Finalize and Adopt—Go Orange 12/1/2024 Implement—Go Orange 1/1/2025 � ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORA E�Y TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COU NoRrtL CARQLLNA OrangeCounty Section 111: Budget Request Operating Budget Request The project operating budget estimate should be based on actual annual expenditures for existing services.Budgets for new services without an operating history should detail the sources of their estimated budgets.Applicants who are operating their own services should fill out Items A-D in the Budget Details.Applicants who are contracting for services should only fill out Item E. Ca ital Budget Request Federal Request Year 1 Vehicle(s) $ 250,000 Facility Improvement $ Computer Software Hardware/Technology $ Other—Year 1 $ Other—Year 2 $ Total Capital Request $ 200,000 Local Share (20%) $ S0,000 Mobility Management Request(Capital) Major Activities Federal Request Year 1 Draft MMP—Go Orange $ 25,000 Public Engagement $ 25,000 Finalize and Adopt—Go Orange $ 25,000 Implement-Go Orange $ 25,000 Total Mobility Management Request $ 80,000 Local Share (20%) $ 20,000 1. Describe how you intend to maintain your project after grant funding ends. OCTS will continue implementing them through locally adopted plans,programs and projects. � E ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORA�� TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNoKrti CARQLLNA OrangeColufllty Title VI Non-Discrimination Policy Statement Sample TITLE VI NONDISCRIMINATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND OCTS In accordance with DOT Order 1050_24,OCTS assures the North Carolina Departnern f Trdngmnatian(NCDCfo that no person shall; on the ground of race,odor,national origi ria sex,need,age,or disability; as provided by Title V of fine Civil Rights Act of 19fi4,the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and related nondiscrimination author6es,be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits of, or be othierwise subjected to discrimna ion or retaliation under any program or au ivityr undertaken by OCTS . =urfher,OCTS hereby agrees to: Designate a Tide VI Coordinator ihat has a responsible position within the organ¢atian and easy access to the Transportation Services Director cf the orgwaatKm. 2- Issue a policy statemern, signed by the Transportation Semites Diredor of the organition, which expresses a commitment to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI and related applicable sfiatut-.The signed policystaternent shall be posed and circulated throughout the Organization and to the general puhlic and published where appropriate in languages other than English. The policy statement will be re-s*ted when there is a change of Trampanation Services Director- 3- Insert the dauses of the contract language from Section 6.1 in every contract awarded by the organiza ion.Ensure that every contract awarded by the organizations contractors or consultants also includes the contract Iar guage_ 4_ Process all and,when required,investigate complaints cf disaiminat on consisten-wi-:h=re procedures contained within this Plan Lag all complaints for the administrative recad. 5_ Collect statistical data(race,color,national origin,sex,age,disability)on participants in,and beneficiaries of,programs and activities tarried out by the organization. 6- Participate in training offered on Title VI and other nondiscrimination requirement Conduct or request training far employees or the organizations subredpienm. 7. Take affirmative action, if reed or investigated by NODOT,ID correct any deficiencies found within a reasonable time pencil,not toe xceed 90 calendar days,unless reasonable provisions are granted by NCDOT. & Document all Title VI rondiscriminationielated activities as evidence cf compliance_Submit infomLation and repor.s-c NCDOT on a schedule outlined by N0001 THIS AGREEMENT is given in consideration of.and for the purpose of obtaining,any and all federal funds,grants,loans, axrtracts,properties,discount or Other federal financial assistance under all programs and arkvities and is binding. q„Ldble. Authorized Signature ......... . .. .. Nishith Tnvedi Transportation Drector 1213-5/2022 Date � ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ORA E�Y TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COU NoKm CARQLLNA OrangeCounty Sample Equal Employment Opportunity Certification ORANGE COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER At Orange County, we are committed to equal employment opportunity and undertake affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified women, minorities, protected veterans, and individuals with disabilities as called for by applicable laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. Pursuant to this policy, all applicants and employees shall be treated equally without regard to their protected veteran status, race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, or any other basis protected by applicable law. Equal Employment Opportunity is the law; see more information on the North Carolina Department of Labor website. Disabilities & Veteran Status Orange County is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities and veterans. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to complete an application, interview, complete any pre- employment testing, otherwise participate in the employee selection process, and/or perform essential job functions. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Vicki Jones at vijones@orangecountync.gov or at (919) 245-2560. E-V' ir Related Documents 1 . E-Verify Participation Poster - English (PDF) 2. E-Verify Participation Poster - Spanish (PDF) 3. Right to Work Poster - English (PDF) 4. Right to Work Poster - Spanish (PDF) CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCoudy >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* Lobbying Certification You must submit the following certifications if you apply on behalf of your applicant for a Federal grant or cooperative agreement exceeding$100,000, or a loan (including a line of credit), loan guarantee, or loan insurance exceeding$150,000, except if you are applying on behalf of an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or other Indian organization or if we determine otherwise in writing. As required by 31 U.S.C. 1352 and U.S. DOT regulations,"New Restriction on Lobbying,"specifically 49 CFR 20.110,you and your Applicant understand that: a. The lobbying restrictions of your certification apply your Applicant's request for: (1)$100,000 or more in Federal funding for a grant or cooperative agreement,and (2)$150,000 or more in Federal funding for a loan,line of credit,or loan guarantee, b. Its certification covers the lobbying activities of: (1)It, (2)Its principals,and (3)Its first tier subrecipients Therefore,on behalf of your Applicant,you certify to the best of your knowledge and belief,that: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid by or on its behalf to any person: a.To influence or attempt to influence: (1)An officer or employee of any Federal agency, (2)A Member of Congress,an employee of a member of Congress,or an officer of employee of Congress, b.Regarding the award of a: (1)Federal grant or cooperative agreement,or (2)Federal loan,line of credit,loan guarantee,or loan insurance 2. It will submit a complete OMB Standard Form-LLL,"Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Rev. 7-97),"in accordance with its instructions,if any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been or will be paid to any person: a.To influence or attempt to influence: (1)An office or employee of any Federal agency, (2)A Member of Congress,an employee of a Member of Congress, or an officer or employee of Congress, or b.Regarding any application for a: (1)Federal grant or cooperative agreement, (2)Federal loan,line of credit,loan guarantee,or loan insurance,and 3. It will include the language of this certification in the award documents for all sub-awards at all tiers including, but not limited to subcontracts,sub-grants,sub-agreements,and third party contracts under a Federal grant or cooperative agreement, or Federal loan,line of credit,loan guarantee,or loan insurance,and 4.It understands that: a.This certification is a material representation of fact that the Federal Government relies on,and b.It must submit this certification before the Federal Government may award funding for a transaction covered by 31 U.S.C. 1352,including a: (1)Federal grant or cooperative agreement,or (2)Federal loan,line of credit,loan guarantee,or loan insurance,and 5.It also understands that any person who does not file a required certification will be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than$100,000 for each such failure. Nishith Trivedi 7/30/24 Name/Position(printed) Name(signed) Date CRANE ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT COUNTY OrangeCounty >Q K I ti C.AROLINA PUBLICTRANS11* Local Government Authority Certification For Government Entities Only For governmental entities to be eligible for the"Traditional—Capital"5310 funding,the state or local government authority needs to be approved by the State to coordinate services for seniors and individuals with disabilities or certify that there are no non-profit organizations readily available in the area to provide the service. See 49 U.S.C. 5310(b)(1)and(b)(2). As the authorized representative of Orange County,I certify that: Our agency is approved by the State to coordinate services for seniors and individuals with disabilities Nishith Trivedi Signature Printed Name Transportation Director 7/30/24 Title Date Orange County Transit Service Area 57 I a I - z I s J mr _ _ I yanceyville hw*F!SB E I 1a9 oxboro a9 I Leasburg p S' I I '♦,♦'■■■��p=u■m u■�uriin■r■ur■nru■�uY�ur�nrs■u�nr�m�ru�Yrit1���mrru�w�w�m�u■ - ,♦,♦♦♦I j old Pvy..,c.il'r •�sss��, i ♦♦ a, ai, I U j ♦♦.� 2 1`, Ot�r d Rd �i# ♦♦ �, I US Hwy 158$ ti L I %-4 Timberlake 'j Satterfield Rd He1�'a I I Prospect Hill I � Rd r -- — - 1- — -- ■ Person A Person County ,R ---------------- s I Ens p • Mange °y CT oak �ougemont c34. A _ Ao ✓ef" - jnogE.=hi Ivc-ni 1 L50 ' - �UmonRide o" Bahama 2 I CJ reR� ranville S, 11 5 to S chl 1� ount� j ay �. = Alamance Co°t�nty y Rd , 1 ' � `� Gee = _- cry' _ • Butner. i ��C s �6R7 j Green Level °, �,,' lid tea �Rd W I : 2 S�NoryY I w+bb Show rlrli �rrst N Mebane Burlilhgton Cherr,h S, Haw River urch S t j - US"IVhw4f'70 w Cornetius S t fs 1 j h'a tnF°'ti Rd • ° c I Graham Ly s r Hillsborough s, 'P n O�aO Swepsonville 'wa ; o,° �r j �w Bl� iod ySp Ic c B�� 6rJ� a EG ` ure 40? A a 'Pd gRd Nam' pilLSinarRd I �k= Durham Z j j oo A,61urMi(, m Ir' r _ I P ,.s r _ ro Y eld Rd r` o.. J. wee foes 4S n 0 v W h i tra ri l ,00µrq'= 15 Lu,� o y'9h ,d Rd °y 4 4lane� _m F, Og Jr{ s Leas a � I 4C H19hwaY 54 W Chapel v* �tv 4,Ew.'r7d� /? Carrboro Hill en sb �rf- Gre ora ChiPel H'��R' 4 en boro R� i d C.Sq a ' m Old Gre F: CP . c , 3 - -�---- - ------- I -- —- � I Wake ntt p n o Chatham unty � a vw v ; �� w°nqC + (y��a Rd f41 orri ille ��ton P y r 'Carty Rd b . Zhi` O� 0 1..uir -'•'f' RNj t � m • rn Z hao eJ 1 / b ♦I m '�. :►� Ra - �,•` t+iflhy Cary r� .a � � .�;, ♦ e Rd � �aa. Silk Hop a Gurq ai., �'a 1 .`� a,�•, p springs tl Rof ,'Nil ,.♦, �C-Iry 1'*-wY M / ♦�♦♦I US 64)jjVj' �01091 -E 114h)� ' US Highway 64Yi •'sss!■�■u�■■■�slr KA�r p /,♦♦♦�♦ Apex Siler ■n�■♦♦ gyp... r■wru�■u�n■�u.�s■i� �' �; �P - h� p 0 G !� New Hill y xcoy s Rc as i nNee E3enr'ettRd �oaston o C Holly '— •o o �.- .O\� N Bear Creek Gsy Q.��, ;� 1 in =4 miles ORANGE / � COUNTY 0 1.75 3.5 7 ; Orange County Transit Service Area `, -, NORTFICAROLINA Miles