Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard Minutes - July 18, 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 Sherry Appel At Large 12 Randy Marshall Bingham Township 13 Art Menius Little River Township 14 Todd Jones At Large 15 Gregory Woloszczuk-Chapel Hill Township 16 Jamael Wiley Transit Operations Manager 17 Kelly Milligan Business Officer 18 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director 19 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: none. 25 26 Motion:Art Menius Second: Randy Marshall Vote: Unanimous 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 29 30 AGENDA ITEM 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 32 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda 33 34 5.a.2024 Annual Report and Work Program 35 36 5.b.2019 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update 37 38 A. Menius: execute task A and if that determines a study is necessary,then define the scope in a couple of 39 sentences. 40 41 J. Mayo: Complete task A and then bring it back to the OUTboard and compare what the Mebane TIA says to 42 what Orange County thought would be the traffic pattern. 43 44 N.Trivedi: If the conditional approval meets the scope of work and thresholds by the OUTboard then 45 process with the rest of the task. 46 47 J. Mayo:Yes and bring back to the OUTboard task A, back to the OUTboard before we proceed with tasks B, 48 C, and D. 49 50 S.Appel: Question will this work be done by a consultant and if an offer is put out for bid would this be only 51 for task A or would this work be done by an outside or inside source? I think it would be beneficial to 52 separate. 53 54 N.Trivedi:We can use our on-call consultant WSP, so you can have a professional product over an in-house 55 one.WSP can complete the analysis and compare the TIA and the town of Mebane, as they have already 56 approved the developments and WSP will provide us an analysis of the findings and recommendations. 57 58 J. Mayo: It was enough for the consultant when it was framed in-house, and it would make sense.The 59 preference would be to do an analysis. Running a TIA is different from running a plan update.The plan 60 update is the goal. I don't know if you want to use your on-call for a TIA first. 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. 64 65 J. Mayo: Efland-Buckhorn Mebane Access would have the number of trips, so WSP doesn't have to present 66 its findings and see how those numbers align together. 67 68 N.Trivedi:To clarify they may not align with each other. If you look at the original 2019 adopted plan the 69 pods were based on a geographic, not the parcel by parcel or development by development,they were 70 grouped together.The development that was approved may not be the full development.The overall total of 71 the development is either at the 2019 projections, below or above the requiring changes. 72 73 A. Menius: Motion to analyze existing conditions will be undertaken for the Efland Buckhorn-Mebane 74 Access Management Plan updated and the results of the study will be used by the OUTboard to determine 75 whether to proceed with the plan update. 76 77 Motion:Art Menius Second: Josh Mayo Vote: Unanimous 78 79 5.c.2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update(MTP) 80 81 N.Trivedi:The goal is to receive your feedback, comments, concerns or acceptance of the process, so I can 82 provide it to the DCHC MPO. In 2019, the model was adopted. I would like your feedback and once the 83 analyses and projections are complete the plan will come back to the OUTboard. More information is on 84 their website for the MTP. 85 86 S.Appel:What is the MTP plan today? Is this just an FYI situation or when would address this again? 87 88 N. Trivedi: More of looking for your feedback on the goals and objectives right now. The planning process is 89 two years and there is going to be more public engagement and more input from the public. 90 91 A. Menius:Would like an updated link. 92 N.Trivedi: Made a note to provide the OUTBoard with the correct link. 93 94 95 5.d. RAISE Grant 96 N. Trivedi: Provided the OUTBoard highlights of the grant and was authorized four years ago when the 97 Transportation authorization bill was approved. Capital Grants are surface transportation infrastructure 98 capital construction or vehicle and equipment procurements, projects that include the right of way. 99 Acquisition is considered a capital project. 100 101 N. Trivedi: Planning grants are planning, preparation, or design of surface transportation infrastructure 102 projects. Examples of planning grants are environmental and equity analysis, community engagement, 103 feasibility studies, and benefit-cost analysis. In summary, projects that are not yet moving dirt. 104 105 N. Trivedi: Provide the Safe Routes for Schools conditions analysis for the 13 schools from WSP, for your 106 comments and suggestions. 107 108 There is still funding available, and I recommend the following projects: 109 o Capital 1 - Regional Multimodal Hub in Hillsborough 110 o Capital 2 - Implementation of 2024 Orange County Safe Routes to School update 111 o Planning - Expansion of North-South Bus Rapid Transit to Hillsborough 112 113 J Mayo: We received our Planning Raise Grant.The experience was not easy, we had to submit a 35-page 114 proposal and a large amount of spreadsheets were provided to the federal government. For these 115 reasons, I don't know if chasing all three is the best move. We can look at the Rural Community 116 Innovations Transportation Planning grant (NADTC), and it will not receive SPOT funding and, cost over 117 25 million. We cannot depend on the next administration to give their discretionary grants for transit, 118 overall, I don't think recommend. 119 120 N.Trivedi:This means the options are Regional Multimodal Hub or Orange County Safe Routes for Schools 121 or maybe you have other suggestions. I have between now and January to put the packets together, as 122 our commissioners want us to pursue this due to Durham County receiving the grant. 123 124 A Menius: Would it make sense to pursue two capital projects and cannibalize each other? 125 J. Mayo: I would recommend only one. I think the goal is to align with the administration's policies. This 126 grant is discretionary it's b ased o n some metrics, b ut ultimately th e politicians and the Secretary of 127 Transportation are making the final decision. I think the Regional Mobility Hub probably aligns with the 128 administration's talks a bout transit for integrating and innovation types of discussions. It has the 129 strongest equity arguments and economic impacts. 130 131 A. Menius and M. Hughes would like to recommend the Regional Mobility Hub. Let's focus on what could 132 get funded. 133 134 Is there any possibility of getting a second project or is best to focus on the best option? 135 J. Mayo: You can chase multiple, I think winning is a big deal, it took Durham and Go-Triangle three and 136 four years for success. 137 138 N. Trivedi: I have until January to put a packet together and try again the next year, after that the new 139 authorization bill will determine its livelihood over the next five years. 140 M. Hughes: What do you think the cost will be? 141 Originally the cost for submission was $7 million with the SPOT 7, but after realizing the grant can go up 142 to $25 million I can have WSP expand on the design engineering for the project. 143 144 S. Appel: I agree with Josh's recommendations, and I think Safe Routes for school would also have some 145 political interest, due to its rural location in Orange County. They did the Broadband into Rural America 146 and was a huge win for rural America and rural North Carolina. As for Safe Routes for Schools, I think 147 Orange County has been dealing with the bridge to the High School, I believe several options could attract 148 the administration.The administration in January 2025 might have a very different view than the current 149 administration. 150 151 N. Trivedi: I can get more information once I review the Safe Routes for Schools reports to see if I should 152 pursue the RAISE GRANT.They provide the recommendations and have them put in the cost; I have more 153 information for safe routes than the mobility hub. The hub is more of a county priority. I will bring both 154 packets back for your review and suggestions in November. 155 A. Menius: It's a competition, I don't see them both getting funded in the same cycle. It doesn't increase 156 our chance of success to have two projects. 157 158 J. Mayo: I'm still sticking to my original suggestion for the mobility hub, as for the safe routes for school, 159 1 would want to see buy from the schools. When we got our grant we collected letters and support from 160 anybody and everyone we could find. In the future, Safe Routes would be a good project for funding and 161 would not matter to the administration. 162 A. Menius: Is this one cycle for FY25 and FY26 or can we go with one in FY25 and the other in FY26? Nish 163 yes that is an option. 164 165 M. Hughes: What would a Safe Routes for Schools construction project look like? 166 N. Trivedi: Two miles and Bike PED on highway infrastructure improvements around transit facilities and 167 Bike PED access in rural Orange County. 168 J. Mayo: In Durham they recently got the grant to fill all sidewalk gaps along Holloway St, which is one of 169 their biggest bus corridors all the way out to rural Durham County and to fill in every sidewalk gap and 170 make it ADA accessible and do safety analysis, fixes all bus stops, 3-mile stretch of road where about half 171 of it already had sidewalks.So,can we fill in gaps today that already have sidewalks that lead into schools? 172 Those are the texts of projects that could be packaged for Safe Routes. 173 N. Trivedi: Developers can develop or put together designs to help fill in the sidewalk gaps or put a 174 sidewalk in several locations. The gap needs to be addressed that's what is happening around some of 175 the schools. 176 177 J. Mayo: The reason Durham received the RAISE grant is to buy the property from all the businesses and 178 homes that are nearby, not to get the concrete laid down. 179 180 Art Menius made a motion for the Transportation Department to pursue the Regional Multimodal Hub, 181 RAISE grant application for FY25 and authorized the implementation of the 2024 Orange County Safe 182 Routes to School update in FY26. 183 184 Motion:Art Menius Second: Josh Mayo Vote: Unanimous 185 186 187 AGENDA ITEM 6: STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 188 189 6.a. MPO, RPO, &NCDOT Updates 190 191 Nish explained that projects were ongoing,asked for any questions,and would emailthe updates.Questions 192 were asked about the STIP projects about the changes for the Regional and when it comes back from the 193 Division you can provide feedback. 194 195 6.b. County Bike/Pedestrian 196 197 Central Pines is a contract holder, and we are paying for and running the project. Three consultants have 198 submitted proposals WSP, Stantec, and Alta. The committee included NCDOT, Central Pines, Orange 199 County, and Stantec was selected to complete the project. Counties first Bike-PED plan. 200 201 6.c.Coordinated Human Services Plan 202 Working on this since since February, this DCHC MPO 5310 funding. We will be submitting funding to the 203 Transportation Department, we work with Social Services and DSS, the Department of Aging, housing, and 204 CDJSC. 205 206 Nish will update the By-Laws for the conflict-of-interest document. OUTboard authorized Nish to use the 207 digit signatures from last year. 208 209 Vote: Unanimous 210 211 212 AGENDA ITEM 7:ADJOURNMENT 213 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.The next meeting is scheduled for August 19th.