Browse
Search
Agenda 09-07-1993 - VII-A
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1993
>
Agenda - 09-07-1993
>
Agenda 09-07-1993 - VII-A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2017 3:17:32 PM
Creation date
2/6/2017 2:30:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/7/1993
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
VII-A
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
16 <br /> Trust Fund revenues and the mileage paved varies according to the <br /> revenues generated from year to year. The 1993-94 program proposes <br /> paving 12 miles of rural roads at a cost of $ 1. 2 million. <br /> Assuming a continuing rate of 10-12 miles per year, it will take <br /> almost 15 years complete the County' s paving needs . <br /> A highly touted feature of the ISTEA legislation is the flexibility <br /> of funding. Previous highway legislation has fixed funding for <br /> roadway improvements according to federal road classification, <br /> however, ISTEA allows for the funding of roads or other <br /> transportation modes to be derived from one of many sources. <br /> Last year Orange County requested the NC Board of Transportation <br /> look at innovative ways to fund the Secondary Roads Paving Program <br /> through the flexible funding process. The Program is independent <br /> of the TIP process, however the need for completion is so great <br /> that the County has felt it appropriate to request NCDOT look at <br /> alternative funding formats. Although the legislation prohibits <br /> the allocation of funds to local roads such as those on the <br /> pavement schedule, the County requested NCDOT investigate <br /> alternatives to reallocate ISTEA money in order to free up Highway <br /> Trust Fund dollars. <br /> The recommended alternative was to request NCDOT allocate some or <br /> all of the Trust Fund money allocated to the I-85 widening project <br /> to the Orange County Secondary Paving program. Under ISTEA <br /> flexibility provisions, the I-85 Trust Fund money could be replaced <br /> with Interstate or National Highway System funds . This alternative <br /> could provide a possible completion of the rural road paving <br /> program by the year 2000. <br /> The 1994-2000 TIP has not addressed this proposal. The 1993-94 <br /> NCDOT Secondary Road Improvement Program continues to receive its <br /> funding from Highway Trust Fund revenues at the same rate. There <br /> have been no reallocation efforts. <br /> I-85 Corridor Projects <br /> Project I-305 , widening I-85 to six lanes and reconstructing <br /> interchanges and structures from Orange Grove Road to the Durham <br /> County line is a project in the State' s 1992-98 TIP. The portion <br /> of this project from just west of University Station Road to the <br /> Durham County line is in the DCHC Urban Area. The TAC requested in <br /> 1992 that this project include bicycle and pedestrian facilities on <br /> roads that cross the Interstate and design for bikeways/greenways <br /> that cross I-85. The County recommended funding for this proposal <br /> come from National Highway System funds. <br /> The 1994-2000 TIP includes provisions for bicycle safety <br /> improvements at the Churton Street interchange with Interstate 85 <br /> in the Bicycle Program. One problem with this is that the NCDOT <br /> Bicycle Program is not always coordinated well with roadway <br /> projects which are already under construction or design. <br /> It is recommended that Orange " County continue to request this <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.