Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
15 <br /> <br />3. Deviated Fixed Route Service Implementation Vehicles 1 <br /> 2 <br />Orange County Priorities in TARPO April 18, 2018 OUTBoard Recommendation 3 <br />1. Deviated Fixed Route Service Implementation Vehicles 4 <br />2. Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulder 5 <br />3. Efland-Cedar Grove Road Improvements 6 <br /> 7 <br />Orange County Priorities Preliminary Scores (NCDOT Data Portion) 8 <br /> 9 <br />Manager Recommendation 10 <br />• The Manager recommends the Board consider the OUTBoard recommendation 11 <br />included in Attachment 1 as the County’s ranking for submittal to TARPO. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to the Efland - Cedar Grove Road project, and said when 14 <br />Hillsborough expands its reservoir it may change the roads, and asked if this will change the 15 <br />ranking. 16 <br />Nishith Trivedi said no, and this is ranked by DOT as a modernization project. 17 <br />Commissioner Jacobs said if Hillsborough is going to change the road, it does not make 18 <br />sense to make improvements until Hillsborough’s plans are known. 19 <br />Nishith Trivedi said he would look into this. 20 <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if the work at I-85 and NC 86, and the widening of I-85 in 21 <br />general, will eliminate all of the trees. 22 <br />Nishith Trivedi said this is part of a committed funded project, and design and 23 <br />engineering have yet to be completed. 24 <br />Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff could find out why DOT is removing trees. 25 <br />Commissioner Jacobs referred to information in the abstract about the BGMPO, and 26 <br />asked if the following wording could be translated into layman’s terms: “develop a process for 27 <br />SPOT 6.0 that considers more than just pre-preliminary scores as prerequisite for formal 28 <br />scoring”. 29 <br />Commissioner Rich said she was confused about this language as well, and it seems 30 <br />that nothing ever gets funded with the BGMPO. She said this is of concern to her. 31 <br />Nishith Trivedi said the BGMPO has a subcommittee meeting going over the SPOT 6.0 32 <br />process, to determine which projects to put forward. He said he will gather additional 33 <br />information for the BOCC. 34 <br />Commissioner Rich said NC 54 was not ranked, but was put in. She said the OUTBoard 35 <br />did not want to put it in, due to not knowing the completion of this. She asked if there is an 36 <br />update on the completion. 37 <br />Nishith Trivedi said staff recommended not putting any points on NC 54 projects, since 38 <br />staff did not submit it, and it was not part of TARPO’s. He said it was a surprise to everyone 39 <br />when that project showed up on the SPOT process. He said a corridor study is being 40 <br />completed on NC 54, and DOT is awaiting it. 41 <br />Commissioner Rich asked if it is known when this study will be completed. 42 <br />Nishith Trivedi said some time in the fall of this year. 43 <br />Commissioner Rich asked if this study would be done on time to get into SPOT 6.0. 44 <br />Nishith Trivedi said this can be reviewed to see if the BOCC wants to submit it for SPOT 45 <br />6.0. 46 <br />Commissioner Marcoplos asked if these rankings speak for themselves, or will the 47 <br />BOCC be asked to testify on behalf of its favorite roads. 48 <br />Nishith Trivedi went to the table on page 10 of the slides, and said the projects are 49 <br />ranked based on the May 2nd resolution, with Old Greensboro Road ranked number 1; Efland - 50