Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
26 <br /> 1 <br /> 2 Requested Action <br /> 3 The Manager recommends that the Board approve/endorse the resolution (Attachment <br /> 4 4) to submit transportation projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO for SPOT <br /> 5 6.0/STIP 2022-2031. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Transportation Framework- <br /> 8 Example Life Cycle <br /> 9 Highway Projects - Multimodal Aspects <br /> 10 ❑ Surface Transportation Block Grant Direct Allocation (STBGDA) <br /> 11 ■ Federal funds incorporated into NCDOT STIP <br /> 12 ■ Requires 20% local match plus local administration <br /> 13 ➢ Commitment Letter from local jurisdiction to provide funds <br /> 14 ■ Follow all Federal regulations & NCDOT oversight <br /> 15 ➢ Violation could result in 100% local costs <br /> 16 ➢ Choreographed with County's budget process <br /> 17 Highway Projects-Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law § 136-189.11 (d).(3).c.—The <br /> 18 Department shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and pedestrian <br /> 19 improvement projects <br /> 20 OUTBoard Recommendation —Table <br /> 21 Road Improvements: OUTBoard recommends - NCDOT standard street cross section 2B (60' <br /> 22 row, 11' travel lane, with 5' paved shoulder) with intersection improvements, no C&G or <br /> 23 sidewalk <br /> 24 OUTBoard Recommendation- Widening: OUTBoard recommends <br /> 25 Table till MPO/RPO updates CTP/MTP <br /> 26 BOCC request TARPO request NCDOT study NC-86 for possible update <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Orange County Priority List—TARPO (table) <br /> 29 <br /> 30 Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO (table) <br /> 31 <br /> 32 Commissioner Greene asked if the difference between SPOT 5 and SPOT 6, as <br /> 33 pertains to bicycle projects, could be clarified. <br /> 34 Nishith Trivedi said bicycle projects become highway projects. He said bicycle and <br /> 35 pedestrian projects require the County to invest into such projects in order to be submitted. He <br /> 36 said there are two different funding sources used for bike/ped projects. He said the County has <br /> 37 a hard time getting these projects, and, as such, staff has converted them into highway <br /> 38 projects, which would have paved shoulders wide enough for a bike lane. <br /> 39 Chair Rich said the OUTBoard presents this concern all the time, as NCDOT does not <br /> 40 recognize bike/pedestrian projects as a priority. She said this is a way around the issue, getting <br /> 41 the road that is wide enough to add the bike lane. <br /> 42 Commissioner Price asked if there is an update with Hwy 54. <br /> 43 Nishith Trivedi said the corridor study is recommending widening, but there is an issue <br /> 44 between Carrboro and the MPO on additional work to be done on this study. <br /> 45 Commissioner Price asked if widening means additional lanes. <br /> 46 Nishith Trivedi said yes, one lane on both sides. <br /> 47 Commissioner Marcoplos said the elusive bike path from Carrboro to Hillsborough could <br /> 48 be created if the County was able to pick which project gets completed. <br /> 49 Nishith Trivedi said Old Highway 86 is the highway project connecting Hillsborough to <br /> 50 Eubanks Road with a larger lane with a shoulder. <br />