Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 484 Heidi Perry: Old NC-86 is a road that I think need a separated mixed-use path between Hillsborough and Carrboro. <br /> 485 Maybe along with modernization. I just feel that a bike lane or a shoulder on that road is not going to take care of the <br /> 486 problems. <br /> 487 <br /> 488 Nish Trivedi: A mixed-use path, shared-use path, side path, or any independent bike/ped facility like is part of two different <br /> 489 funding and administration requirements. Federal STBGDA which requires 20% local match and local administration or a <br /> 490 sidewalk that is part of NCDOT's Pedestrian Policy and requires 50% cost share for first 5-feet width and 100% local cost <br /> 491 for any additional width. <br /> 492 <br /> 493 Matt Day: Yes, I think in theory you could do that. DOT will administer it through the sidewalk cost share policy. If you <br /> 494 were to submit as a stand-alone project, it would be only a 20 percent match. <br /> 495 <br /> 496 Abigaile Pittman: I think they would need right of way as well, does that influence? <br /> 497 <br /> 498 Nish Trivedi: Old NC-86 right-of-way is 60'; a mixed-use path will require right-of-way acquisition. County would still have <br /> 499 to address the local match and local administration issue or pay share of the cost of the bike/ped facility. <br /> 500 <br /> 501 Amy Cole: Is it possible to have a collaboration with the power company so that we could actually use their right of way as <br /> 502 the area where the side path would actually be built? <br /> 503 <br /> 504 Matt Day: It's possible, but usually they don't have right of way; they just have an easement. <br /> 505 <br /> 506 Ed Vaughn: I'm with Heidi on this one. We need separate bike/ped path to utilize the Mountain-to-Sea Trail. <br /> 507 <br /> 508 Nish Trivedi. Staff recommends the bike lane along Old NC-86 because as part of DCHC MPO 2045 Metropolitan <br /> 509 Transportation Plan (MTP) recently adopted, this board recommended Old NC-86 as a Bike/Ped corridor, Board of County <br /> 510 Commissioners approved and we succeeded in getting it added to the MTP. <br /> 511 <br /> 512 Matt Day: You have two options; one option is to do a modernization requesting a side path with the possibility of cost <br /> 513 share, or the second option is to submit it as a stand-alone bike/ped project knowing that it requires a letter of commitment <br /> 514 from the county to agree to administer and maintain. <br /> 515 <br /> 516 Nish Trivedi: Another option is just like the other modernization projects, you could recommend removing curb and gutter, <br /> 517 and sidewalk and extending the paved shoulder to 5-feet. <br /> 518 <br /> 519 David Laudicina: Why wouldn't you put the multi-use thing on Old NC-86? <br /> 520 <br /> 521 Nish Trivedi: Because the multi-use path is considered an independent bike/ped facility, subject to either federal <br /> 522 requirement of 20% local match and local administration or state sidewalk cost share. <br /> 523 <br /> 524 Jenn Sykes: I think some properties probably had some trouble getting the right of ways granted. <br /> 525 <br /> 526 Nish Trivedi: For clarification, you want to turn Old 86 into a modernization with a multi-use path? <br /> 527 <br /> 528 Heidi Perry: Separated side path. <br /> 529 <br /> 530 Art Menius: Multi-use side path. <br /> 531 <br /> 532 Matt Day: Just understanding that there will be a local match and local administration or cost share required. While that <br /> 533 project is slightly in TARPO it is mostly in the MPO and you will be competing with all the other MPO projects. <br /> 534 <br /> 535 Amy Cole: Is it possible to do a countywide survey to see whether or not people would support it and make it more likely <br /> 536 to score well? <br /> 537 <br />