T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization RTAC Meeting Agenda FEBRUARY 18, 2010 at the Lee County Government Center, Wicker Conference Room y 106 Hillcrest Drive y Sanford, NC 27330
1. Welcome, Introductions, and Other Remarks Randy Voller, TARPO RTAC Chair
2. Purpose and Agenda for Today’s Meeting Paul Black, TJCOG
3. Presentation: Pittsboro Pedestrian Plan and Southern Pines Bicycle Plan Jason Reyes, Greenways, Inc.
4. Summary of December 17, 2009 RTAC Meeting, Reprise Summary of October 15, 2009 Meeting Paul Black, TARPO
5. Summary of Today’s RTCC Meeting Ben Howell, RTCC Chair
6. Informational Items: a. SPOT Status b. Equity Formula Restructuring Debate c. Orange County CTP Update d. Moore County CTP Prep: First Cut Population and Employment Data e. PX Bus Publicity Campaign Update f. BRAC paper on R-2212 and new NCDOT process g. RTA Draft Position Paper on US 64
7. Business Items: a. Draft Planning Work Program (PWP) and budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. b. Chatham Transit 5309 Grant Support Resolution
8. NCDOT Updates Tyler Bray, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch John Hunsinger, NCDOT Division 7 Rob Stone, NCDOT Division 8
9. Other Business & Adjournment Randy Voller, TARPO RTAC Chair
Next Meeting: April 15, 2010, Lee County Government Center
The Lee County Government Center is located in downtown Sanford on West Carthage Street (NC 42) at the corner with Hillcrest Drive. Off-street parking is available in a lot located across the street from the Center. Visitors to Sanford may exit US 1 at the NC 42 interchange and continue eastward approximately 1.5 miles, turn left onto Carthage Street, then proceed approximately .5 mile and make a left turn onto Hillcrest Drive.
A map is available at www.mapquest.com using the above local address and zip code. The phone number for the meeting facility is 919-718-4605. Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Action Item Agenda Item 4
Minutes from previous 2 meetings.
Background
These are the meeting summaries from the October and December RTAC meetings.
Action Requested
Review and approve minutes.
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization PO Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
DRAFT Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Coordinating Committee Meeting Minutes
Meeting Opens Mr. Black—We just barely have a quorum with our newest member. Do we want to go ahead and start? Mr. Barlow is ready to go with his presentation, so if everyone is ready, I will turn it over to him.
Mr. Barlow and Mr. Jordan presented on transit funding for rural areas.
Mr. Barlow—5310 [program funds] has been a rural program in the past; it has been opened up to urban areas now too. That’s one new thing to be aware of. It deals with serving the elderly—the same clients as the ROAP-EDTAP…and you can use the ROAP- EDTAP funds as your local match!
Mr. Olbrich—It’s a 2 year program. Can I apply again in 2 years?
Mr. Barlow—Yes, but not with the same project. It must be a new project.
Mr. Voller—. [Introductions all around]
Summary of October 15, 2009 RTAC Meeting
Mr. Voller—Did everyone have a chance to look at the minutes?
Ms Pelissier—And I assume these are the October minutes, not August as noted in the agenda
Mr. Black—Correct, they are for October.
Mr. Voller—There were some things related to the MPO expansion I wanted to make sure got into the record that I didn’t see…what happened there Paul [Black]?
Mr. Black—Sorry. That was a very full meeting, and I have a feeling that the handoff of minute-taking from myself to September Barnes may have left some gaps. I also know she had to step out for a moment after the SPOT presentation and I was warned there might be an issue there.
Mr. Vanderbeck—I think we should we table this and get the gaps filled then before we vote [Ms. Pelissier seconded, all approve].
Summary of Today's RTCC Meeting and Action Items Mr. Howell--We did move forward on the CTP ranking list, with the caveat that any corrections in the date of last plan be incorporated.
Mr. Bray--I called over the lunch break and got confirmation that how it is shown is correct.
Ms. Pelissier--Why is Orange County not included in the CTP list? Because we have one going on?
Mr. Black--Yes. Plans currently under way were not allowed in the rankings.
Mr. Bray--I should also add that there is a change from the initial idea that these would be competing against other CTPs statewide. They are now only competing within the TPB region, which for this RPO is the Triangle. The Triangle region does not have the staffing issues some of the other regions are experiencing, and most of the competition is in Kerr-Tar. The scores for your top counties should serve you very well in this process.
Mr. Black--Does the TAC want to take action on this? Mr. Vanderbeck--I move we approve the list. [Second by Ms. Pelissier, all in favor]
Mr. Black--We have a resolution supporting the Town of Aberdeen's Application for a Bicycle Planning Grant.
Mr. Voller--Paul [Black], is there any update on the status of the Safe Routes to School program? Is there any money flowing?
Ms. Lincoln--Orange County got a project about a year ago, and just got the consultant award, but yes, the money is flowing.
Mr. Voller--We need to see stuff by February for this cycle. Any kind of K-8 sidewalk project...
Ms. Thurmond--Pinehurst also did something, with the sidewalks connecting to Pinehurst elementary.
Ms. Pelissier--I move that we endorse Aberdeen's grant application [second by Mr. McNeill, all in favor]
Mr. Voller--Does everyone remember Pam Wall's presentation back at our June meeting? Pittsboro passes a support resolution that we sent to Triangle Tomorrow. This resolution is the the same thing, only coming from the region. For those of you not familiar with the Reality Check, it involved 81 local governments in 15 counties, and brought together community leaders from the public and private sector to think about how to grow.
Mr. Vanderbeck--Paul [Black], do we have a link to the Reality Check on our website?
Mr. Black--Not on the TARPO site, no. Triangle J does, and I will get it added to the TARPO site.
Mr. Vanderbeck-- Chatham County approved our own principles based on this relating to environment and education.
Mr. McNeil--I am going to recuse myself, since I wasn't here for the presentation.
Mr. Voller--Do we still have a quorum?
Mr. Black--I believe so, since he does not have to vote. At worst case, we can treat it as an abstention.
Mr. Vanderbeck--I move to approve [Second by Ms. Pelissier; approved 3-0 with Mr. McNeill not voting]
Update on Pittsboro Express Route Mr. Black--At the last meeting, we amended the budget to support a publicity campaign to help increase awareness and ridership of the Pittsboro Express {PX} bus route. Included in the agenda packet is a 3 page synopsis of where we are and what we have planned. I had a conference call yesterday with UNC, Chapel Hill Transit, and our Transit Demand Management person from the Clean Cities Coalition. We are hoping to get a list of employees from UNC that includes UNC hospitals for all the Chatham zip codes. We will then put together a packet to mail out with a number of items from the partners--how to ride the bus, for those who have not done it before, schedules, the guaranteed ride home program, and info on how to get around in Chapel Hill without a car while you are there. We may follow up with an event later this year.
Mr. Olbrich--The 27344 zip code is Siler City. Will it be included? We [Chatham Transit Network] would be very interested in linking Siler City in. We already have riders connecting to the PX. Can you tie the feeder [bus] information into the survey [listed in the agenda item]? [Mr. Black indicated yes]. GoTriangle is also putting Chatham Transit Network's schedule up.
Mr. Voller--Dale [Olbrich], is there some way to show on the vans themselves the connection to the PX route, like a decal that promotes the connection?
Mr. Olbrich--I'm not sure. The CTN schedule is included in the times for the PX on the [CHT] website.
Mr. Voller--Are there any updates on the ridership? Projections were for 72 riders per day, and we are already at 97. My understanding is that UNC sold 25 more passes on Monday. The link to Park and Ride is crucial.
Mr Vanderbeck--[to Mr. Black] are the projects supporting this in those lists?
Mr. Black--Yes, they are spread around and not necessarily under transit. They may be under Enhancements.
Planning Work Program Budget Amendment
Mr. Black--As you recall, we moved $2,000 to accommodate the work for the PX Route. In getting my preliminary numbers together for this quarter, I realized the SPOT process took substantially more time than was originally budgeted. We already voted on the PX Route change, and it is reflected here. The new change covers the SPOT overage, with explanations at the bottom of the handout in the agenda packet. The changes still require approval from NCDOT, but there do not appear to be any major roadblocks to this.
Ms. Pelissier--I move we adopt the budget as shown [second by Mr. Vanderbeck, unanimous]
SPOT Project Ranking Lists [discussion of SPOT lists, noting change of Aberdeen pedestrian project and split of Bike/Ped into separate lists for the Modal Unit]
Mr. Voller--Do we need to take any action?
Mr. Black--No, it was informational; if anything is amiss I wanted to have a chance to catch it, like we did with the Aberdeen project. When the Divisions and Statewide Planning have also ranked them, I will get the final lists out as soon as they are available.
Current CTP Updates
Mr. Bray--The Pittsboro CTP...Terry Gibson, the State Highway Engineer met with the developers looking to build a major facility that would connect to US 64 with an interchange. The Town is going to meet with the developers and decide on the final alignment. As long as it meets safety and mobility goals, DOT will have no problem with it. It's really up to the Town.
Mr. Voller--Secretary [of Transportation] Conti is also willing to support whatever the Town decides.
Mr. Black--Anything in Orange County?
Ms. Lincoln--The Board has not taken action on what to to with NC 86 yet, so the plan is on hold right now.
Ms. Pelissier--We may even have a special worksession on the issue. Did anyone see the article in the News and Observer? [mostly negative responses with a few nods]
DCHC MPO Expansion
[Mr. Black presented on the actual boundaries of the MPO expansion and implications for Chatham County.]
Mr. Vanderbeck--At our meeting Monday, the Board of Commissioners approved a letter to the Secretary of Transportation and the Governor asking that this not be approved, and that the MPO wait for the Census.
Division Updates
Mr. Black.--No one from either Division could be here today, but they did send project updates, which are in the agenda packets. Any questions I can forward? [none]
Other Business
MR. Vanderbeck--Paul, [Black], do you still give out books for new board members? They need to have an acronym list in them! Mr. Black--Yes. I will get those ready by next meeting.
Mr.Voller--Is there any other business?
Mr. McNeill--Motion to adjourn [second by Mr. Vanderbeck] all in favor. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
DRAFT
Meeting Opens Mr. Voller—Is there a quorum here? [Several respond in the affirmative. Meeting begins.]
Approval of Amended Agenda for Today’s Meeting
Mr. Vanderbeck—I move to approve the amended agenda for the meeting. [Second Ms. Olive, passes
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes unanimously].
Transit Funding Overview
Mr. Black — [informed the committee that William Barlow had cancelled coming to the meeting.]
Metropolitan Area Boundary Expansion Overview
Ms. Beckman — [gave a presentation which detailed the rules governing how/where expansion takes place, the history of DCHC MPO expansion including the current status of the expansion, what effect the expansion would have, and what the next steps were after recent approval of the expansion. The expansion was tentatively approved for Orange County only by the DCHC TAC.]
Mr. Voller — What are the benefits to expanding the MPO boundary? It seems like there are no benefits…[also asked question about the LRTP for 2010 before Ms. Beckman could answer the first]
Ms. Beckman — 7,000 people will be taken in in Orange County, if the expansion happens.
Mr. Voller — These projections don’t look right. They look too low.
Mr. Black — [informed everyone how the projections were done with previous census data and analogous areas.] DRAFT Mr. Woodruff —Is the rest of the RPO in the projections?
Mr. Black — No, only the projections for the current MPO areas were paid for.
Mr. Bray — Why weren’t these projections done after the 2010 Census?
Ms. Beckman — We [DCHC] needed the results now. The 2010 Census data won’t be available for a while.
Mr. Bray — When will the results of the [2010] Census be available?
Mr. Bridwell — Not until sometime around 2012.
Mr. Voller — When does the LRTP turn into action?
Ms.Beckman — That is unanswerable broadly. It depends upon a lot of factors.
Mr. Voller — [said something about competing for CMAQ funds and that there’s no guarantee of funding every year.
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Ms. Beckman — There is no immediate change for RPO funding in the long run [due to the boundary expansion], since it is such a small area of Orange County that would be affected and only after 2010 [Census]. The Census money would decrease to RPO by about $700.
Mr. Voller — Is the motivation for [projects] governed by CMAQ/Air Quality funding?
Ms.Beckman — There’s a lot of estimation involved, it’s not governed entirely by CMAQ funding.
Mr. Black — [pointed out the regional scale of AQ funding]
Ms. Olive — This makes me a little apprehensive of development and planning in these areas.
Ms. Beckman — We will present [our proposal] to the Orange County Board, and if approved, it will roll back to our TAC for the final decision.
NCDOT Updates
Mr. Bray — Gave a brief update on the conversion of the original Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan Study to CTP format.]The proposed thoroughfare plan is done. I updated it to fit the new law that requires it to be in the comprehensive transportation plan format. This will only be the highway portion of the CTP, and other than some minor changes that have occurred and a public session, there is no additional work being performed. DRAFT
Mr. Voller — How do strategic corridors work in the CTP?
Mr. Bray— In the CTP, if the CTP says it is an expressway, then it must be at least an expressway for the development on the map, but there are other ways to amend.
Mr. Black — [pointed out that the status can be amended in the text]
Ms. Pellissier — The commissioners reacted badly to Highway 86 becoming an expressway. Can we put this on the agenda for the next TCC meeting?
Mr. Black — [The alignment was moved in a public meeting.] You can amend [] by going through staff to put before the [] board.
Mr. Voller — Who decides whether a road is an expressway?
Mr. Bray — That was before my time.
Mr. Black — Before the RPOs were developed, it was put to a public meeting.
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Mr. Voller — What about the update to Moore?
Mr. Bray — My boss worked on the CTP development. Ten areas had been tasked to come up with projects that will go before the RPOs to be ranked. Locals can do things in preparation, like mapping facilities, to up the ranking of projects.
Mr. Vanderbeck — So this means that even though I was told Moore County could be next in line, it could actually be different?
Mr. Voller — [expressed unhappiness about the moving of “goal posts” after promises from NCDOT.]
Mr Gardner — I think that this information [about the changes in the CTP] should be given to Paul [Black] first.
Mr. Bray — They will be presented at the MPO/RPO Conference in November, so he’ll [Paul Black] know.
Minutes of August 13, 2009 RTAC Meeting
Mr. Voller — Let’s fall back to the adoption of the August 13th minutes. DRAFT Ms. Pellissier — I move to adopt the minutes from the August 13th meeting. [Second Mr Vanderbeck, passes unanimously.]
Summary of October 15, 2009 RTCC Meeting
Mr Gardner — The TCC used the full time of the meeting to go over the agenda packet. The prioritization of the highway projects made for considerable discussion.
Mr. Voller — What is the TCC’s recommendation?
Mr Gardner — We’d like to go over the SPOT lists and specific projects as they come up.
Mr. Voller – is everyone okay with that? [General consensus that it is fine.] What’s next?
Presentation on NCDOT Reforms [by Mr. Black]
Mr. Black — Many of you have seen this before, so I will very quickly go through what the SPOT
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes process is trying to do. The key point is that it is one way that NCDOT is putting Governor Purdue’s Executive Orders 2 and 3 into practice by making the road project selection process more data-driven and less political. [Gives an overview of the SPOT process.]
TARPO Prioritized Highway Project List
Mr. Black – There are eighteen projects from Pat Strong’s original list that was passed last year before the STIP was delayed for the SPOT process. We have 3 “committed” projects that we do not have to rank, and a number of feasibility studies that go on a different list, and 2 feasibility studies that have corresponding STIP projects on alternative locations. All in all there are twelve of those 18 projects to move forward. The #1 priority is the Carthage Bypass, but there are lots of local problems.
Mr Johnson — [explained that there were problems with the Carthage Bypass. There were issues with all the proposed alignments, especially the south alignment, which the public hates.] There is a proposal to postpone the project, since it cannot be dropped by state law. DOT has sent a letter to Carthage to OK the deferral. Carthage will vote on the deferral next Monday, the 19th.
Mr. Black — There is a proposal to support Carthage’s decision, rather than support the deferral itself. There are two other projects, R-2528 & R-2529 affected by the Carthage Bypass.
Mr. Gardner — Would you clarify that if this project is deferred, the RPO will drop the project from #1 to #25? DRAFT Mr. Black — Yes, the Bypass would drop from #1 to #25.
Mr. Vanderbeck — I move to accept this proposal. [Second Ms Pellissier, passes unanimously.]
Mr. Black — I found U-2566, ranked #9, and R-2591, ranked #15, which were put forth in the 1980s.
Ms. Correll — The issue with the Western Connector is that of a huge development called Stone Hill that is in the path of the connection. We need a feasibility study about moving the West Connector further west.
Mr. Black — Since we found a corresponding project in the 1980s, it will give the project standing to stay on the books. R-4743 and the southern connector, has similar problems too. I can put both in a feasibility study, but due to funding only the top five will get consideration anyhow.
Ms. Correll — Jimmy Melton is concerned about using the existing routes to maintain the rural character.
Mr. Black — R-2807 and U-3461 have no local ranking or public support. They are still on the books, but they there is a lot of public objection to them, so they’ve been backburnered. U-3602 & ? are two
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes projects that overlapped. The TCC liked them and said they should combine and move forward as a single project. U-5004…the TCC said it should be bumped into the first open slot. They made a recommendation to match the STIP. The Pittsboro Exchange Signal…
Mr. Voller — The Toll Brothers sold the land.
Mr. Black — Some no longer think it is needed.
Mr. Voller — What do you think?
Mr. Black — I think we should defer it to David Monroe.
Mr. Vanderbeck — Tim [Johnson], what do you think about the crosswalk at this location?
Mr. Johnson — I think it’s suicidal.
Mr. Black — The NC 73 Widening…the feasibility studies are not mixed with the SPOT. [Moves to review of the SPOT and its stack up with the current RPO priorities. He reiterates the problem with the Carthage Bypass and how currently ranked projects would move up if the deferral goes through.] U- 5004 is recommended to move into the next available slot. The TCC recommends that all other projects with STIP numbers move into theDRAFT remaining slots after the Hawkins Ave project in their present order with the exception of the Fields project. This leaves 2-3 spots open which should be taken in order, which leaves the Orange County projects: Buckhorn Rd & the US70 East to I-85 Connector.
Ms. Pellissier — How can Orange County projects get bumped up in priority?
Mr. Black — The SPOT process is new and driven by the supporting data, but the TAC can consider bumping up the project to a higher slot in the local ranking. That will be part of the overall score at the end of the process.
Mr. Bridwell — Lee County has had projects moved higher because they have a CTP. Maybe others could do the same?
Mr. Gardner — Even if ranked, a project could move ahead [in rank] if funds were available.
Mr. Johnson — The exercise isn’t fiscally constrained. The RPO can vote to move projects wherever they want.
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Mr. Black — We can’t change the SPOT score, but if the RPO gives it a high enough ranking, it can be moved up.
Ms. Pellissier — Motion to move Buckhorn up to the next slot under Hawkins Av [from 23rd to the 12- 14th range]
Mr. Johnson — [interjected that at some point NCDOT will look at money available and the funding category before determining what can be done….plus use of the equitability formula.]
Mr. Black — The more areas hit in the SPOT template, the higher the rank.
Mr. Vanderbeck — [asked for Karen Lincoln’s input]
Ms. Lincoln — The Buckhorn project has been on the Orange TIP for some time, but there’s a condition for development to make improvements, and, there is also a funding issue. Economic development cannot occur until the funding occurs and the other improvements are made. [She is overall supportive of moving the project up in priority.]
Mr. Vanderbeck — [to Cornelia Olive] How do you feel about interference or help with your projects?
[Ms. Olive seconds the aforementioned motionDRAFT to move Buckhorn up, passes unanimously.]
Mr. Black — We may also want to consider adding the US 70 Connector, so that Orange County has another project. It’s a good project with very low construction costs that alleviates a bottleneck in Efland and could relieve traffic at an at-grade rail crossing. I had been under the impression that we were going to be able to submit 2 Divisional lists, but that is not the case. I wanted to discuss how to rank STIP projects versus the connectors, but since Andrea [Correll] had to leave, I’m inclined to leave something in rather than take them out.
Let’s see if I can capture the spirit of this. It would be a motion adopt the current ranking of the STIP projects in the following order: The current 12 projects in order with STIP project placeholders for the Southern and Western Connectors and the stipulation that if R-2212 (Carthage Bypass) is deferred, it will move from number 1 to number 25 and all the other projects will move up accordingly; U-5004 Hawkins Ave Widening moves to the next available slot, followed by the Buckhorn Road widening from West Ten to Us 70. Then any project with an assigned STIP number (excluding Fields Drive) will follow in SPOT score order (highest first), then projects with no STIP number with the highest SPOT scores will fill any remaining slots, with the second Orange County project filling the last slot (above R-2212 as needed).
Mr. Vanderbeck—I move to accept the SPOT list scoring with the amendments. [Second Ms. Pellissier, passes unanimously].
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Chatham County CMAQ Project Resolution
Mr. Vanderbeck—I move to approve the RPO endorsement of the Chatham County CMAQ and Town of Pittsboro’s acceptance. [Second Ms. Olive, passes unanimously].
TARPO Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Project List
Mr. Black — [explained the methodology of the bike/ped project ranking and pointed out that 2 projects had already been voted upon and funded, so the 1st priority was now Carthage.]
Mr. Vanderbeck — Are you [Paul Black] going to send us a link to the update of projects?
Mr. Black — Yes. The lists are due to NCDOT by October 30th, so I’ll have them by then.
Mr. Vanderbeck — The new transportation planner starts on Monday [the 19th], so she’ll need to be put on the mailing list too.
Mr. Black — [Responded that he would do that.]
Ms. Pellissier — Motion to accept the bike/pedDRAF priority list. T
Mr. Voller — How would we proceed?
Mr. Black — If you adopt the list based on the ranking scheme, with the knowledge that projects submitted after this date are subject to the same ranking scheme, and those projects will be put in order based on their rank between now and October 31, that should suffice.
Mr. Voller — [Seconds motion on the floor to accept the bike/ped priority list, passes unanimously.]
Other Local Project Requests
Mr. Voller — Can we add projects to the list?
Mr. Black — Yes. [He then clarified what the category was.]
Mr. Vanderbeck — What are the requirements to put a project down?
Mr. Black — None.
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Mr. Vanderbeck — Does this list include bus stops, park & ride, and benches?
Mr. Black — Yes.
[Mr Vanderbeck & Mr. Voller both express interest in adding projects to the list.]
Mr Gardner — The deadline is the 25th [of October], right?
Mr. Black — Yes.
Mr. Voller — [States that they want enhancements to bus stops in Pittsboro and main streets in Pittboro, Siler City, and Goldston, including historic signage.]
Mr Gardner — The TCC recommended to disapprove these until the amendments.
Ms Olive — Motion to allow all members to amend the [local project] list until the 25th of October. [Second Ms. Pellissier, passes unanimously].
Mr. Black — [Reviews the feasibility studies on the list, plus the unranked items on Pat Strong’s list.] DRAFT Mr. Woodruff — I heard that the feds were going to approve funding for NC 690.
Mr. Black — [Related the difference between how feasibility studies were listed then and how they are listed now.]
Mr. Voller — [Noted the lack of Chatham feasibility studies.]
Mr. Black — None were requested.
Mr. Voller — Can the list be amended?
Mr. Vanderbeck — Can the list be sent to the TCC for amendments and additions?
Mr. Black — Yes, if I receive them before the 29th [of October].
Mr. Vanderbeck — [Noted the delay of information getting back from staff, so he asked for an earlier
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of Error! Reference source not found. Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes deadline than the 29th.]
Mr. Voller — I’d like to add the feasibility study for the STAC transit from Sanford to Southern Pines.
Ms. Lincoln — Do we need the endorsement of the locals before adding to the list?
Mr. Black — No, you can add it anyhow.
Ms Olive — Motion to adopt the list of local projects, but with amendments and additions before releasing it. [Second Ms. Pellissier, passes unanimously].
Mr. Stone — Now remember, intersection lights don’t need to be on feasibility list, you can just send a letter to NCDOT to put them on the list. [He provides an example.]
Orange County CTP Update
Ms. Lincoln — The public meeting generated a lot of comment, although it wasn’t well-attended. Next Wednesday there is a steering committee meeting to review the results of the online survey. [She then asked if there was a link to the Orange County CTP on the TARPO website. Ms Barnes replied that she would put one up there as soon as possible.] DRAFT Other Business
Mr. Voller — We would like to propose that myself, Tom Vanderbeck, and Paul Black work together to teach the public about transit. [He then mentioned some of the difficulty encountered when trying to undertake projects due to public misunderstandings about transit.]
Ms Olive — Motion to authorize Tom Vanderbeck and Randy Voller to work with Paul Black to produce a document on transit. [Second Ms. Pellissier, passes unanimously].
Mr. Black — [Pointed out the need for money to finance such work. He makes a motion that they move money from the Environmental Justice allocation to Public Involvement to fund the work.]
Mr. Voller — Can you amend your motion to encompass Paul’s motion?
Ms Olive — Yes, I amend my motion to include Paul’s. [Second Ms. Pellissier, passes unanimously].
Mr. Voller — Motion to adjourn. [Second Ms. Olive, passes unanimously].
October 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of Error! Reference source not found.
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 6a: SPOT Status
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
Prioritization Results Forums To Provide Initial Rankings of Projects fro...
Subject: Prioritization Results Forums To Provide Initial Rankings of Projects from the Strategic Prioritization Process at NCDOT From: "Voelker, Don"
The purpose of this e-mail is to invite you to a Prioritization Results Forum where the Department will roll out the initial rankings of projects as part of the first Strategic Prioritization Process. Three forums will be held across North Carolina the week of February 22. We have scheduled these in hopes of minimizing overall travel.
The Regional Forums will be held as follows:
February 22- Alamance Community College in the Auditorium-1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m. The college is located just south of exit 150 on I-40/85 on the eastern edge of Alamance County . The Auditorium is at 1247 Jimmie Kerr Road , Graham , NC .
1 of 3 1/27/2010 12:02 PM Prioritization Results Forums To Provide Initial Rankings of Projects fro...
February 23 – Catawba Valley Community College in the Auditorium -1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. This is located just off Exit 126 of I-40 on Administrative Drive at 2550 Highway 70 SE in Hickory , NC . See attached map. The Auditorium is building No. 20.
February 24 – Global Transpark Center Training Facility in the Auditorium (Room 142)–10:00 a.m.-Noon. This is located at the TransPark Center , 3800 Highway 58 North, Kinston , NC .
As you know, the Department’s new Strategic Prioritization Process has been underway since early 2009. The first phase is now complete. The rankings resulting from this initial effort reflect quantitative scoring (based on congestion, safety and pavement needs) and qualitative scoring (1 – 25) from Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Rural Planning Organizations, and the Department’s Divisions. Additionally some highway projects received extra points if they qualified as a multimodal project.
Additional information regarding the prioritization process can be found at http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/.
The Department will share the rankings of highway and non-highway projects at these forums. Representatives from the Department’s other modes (i.e., Bicycle & Pedestrian, Aviation, Rail, Public Transportation, and Ferry) will also be present to answer any questions on how the non-highway rankings were determined.
The agenda will consist of opening remarks by NCDOT Chief Operating Officer Jim Trogdon, a short presentation covering Transportation Reform, a review of the Strategic Prioritization Process and how the rankings were determined, a release of the rankings of highway and non-highway projects and then an open discussion period.
Please join us at one of the above Forum(s). Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thanks,
Don Voelker
Director, Strategic Planning Office of Transportation
Raleigh , NC 27601
(919) 715-0951
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 3 1/27/2010 12:02 PM Prioritization Results Forums To Provide Initial Rankings of Projects fro...
Content-Description: CVCCMainPrint.jpg CVCCMainPrint.jpg Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Encoding: base64
3 of 3 1/27/2010 12:02 PM
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 6b: Equity Formula Restructuring Debate
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
Study Committee to look at Transportation Equity Formula Appointed
The Studies Act of 2009 (HB 945) called for the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee to study the way the State distributes transportation funding across the State before the start of the short session in May 2010. The Speaker made his appointments this week [9/24/2009] to the Committee which means they can now officially begin to meet. Membership of the Joint Committee is below.
HOUSE APPOINTMENTS • Rep. E. Nelson Cole (Co-Chair) • Rep. Kelly M. Alexander, Jr. • Rep. Becky Carney • Rep. Lorene Thomason Coates • Rep. James Walker Crawford, Jr. • Rep. William A. Current, Sr. • Rep. Robert Mitchell Gillespie • Rep. Grier Martin • Rep. Daniel Francis McComas • Rep. Lucy T. Allen (Advisory Member) • Rep. Arthur J. Williams (Advisory Member) SENATE APPOINTMENTS • Sen. Steve Goss (Co-Chair) • Sen. Philip Edward Berger • Sen. David W. Hoyle • Sen. Neal Hunt • Sen. Samuel Clark Jenkins • Sen. Anthony Eden Rand • Sen. John J. Snow, Jr. • Sen. Richard Yates Stevens
The Equity Formula The equity formula was created in 1989 by the General Assembly. It requires that State Transportation Improvement Program funds be distributed equitably among regions of the state. Monetary distribution is based 50 percent on the population of a region, 25 percent on the number of miles of intrastate highways left to complete in a region and the remaining 25 percent is distributed equally among the regions for the STIP. Urban loop, congestion mitigation and air quality funds, and competitive/discretionary federal grants are exempt from the formula. fund also provides money to complete the paving of most of the state's secondary roads as part of the Secondary Road Improvement Program and provides extra money for the state's cities and towns to adequately maintain their streets through the Powell Bill Fund.
Federal Funds Additional funds come from federal highway dollars, General Fund dollars and other federal funds that go towards transit, rail and airports.
The Gas Tax The gas tax is an amount levied on each gallon of gasoline and diesel sold in North Carolina. The state gas tax is currently capped at 29.9 cents per gallon; the federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Motorists pay these taxes at the gas pump.
Jacksonville Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization JACKSONVILLE URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Resolution of Opposition to Evaluating and Revising the North Carolina Transportation Equity Formula
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly implemented the Transportation Equity Formula twenty years ago as a result of the 1989 Highway Trust Fund Law; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Equity Formula makes it difficult to fund specific significant, and costly, transportation needs such as replacing the I-85 bridges of the Yadkin River; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Metropolitan Mayors Coalition has requested MPOs, RPOs, municipalities, and counties to endorse resolutions supporting evaluation and revision of the Transportation Equity Formula; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that member agencies located within the Jacksonville MPO and the Jacksonville MPO would be detrimentally impacted by changes to the Transportation Equity Formula.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Jacksonville Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Advisory Committee opposes the efforts of the N.C. Metropolitan Mayors Coalition in asking the N.C. General Assembly to reevaluate, revise and modify the Transportation Equity Formula.
ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee on January 12, 2009.
______
Michael Lazzara, Chair
Jacksonville Urban Area TAC
Subscribed and sworn to me this the _____ day of ______, 2010.
Notary Public
My commission expires______.
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 6d: Moore County CTP Prep: First Cut Population and Employment Data
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
Moore County Townships
Township 3, Sheffield Township 4, Ritter Township 5, Deep River Legend TOWNSHIPS ABERDEEN CAMERON CARTHAGE FOXFIRE PINEBLUFF Township 1, Carthage PINEHURST Township 2, Bensalem ROBBINS Township 6, Greenwood SOUTHERN PINES TAYLORTOWN VASS WHISPERING PINES Major Roads Major Water Features Township 7, McNeill Township 9, Mineral Springs Township 10, Little River
Township 8, Sandhill Printed at 1/27/2010 9:49:51 AM by Triangle J COG
2021Miles If the Triangle J Region con- tinues to grow as the Office of Moore County Growth Projections 2029 State Budget and Management predicts, the seven could re- 180,000 gion will have in excess of 2.75 million people by 2040. Moore 160,000 County is growing at a rate 140,000 where it may increase its 120,000 population by 42,000 residents Growth by 2040. Townships 7, 8, and 100,000 Hybrid 9 are growing faster than the 80,000 Linear rest of the county. Townships 60,000 OSBM 2, 3, 4, and 5 are showing 40,000 stagnant growth rates, with Deep River Township showing 20,000 the potential for population 0 decline. The remaining three 2000 2010 2020 2029 townships, 1, 6, and 10 have the potential for rapid growth or straight-line growth. end result is a fast growth scenario for growth of Moore will lead to a near
the slow growth areas and a slow doubling of the number of dwelling If the population of the county growth pace for quickly expanding ar- Units by 2040. were to triple by 2040 this eas, and a growth rate faster than the could be a ”best case-worst OSBM projects. 2000 2010 2020 2029 case scenario‘ where the Growth 35,151 47,011 63,557 84,670 growth may be unsustainable. Hybrid 35,151 43,462 53,107 63,542 A similar approach was used to project The Office of State Budget and Linear 35,151 42,254 49,494 56,083 housing growth for Moore County. The Management projects that census for 1990 provided the data for When the data is analyzed at the Moore Counties population will 1970, 1980, and 1990 for both housing Township level some trends are easier increase from 74,768 (2000) to and population counts. The census for to recognize. The growth for the county 116,509 (2040.) If population 2010 only provide housing and popula- will be driven primarily by the southern trends continue as they have tion statistics for 2000. OSBM does not townships, townships 7, 8, 9, and 10, during the past 20 years, sim- as well as township 1 in the northern provide data for housing and is omitted ply by adding people the same part of Moore County. from the following graph. It is appar- number of people per year un- ent that the population curves roughly til 2040, a linear rate of It is also able to be identified that some mirror the dwelling curves, as might be growth, it would allow the townships are growing in population expected. county to grow to a population than in dwelling units, some are grow- of 120, 461, nearly doubling its Here we see again that the linear (Continued on page 2) 2000 population of 74,768. If the population grew at the percentage increases it has Moore County Dwelling Unit Projections since 1980, the growth curve above, the population could exceed 163,000 by 2029 and 90,000 234,000 by 2040. 80,000 70,000 The Hybrid chart uses a tech- 60,000 Moore County (Growth) nique where rapidly growing 50,000 ”Growth‘ communities are pro- Moore County (Hybrid) 40,000 jected to grow with modest Moore County (Linear) 30,000 real addition of population œ a linear progression. Conversely, 20,000 townships that appear to be 10,000 growing with modest trends 0 are given accelerated growths 2000 2010 2020 2029 using a growth formula. The (Continued from page 1) Dwelling Units Moore County ing faster in dwelling units than population, and some are growing 1970-2040 both proportionately. 90,000 Township 5, Deep River 80,000 The two histograms on this page Township 4, Ritter 70,000 display the ranking of the town- Township 3, Sheffield ships based on number of dwelling 60,000 Township 2, Bensalem units and the total residents per 50,000 Township 6, Greenwood Township 1, Carthage township, respectively. The town- 40,000 30,000 Township 8, Sandhill ships with the most residents and 20,000 Township 7, McNeil the townships with the most dwell- Township 10, Little River 10,000 Township 9, Mineral Springs ing units form the foundations of 0 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 the respective graphs. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mineral Springs Township is pro- jected to have the largest number of dwelling units and the largest Growth Trend Moore County population base for Moore County 1970-2040 during 2040. Likewise, Deep River 180,000 will have to smallest population 160,000 Township 5, Deep River base and the fewest dwelling units 140,000 Township 4, Ritter Township 2, Bensalem in Moore County if current trends 120,000 Township 3, Sheffield persist. What is interesting to note 100,000 Township 6, Greenwood 80,000 is that Bensalem and Sheffield Township 8, Sandhill changes places in ranking with 60,000 Township 1, Carthage Sheffield having the third smallest 40,000 Township 10, Little River number of dwelling units and the 20,000 Township 7, McNeil fourth lowest population base and 0 Township 9, Mineral Springs 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 7 4 1 8 5 2 9 6 3 0 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Sheffield having the 4 lowest popu- 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lation and third lowest dwelling unit base. A similar ‘flip’ in the ratings is observed between McNeil and Lit- ing at a pace where they will all Summary: The population of tle River Townships. Likewise, grow to approximately 500 units Moore County is growing both in there is another flipping of the rank- and 10,000 residents. population and in dwelling units ings between Carthage and San- within 9 of the 10 townships. De- dhill Townships. The next set of communities are pending on how you view the data those that appear to be growing there are three or four types of There are a number of ways to look towards populations of 25,000 and growth being observed: Linear at the changes in populations and 12,500 dwelling units. These town- growth townships which are grow- dwelling units. The first way is to ships are Carthage, Greenwood, ing at a constant rate; Rapid and Sandhill. look at the individual townships and growth townships, and no-growth observe relative growth. A second or very slow-growth townships. The third grouping of townships are way to observe trends is to stan- those that may grow to 30,000 resi- dardize the data on population and The graphs above show the com- dwelling units, holding the number dents and 15,000 dwelling units: bined impacts of population growth of units and residents constant at a McNeil and Little River Townships. and dwelling unit growth within maximum of 50,000 per township. Moore County. If the growth trends A third way is to standardize the Finally, there are the two townships population and housing units with a at the extremes of population and fall somewhere between exponen- 2:1 proportion of people per hous- dwelling growth. It appears that tial and flat growth, using the hy- ing unit. Mineral Springs Township could brid method previously explained, reach 50,000 residents and 25,000 Moore County can expect need an There are three groups of peer dwelling units after 2040. The other additional 28,000 houses between townships and two individual town- extreme is Deep River Township, now and 2029 in order to house an ships that deserve separate recog- where if trends continue at their additional 46,000 people . nition. Bensalem, Sheffield, and current pace, in theory, homes Ritter townships appear to be grow- could outnumber residents. These ‘a’ graphs show Mineral Springs Population and growth of townships from Dwelling Unit Trends (a) their own perspective. They Show where they are starting and where they are heading. 25,000 50,000 Note that the left and right 45,000 scales for Units and Popula- 20,000 40,000 tion change with each com- 35,000 munity Township 9 (Units) 15,000 30,000 25,000 10,000 20,000 Township 9 15,000 (Population) 5,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Little River Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
15,000 30,000 12,500 25,000 10,000 20,000 Township 10 (Units) 7,500 15,000 Township 10 5,000 10,000 (Population) 2,500 5,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
McNeil Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
15,000 30,000 12,500 25,000 Township 7 (Units) 10,000 20,000 7,500 15,000 5,000 10,000 Township 7 2,500 5,000 (Population) 0 0 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 These ‘a’ graphs show Sandhill Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a) growth of townships from their own perspective. They Show where they are starting 15,000 30,000 and where they are heading. 12,500 25,000 Note that the left and right scales for Units and Popula- 10,000 20,000 Township 8 (Units) tion change with each com- munity 7,500 15,000 Township 8 5,000 10,000 (Population) 2,500 5,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Carthage Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
15,000 30,000 12,500 25,000 10,000 20,000 Township 1 (Units) 7,500 15,000 Township 1 5,000 10,000 (Population) 2,500 5,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Greenwood Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
15,000 30,000 12,500 25,000 n
10,000 20,000 o Township 6 (Units) i t s t a i l
n 7,500 15,000 u U p Township 6 5,000 10,000 o (Population) P 2,500 5,000 0 0 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Finance & Budget
The N.C. Department of Transportation has an annual operating budget of nearly $4 billion. This money comes from three primary sources: the Highway Fund, the Highway Trust Fund and federal funds. The following pie charts illustrate the sources and uses of these funds.
Sources of Funding Uses of Funding
The Highway Fund The Highway Fund dates back to 1921, when the North Carolina General Assembly first imposed the gasoline tax of .01 cents per gallon on all motor vehicles fuels sold or distributed in the state. Revenue for the Highway Fund comes from a variety of sources, including the state gas tax, motor vehicle registration fees, title fees and federal-aid appropriations. Traditionally, the Highway Fund has supported highway construction and maintenance, the State Highway Patrol and the Division of Motor Vehicles. In the 1990s, the fund also began supporting public transportation and rail programs.
The Highway Trust Fund The Highway Trust Fund law was enacted in 1989 and identifies specific highways that will be four-laned or improved in order to complete a 3,600- mile intrastate system. In addition, the law provides funding for urban loops around seven of our largest cities, including Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville, Greensboro, Greenville, Wilmington and Winston-Salem. This These ‘a’ graphs show Bensalem Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a) growth of townships from their own perspective. They Show where they are starting 5,000 10,000 and where they are heading. 4,500 9,000 Note that the left and right
s 4,000 8,000 t
i scales for Units and Popula- 3,500 7,000 n n
o Township 2 Dwelling tion change with each com- i U
3,000 6,000 t Units a g munity l
n 2,500 5,000 u i
l Township 2 Population l 2,000 4,000 p e o P
w 1,500 3,000
D 1,000 2,000 500 1,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sheffield Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
5,000 10,000
4,000 8,000 s t i n n o i U t
3,000 6,000
a Township 3, Sheffield g l n u i l
p Township 3, Sheffield l 2,000 4,000 o e P w
D 1,000 2,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ritter Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
5,000 10,000
4,000 8,000 Township 4 (Units) 3,000 6,000
2,000 4,000 Township 4 (Population) 1,000 2,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These ‘b’ graphs show Mineral Springs Population and Dwelling Unit growth of townships from a Trends (b) countywide perspective. This allows relative trends to be identified. 25,000 50,000 Note that the left scale— 20,000 40,000 Units is capped at 25,000 and the population is capped 15,000 30,000 Units at 50,000 people. 10,000 20,000 Population Some of the slopes are 5,000 10,000 nearly identical while others show a separation. There are 0 0 some where the lines cross 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 which may apply or relieve 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 pressure on housing depend- ing on which way the trends are heading.
Little River Population and Dwelling Unit Curves (b)
25,000 50,000 20,000 40,000 Township 10 (Units) 15,000 30,000 10,000 20,000 Township 10 (Population) 5,000 10,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
McNeil Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000
20,000 40,000 Township 7 (Units) 15,000 30,000
10,000 20,000 Township 7 (Population) 5,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These ‘b’ graphs show Sandhill Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b) growth of townships from a countywide perspective. This allows relative trends to be 25,000 50,000 identified. 45,000
20,000 40,000 Note that the left scale— 35,000 Township 8 (Units) Units is capped at 25,000 15,000 30,000 and the population is capped 25,000 at 50,000 people. 10,000 20,000 Township 8
15,000 (Population) Some of the slopes are 5,000 10,000 nearly identical while others 5,000 show a separation. There are 0 0 some where the lines cross 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 which may apply or relieve 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 pressure on housing depend- ing on which way the trends are heading.
Carthage Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000 45,000 20,000 40,000 35,000 Township 1 (Units) 15,000 30,000 25,000 10,000 20,000 Township 1 15,000 (Population) 5,000 10,000 5,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Greenwood Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000
20,000 40,000 n Township 6 (Units) o i t s
t 15,000
30,000 a i l n u
U 10,000 20,000 p Township 6 o (Population) 5,000 10,000 P 0 0 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 6 2 8 4 0 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 These ‘b’ graphs show Bensalem Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b) growth of townships from a countywide perspective. This allows relative trends to be 25,000 50,000 identified. 45,000
s 20,000 40,000 t
i Note that the left scale— 35,000 n n Township 2 Dwelling
o Units is capped at 25,000 U i
15,000 30,000 t Units g a and the population is capped l
n 25,000 u i
l at 50,000 people. p Township 2 Population l 10,000 20,000 o e P
w 15,000 Some of the slopes are D 5,000 10,000 nearly identical while others 5,000 show a separation. There are 0 0 some where the lines cross 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 which may apply or relieve 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 pressure on housing depend- ing on which way the trends are heading.
Sheffield Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000
20,000 40,000 s t i n n o i U t
15,000 30,000
a Township 3, Sheffield g l n u i l
p Township 3, Sheffield l 10,000 20,000 o e P w
D 5,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ritter Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000
20,000 40,000 Township 4 (Units) 15,000 30,000
10,000 20,000 Township 4 (Population) 5,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These ‘c’ graphs show growth of townships from a Mineral Springs Population and Dwelling Unit one to one fixed dwelling Trends (c) unit to resident perspective. They show where townships are starting and where they 50,000 50,000 are heading. 40,000 40,000
Note that the scales are 30,000 30,000 Units capped at 50,000 people and 50,000 units per township. 20,000 20,000 Population
10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Little River Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000 40,000 40,000 Township 10 (Units) 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 Township 10 (Population) 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
McNeil Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000
40,000 40,000 Township 7 (Units) 30,000 30,000
20,000 20,000 Township 7 (Population) 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These ‘c’ graphs show growth of townships from a Carthage Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c) one to one fixed dwelling unit to resident perspective. 50,000 50,000 They show where townships 45,000 45,000 are starting and where they 40,000 40,000 are heading. 35,000 35,000 Township 1 (Units) 30,000 30,000 Note that the scales are 25,000 25,000 capped at 50,000 people and 20,000 20,000 Township 1 50,000 units per township. 15,000 15,000 (Population)
10,000 10,000
5,000 5,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Greenwood Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000 40,000 40,000 n
o Township 6 (Units) i t s 30,000 30,000 t a i l n u U 20,000 20,000 p Township 6 o (Population) P 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sandhill Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000
40,000 40,000 Township 8 (Units) 30,000 30,000
20,000 20,000 Township 8 (Population) 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These ‘c’ graphs show growth of townships from a Bensalem Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c) one to one fixed dwelling unit to resident perspective. 50,000 50,000 They show where townships 45,000 45,000 are starting and where they 40,000 40,000 s
are heading. t i 35,000 35,000 n
N Township 2 Dwelling
o i U
30,000 30,000 t Units Note that the scales are a g 25,000 25,000 l n u i capped at 50,000 people and l p l 20,000 20,000 Township 2 Population o 50,000 units per township. e P w 15,000 15,000
D 10,000 10,000
5,000 5,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Sheffield Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
50,000 50,000
40,000 40,000 s t i n n o i U t
30,000 30,000
a Township 3, Sheffield g l n u i l
p Township 3, Sheffield l 20,000 20,000 o e P w
D 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ritter Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000
40,000 40,000 Township 4 (Units) 30,000 30,000
20,000 20,000 Township 4 (Population) 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 These charts are for Town- ship 5—Deep River Town- Deep River Population and ship. Dwelling Unit Trends (a)
Note that the population is steadily declining while 500 500 dwelling units are increas-
s 400 400 t ing. i n n Township 5 (Units) o i U t 300 300 a g Note also that Township 5 is l n u i l l the smallest of the twonships 200 200 p Township 5 e o P and that it is statistically pos- w (Population) sible that there may be more D 100 100 dwelling units than residents if the population continues to 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 decrease and housing units 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 continue to increase. 2
Deep River Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (b)
25,000 50,000
s 20,000 40,000 t i n n Township 5 (Units) o i U t 15,000 30,000 a g l n u i l l 10,000 20,000 p Township 5 e o P
w (Population)
D 5,000 10,000 0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Deep River Population and Dwelling Unit Trends (c)
50,000 50,000
s 40,000 40,000 t i n n Township 5 (Units) o i U t 30,000 30,000 a g l n u i l l 20,000 20,000 p Township 5 e o P
w (Population)
D 10,000 10,000
0 0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Dwelling Units Moore County
90,000
80,000 Township 5, Deep River 70,000 Township 4, Ritter 60,000 Township 3, Sheffield Township 2, Bensalem 50,000 Township 6, Greenwood 40,000 Township 1, Carthage Township 8, Sandhill 30,000 Township 7, McNeil 20,000 Township 10, Little River Township 9, Mineral Springs 10,000
0 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Growth Trend Moore County 1970-2040 180,000
160,000
140,000 Township 5, Deep River Township 4, Ritter 120,000 Township 2, Bensalem 100,000 Township 3, Sheffield 80,000 Township 6, Greenwood Township 8, Sandhill 60,000 Township 1, Carthage 40,000 Township 10, Little River 20,000 Township 7, McNeil Township 9, Mineral Springs 0
0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 2 6 0 4 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 6f: BRAC paper on R-2212 and new NCDOT process
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
P.O. Box 87129 ▪ Fayetteville, NC 28304 ▪ (910) 808-4670
From: Donald R. Belk, AICP, Regional Planner 26 January 2010 To: Interested Moore County Citizens
Re: NCDOT Project R-2212, Carthage Bypass
I was recently asked by several Moore County citizens to comment on NCDOT Project R-2212, also referred to as the ‘Carthage Bypass’. As I understand it, this project has been deferred indefinitely and will not resume until such time that Moore County and Town of Carthage request that the project be revisited.
Summary and Background
A recent press release (January 7, 2010) from NCDOT stated that:
... After evaluating low traffic projections, lack of public and local officials’ support, and funding issues, the N.C. Department of Transportation has stopped all work on the proposed N.C. 24/27 Carthage Bypass project. Both the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization and the town of Carthage passed resolutions supporting this action.
The proposed project has been deferred, which means that all project activities will end, including planning, design and other preconstruction activities.
... The proposed project cannot be removed from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) because of North Carolina General Statute 136- 179, which established Highway Trust Fund projects to construct four lanes along N.C. 24/27 from Charlotte to Morehead City.
The project could be reinstated in the future, but will have to go through NCDOT’s new prioritization process. This process uses data on pavement conditions, safety and traffic projections, as well as input from local governments and NCDOT staff, to determine the department’s priorities. This data-driven approach will put all projects in priority order, based on the department’s goals, and serve as the primary input source for the STIP.
The next opportunity to submit projects for the new strategic prioritization process will be in mid 2011.
It is my understanding that all alternatives have been dropped, and there will be no action to preserve the right-of-way along those corridors. Nonetheless, R-2212 presents an interesting case study on the environmental review process for new road projects, and the role of citizens, local governments, and NCDOT’s own assessment procedures.
The Carthage Bypass would have relieved congestion on NC-24, an NCDOT designated ‘Strategic Highway Corridor’ as it meanders through downtown Carthage; however, the preferred alignment would have split a quiet rural area marked by rural Re: NCDOT Project R-2212, Carthage Bypass 26 January 2010 Page 2
neighborhoods, several ‘agricultural districts’, and farms with historic designation potential.
R-2212 has similar issues with another NCDOT project that was modified because of potential adverse impacts to a historic resource deemed to have cultural significance to the community. A project to widen I-85 in Cabarrus County (I-3803B) would have required realignment of a two-lane road near Exit 52 that would have cut across a historic North Carolina ‘Century Farm’ that still thrives.
In both cases, strong citizen opposition, along with low traffic projections for R-2212, led NCDOT to (1) effectively shut down work on R-2212; and, (2) select an alternative alignment for I-3803B promoted by opponents of the state’s ‘preferred’ route. Both projects were State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) priorities, so opponents can justifiably claim ‘victory’ in the respective decisions. In reality, however, it represents an important validation of the process that NCDOT follows in its transportation planning.
In my opinion, these decisions represent a “win-win” situation for all concerned because it should give new impetus to community involvement in regional transportation planning and development issues. As proven in these two recent cases, this involvement is facilitated by the review process already in place, led by the NCDOT’s Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, or PDEA.
PDEA Review Process
PDEA is a multi-disciplinary branch, consisting of natural environment specialists (biologists, environmental scientists, etc…), engineers, archaeologists, architectural historians, community outreach / public involvement specialists, and community planners. It is the community studies team that assesses the direct community impacts, as well as ‘secondary and cumulative impacts’, of proposed road projects that are listed on the State’s official transportation improvement plan. This assessment is conducted with considerable precision and collaboration across multiple State agencies and local governments. The decisionmaking process for R- 2212 is a case in point:
The historic eligibility of the Shields (Malpass) farm was determined by NCDOT PDEA’s own historic architecture section in July 2009, very late in the process. The new Shields Voluntary Agricultural District was only designated as such (at the request of the Shields farm owners) after NCDOT’s other northern alternatives were eliminated to miss a previously identified Voluntary Agricultural District in December 2008. Since state law requires the local agricultural districts board to hold a public hearing (if specified by the local VAD ordinance), this would have been NCDOT’s next step in the Carthage Bypass project. PDEA had also started a full NRCS farmland conversion assessment, even though the state-funded project would not have required it.
It is important to note that current PDEA process requires a "community characteristics report" early in the development of possible alignments, but this Re: NCDOT Project R-2212, Carthage Bypass 26 January 2010 Page 3
important requirement was not in place when the R-2212 alignment studies initially got underway. Therefore, important resources that might have been identified earlier were not. When NCDOT learned about the communities that might be impacted, PDEA worked to stay in contact with residents of both the Needmore and Dowd Street neighborhoods, as well as concerned citizens in the vicinity of the Shields farm. Needmore would have been impacted by the Northern Bypass Alternative, and the Dowd Street neighborhood would have been impacted by the southern bypass alternative.
It should be noted that no decisions were made on R-2212 until all the studies were completed and public input was gathered. The process that PDEA undertakes, according to Steve Gurganus, Community Studies Team Leader at PDEA’s Human Environment Unit, is a joint effort of project planning engineers in PDEA, NCDOT’s human and natural environment units, as well as State and Federal resource agencies. The State and Federal agencies do not often permit PDEA to indiscriminately remove alternatives from the table until all of the information is in. “Other communities and resources may be impacted by other alternatives, so it is about weighing the impacts of various alternatives” according to Mr. Gurganus. The internal deliberations of PDEA and its consultants, the quick action of citizens to secure historic designation and Voluntary Agricultural District status to affected properties, and considering the input of landowners and citizens are all part of the environmental impact disclosure, project development process, and decision making process. While not ‘fun’, says Mr. Gurganus, “this is exactly the way [the system] is supposed to work”.
The fact that the R-2212 and I-3803B project decisions were made during the same time period is evidence of the ‘new and improved’ NCDOT that has evolved since federal highway agencies began pushing for greater sensitivity to the community impact of highway projects beginning in the early 1990s.
Issues Remaining and Next Steps
What’s next? Project R-2212 was deferred, not cancelled, so the project may or may not be revisited in the future. However, it will primarily be impetus from the community of Carthage and vicinity, not NCDOT that will initiate any reconsideration of the project -- certainly absent substantiating safety or other engineering data to which NCDOT would need to respond in the interest of public safety or public policy.
Truck traffic remains an issue downtown, however. This may become increasingly intolerable for downtown residents and businesses in the future. If so, it will be up to the community to unite behind an acceptable alternative for the Carthage ‘bypass’, an alternative that is conceived, analyzed, and developed with full citizen input and involvement. Only then, absent unacceptable safety or congestion issues, will NCDOT re-engage with this project. This aspect, not that citizens organized to ‘stop the road’, is the most important conclusion to be drawn from the R-2212 case.
Re: NCDOT Project R-2212, Carthage Bypass 26 January 2010 Page 4
Lessons Learned
What are the lessons for other communities in the Fort Bragg region that may be impacted by planned road projects? First, document your cultural, historic, and other community resources. Natural resources such as streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and so on are well-regulated by several agencies at the state and federal level. Community and socio-economic resources, on the other hand, have less protection and mostly require input or action by private landowners. These actions (as illustrated by R-2212) can include designation of farmland and forestland as Voluntary Agricultural Districts. Most counties in the region have VAD programs. Check with your District Conservationist, Cooperative Extension, or county planning office for more information. Historic designation may be possible for longstanding farms, particularly if certain historic and architectural criteria can be met. Gaining National Register ‘study list’ designation (which is one step short of actual National Register listing), is a simple and inexpensive process, and the NC State Historic Preservation Office can readily ascertain if a farm is potentially eligible. Your county planning office can also provide advice regarding historic designation. Secondly, stay aware of transportation planning in your area. Again, the professional planners employed by your County government can help get you ‘plugged in’ to the process.
As always, please contact me if I may be of further assistance.
Donald R. Belk, AICP, REDI* Regional Planner BRAC Regional Task Force PO Box 87129 Fayetteville, NC 28304 (910) 808-4176 (o) (910) 922-6767 (m) visit us at: www.bracrtf.com
*Member, American Institute of Certified Planners; NC Rural Economic Development Institute
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 6g: RTA Draft Position Paper on US 64
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
2/4/2010 Regional Transportation Alliance Draft … Save NC Highway US 64 Protect our neighborhoods
Home About Disclaimer Regional Transportation Alliance Draft Position on US 64 West Corridor
2010 February 2 by Melissa Morauer
Hello to All,
Thank you for your support in preserving the 64 corridor in Cary and Apex.
As a result of our communities and Save64.org’s efforts a series of “Stake Holders” meetings were held with NCDOT and the “Study Group”.
We are pleased to announce that the Study Group and NCDOT has in fact recommended that a by-pass be created via US 1 and 540, and that they were dropping the elevated Free Way aspects from the Study.
The Regional Transportation Alliance has been working with both Cary and Apex Chambers of Commerce and have asked that we present the below draft to our fellow citizens. The purpose is to judge the publics opinion on there draft on this very important issue.
Feel free to post any of your thoughts or questions on our web site, or to contact your local officials or NCDOT.
Thank you,
Save64.org
Draft position on US 64 West corridor
We recognize that US 64 is a critical corridor for both transportation and economic development for our region and state. We also understand that US 64 West also serves our local community in southwestern Wake County and is critical for mobility; access to offices, merchants, parks, and schools; and overall quality of life.
We applaud NCDOT, the Capital Area MPO, the Towns of Cary and Apex, and other partners for their shared efforts at exploring multiple options in order to identify a balanced solution from a community, regional, and save64.org/regional-transportation-alli… 1/4 2/4/2010 Regional Transportation Alliance Draft … statewide perspective. After engaging in the extensive community outreach process during 2009 with the corridor study team, we offer the following comments:
We support the study team’s recommendation to pursue signing US 64 bypass along NC 540 in order to inform through travelers of the availability of a nearby freeway- quality facility and to encourage long- distance travelers to use that routing We request that dynamic message signs that highlight travel time differences between the existing 64 corridor and the 540 freeway routing be installed along the lines of the electronic travel time sign examples shown in the new 2009 MUTCD in order to further inform longer distance travelers of the availability of the bypass routing Given the continuing and projected population and travel growth in the Triangle, we support efforts to preserve or enhance the mobility along the existing corridor between NC 540 and US 1 Given the character of the Cary/Apex community and the existing US 64 corridor, any proposed mobility improvements to the existing corridor should sustain or improve its aesthetics, maintain a boulevard feel, and preserve or enhance connectivity between land uses north and south of the corridor We fully support the study team’s recommendations to install Carmel, IN-type aesthetic roundabout interchanges at Lake Pine and Laura Duncan and their potential for significant capacity improvements, travel time savings, safety improvements, north-south multimodal connectivity enhancements, and boulevard aesthetics preservation Given the potential benefits associated with the proposed grade-separated interchanges at Laura Duncan and Lake Pine, we encourage consideration of focusing resources to accelerate one of these interchanges in lieu of spreading funding around on multiple smaller projects We encourage NCDOT to conduct a speed study on the existing corridor once NC 540 opens to see if speeds are appropriate We encourage the Town of Cary to consider further study of the area near the US 1 / US 64 interchange in order to explore potential opportunities for improved access, connectivity, mobility, and aesthetics along both US 1 and US 64 Given the boulevard feel of the corridor and the capacity improvements that grade separations afford, we encourage preserving the existing corridor footprint at four lanes (two through lanes per direction), either indefinitely or at a minimum until multiple interchanges are installed, travel flow is observed, and further community engagement is undertaken
We thank NCDOT and the study team for the tremendous outreach and engagement efforts that have been undertaken as part of this study.
from → Uncategorized
2 Responses leave one →
1. 2010 February 2 Rick Mazzetti permalink
Thank you for leading this much improved decision by the NCDOT, and the surrounding cities. My concern is that 540 will require motorist to pay a toll, and will big rigs and other commercial vehicles avoid the toll and continue to use HWY 64; thus, having the potential to not lower the traffic once the by-pass is completed. This maybe too soon to ask, but I would welcome the NCDOT to consider not having a toll if you use the 540 by-pass to travel to Apex (Beaver Creek Commons Area) and future Apex save64.org/regional-transportation-alli… 2/4 2/4/2010 Regional Transportation Alliance Draft … commercial/residential developments.
2. 2010 February 2 Krys permalink
While I applaud the fantastic work of this group, I am disappointed that alternative transit strategies are not discussed in the bulleted points. We should be pressuring NCDOT to come to *us* with ideas about busses, trams, bike lanes, or whatever; I don’t know what the most viable alternative transit solution is and no one seems to be engaging open dialogue to figure it out. The only thing DOT wishes to do, or so it appears, is build massive roads, one bigger than the next – this never solves traffic problems, it only creates more capacity for traffic problems.
Given projected population growth and travel growth in the Triangle, if we limit ourselves to discussing car travel alone then we are waging a futile battle. Like the post above by Rick suggests, traffic will surely spill over from 540 and we will be fighting DOT once again. Traffic WILL outgrow the current capacity of hwy 64 (it is already reaching max during certain hours) and we will end up with another concrete monster like US1 in our backyards. To preserve the existing corridor footprint at four lanes we need to become proactive in our resolve or we will be paved over. This has happened in almost every growing community in the nation, are we destined to be next?
Leave a Reply
Name (required):
Email (required):
Website:
Comment:
Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.
Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS
Submit Comment
save64.org/regional-transportation-alli… 3/4 2/4/2010 Regional Transportation Alliance Draft …
Get Free Updates
Get the latest and the greatest news delivered for free to your reader or your inbox:
RSS Feed Email Updates
Save64.org Newsletter
Email Address
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe
Copyright 2010
Vigilance Theme by Jestro
save64.org/regional-transportation-alli… 4/4
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Action Item Agenda Item 7a
Draft Planning Work Program (PWP) and budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
Background
This is a draft of next year’s work items and budget. The amounts are subject to revision, but percentages will remain the same.
Action Requested
Review and approve draft PWP.
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization PO Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
Triangle Area RPO
Chatham County Lee County Moore County Orange County
1/27/2010
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Triangle Area RPO RTCC and RTAC
C: file
FROM: Paul Black, TARPO Coordinator
SUBJECT: PWP Item III-D-3 (Special Studies) Explanation
The purpose of this memo is to explain the proposed work that would be done under the III-D-3 (Special Studies) line of the draft Planning Work Program (PWP) for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.
In a phone conversation with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Unit, they conveyed that it is unlikely that very small towns will receive bicycle or pedestrian grant funding. The smallest towns in TARPO are (2005 population estimates from the Census Bureau are under 2000 persons):
CAMERON 300 GOLDSTON 361 FOXFIRE 475 VASS 775 TAYLORTOWN 886 BROADWAY 1108 ROBBINS 1235 PINEBLUFF 1333
In order to speed the completion of countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plans, I propose that the RPO undertake and fund the creation of pedestrian plans for these towns. The plans will be done using the NCDOT template1 and will dovetail into the countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plans when they are being done. They will be listed under Special Studies for two reasons: 1. It is awkward to account for them as part of a CTP until TPB staff formally announces that a CTP is under way, and 2. They will result in standalone documents regardless of CTP status.
The Town of Cameron has informally approached the RPO and has a citizen volunteer to assist RPO and Town staff preparing a plan. The RPO staff proposes to start with Cameron as a pilot. If successful and there is time left in that line item this for the fiscal year, the staff would begin Goldston (if the Town is interested), or the next town in order (Foxfire) would be approached.
1 http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/programs_initiatives/Transportation_Plans/Transportation_Plan_Template.pdf Draft Fiscal 2010-2011 TARPO Planning Work Program Budget
Triangle Area RPO 2010-2011 PWP 25% 75% Match Rate
Percentages of Respective RPO Program Funds Shares Highway / Transit TASK TASK Local State Local State TOTAL CODE DESCRIPTION min. 20% max. 80% II-A Surveillance of Inventory Data: 17.0% 17.0% $ 5,100 $ 15,292 $ 20,392 II-A-1 Traffic Volume Counts $ - $ - II-A-2 Status of Transportation Plans 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 II-A-3 Street System Inventory 0.5% 0.5% $ 150 $ 450 $ 600 II-A-4 Traffic Accidents 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399 II-A-5 Transit System Data 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399 II-A-6 Dwelling Unit, Pop. & Emp. Change 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 II-A-9 Mapping / Data Inventory 8.0% 8.0% $ 2,400 $ 7,196 $ 9,596 II-A-10 Central Area Parking Inventory 0.5% 0.5% $ 150 $ 450 $ 600 II-A-11 Bike & Ped. Facilities Inventory 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399
II-B Long Range Transportation Plan: 21.0% 21.0% $ 6,300 $ 18,890 $ 25,190 II-B-2 Collection of Network Data 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399 II-B-4 Forecast of Data to Future Year 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 II-B-5 Community Goals & Objectives 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399 II-B-6 Forecast of Future Travel Patterns$ - $ - $ - II-B-8 Highway Element of the CTP 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 II-B-9 Transit Element of the CTP 4.0% 4.0% $ 1,200 $ 3,598 $ 4,798 II-B-10 Bicycle & Ped. Element of the CTP 6.0% 6.0% $ 1,800 $ 5,397 $ 7,197 II-B-12 Collector Street Element of CTP 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 II-B-13 Rail, Water or Other Mode of CTP 0.5% 0.5% $ 150 $ 450 $ 600 II-B-14 Freight Movement/Mobility Planning$ - $ - $ - II-B-15 Financial Planning 2.0% 2.0% $ 600 $ 1,799 $ 2,399 II-B-17 Air Qual. Planning/Conformity Analysis 1.5% 1.5% $ 450 $ 1,349 $ 1,799
III-A Planning Work Program 5.0% 5.0% $ 1,500 $ 4,498 $ 5,998
III-B Transp. Improvement Plan 3.0% 3.0% $ 900 $ 2,699 $ 3,599
III-C Cvl Rgts. Cmp./Otr .Reg. Reqs. 9.0% 9.0% $ 2,700 $ 8,096 $ 10,796 III-C-1 Title VI$ - $ - $ - III-C-2 Environmental Justice 0.5% 0.5% $ 150 $ 450 $ 600 III-C-3 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Anal.$ - $ - $ - III-C-4 Minority Business Enterprise Planning$ - $ - $ - III-C-5 Planning for the Elderly 0.5% 0.5% $ 150 $ 450 $ 600 III-C-7 Public Involvement 8.0% 8.0% $ 2,400 $ 7,196 $ 9,596 III-C-8 Private Sector Participation$ - $ - $ -
III-D Incidental Plng. & Project Dev. 25.0% 25.0% $ 7,500 $ 22,488 $ 29,988 III-D-1 Transportation Enhancement Plng. 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 III-D-2 Enviro. Analysis & Pre-TIP Plng. 1.0% 1.0% $ 300 $ 900 $ 1,200 III-D-3 Special Studies 12.0% 12.0% $ 3,600 $ 10,794 $ 14,394 III-D-4 Regional or Statewide Planning 11.0% 11.0% $ 3,300 $ 9,895 $ 13,195
III-E Administration & Services 20.0% 20.0% $ 6,000 $ 17,990 $ 23,990 TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% $30,000 $ 89,951 $ 119,951
Local Match = $7,500 each County for a total 25% local to 75% DOT Match Rate
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Action Item Agenda Item 7b
Chatham Transit 5309 Grant Support Resolution
Background
Resolution of support for the Chatham Transit Network’s grant request.
Action Requested
Review and approve/decline resolution.
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization PO Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Resolution Endorsing the Chatham Transit Network’s Proposal for a § 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Livability Initiative Program Grant
WHEREAS, the member counties of TARPO have endorsed transit as a way to meet diverse transportation needs; and
WHEREAS, this grant will aid transit providers in serving populations that have limited mobility options; and
WHEREAS, the Chatham Transit Network will save significant funds over the long term by owning their facility;
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that TARPO endorses the above grant proposal provided here on this, the 18th day of February 2010.
I, Randolph Voller, TARPO RTAC Chair, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the minutes of a RTAC meeting duly held on this the 18th day of February 2009.
______Randolph Voller Chairman, TARPO RTAC
______Attest, Paul Black Secretary
T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Meeting Agenda Item
Item 8: NCDOT Updates
Chatham County y Lee County y Moore County y Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919)558-9397 Fax (919)549-9390
ACTIVE NCDOT PROJECTS LOCATED IN ORANGE COUNTY - TARPO
County WBS # Route Location Description Amount Status 20090610 Status 20091106 Status 20100202
Joint Sealing from I-85 to Durham Co. Line Safety Grooving and Orange I-4716 I-40 (Additional scope: patch spalls, repair broken $6.8 million Grinding,LP avail. 3/1/10 for slabs and diamond grind) compl. by 9/1/10
I-85 from I-85/40 split ARRA; Rea Contracting, LLC; to bridges over SR Mill, resurface, and overlay with Open-Graded Friction Rea Contracting, LLC; Avail. 3/29/10 for compl. Rea Contracting, LLC; Avail. 3/29/10 Orange I-5138 $2,000,000 Avail. 3/29/10 for compl. By 1006 (Orange Grove Course By 7/16/10 for compl. By 7/16/10 7/16/10 Rd.)
T&H Electrical Corp.=98% complete, T&H Electrical Corp.=100% Orange R-4468 I-40/I-85 Upgrade weigh in motion technology on SBL/WBL $993,000 T&H Electrical Corp.=95% complete equipment observation period complete, underway
NC 57 from NC 86 to Riley Paving, Inc.; Avail. 4/5/10 for compl. Riley Paving, Inc.; Avail. 4/5/10 for ARRA; Riley Paving, Inc.; Avail. Orange R-5178 A Widen for 2' paved shoulders and resurface $1.4 million SR 1544 (Pearson Rd.) 7/30/10 compl. 7/30/10 4/5/10 for compl. 7/30/10
Design for new scope under SF-4907C 41698.1 Install center traffic islands with stop signs on NC 157 New $35,000 PE $ 5,000 Design for new scope under review; additional Design for new scope under review; review; additional funds have Orange PE 07-01- NC 57 @ NC 157 scope: (Widen NC 57 for left turn lanes and install a traffic RW $125,000 C funds have been allocated; Proposed Let additional funds have been allocated; been allocated; Proposed Let 217 42731 signal at the intersection of NC 157) $400,000 C 4/2010 Proposed Const. FY '09-'10 5/18/10
SS-4907V SR 1005 (Old $150,000 C $33,000 Survey complete; Proposed Const. Design underway; Proposed Orange 42423.3C 42423.1 Greensboro Rd.) @ SR Realign intersection Survey underway PE FY '10-'11 Const. FY '10-'11 PE 1951 (White Cross Rd.)
S.T. Wooten Corp.(3600022350)= 100% compl.; Construct left turn lanes in both directions@ SR 1102/ 1951 Orange 41686 NC 54 $250,000.00 painted island at Carl Durham Rd. intersection Complete Complete (Dodson's Crossroads/ Butler Rd.) completed
SR 1006 (Orange Install guardrail at the culvert 0.3 mi. south of SR 1177 (Orange Orange 42040 $24,000 Installation delayed for utility relocation Installation complete Installation complete Grove Rd.) Grove-Calvander Rd.)
NC 57 fro north of SR S.T. Wooten Corp.; to be compl. By S.T. Wooten Corp.=40% compl.; Orange 7CR.10681.15 15444 (Pearson Rd.) to Widen, resurface, and pavement markings S.T. Wooten Corp.; to be compl. By 4/30/10 4/30/10 Final compl. 4/30/10 NC 157
NCDOT PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY CURRENTLY IN 12 MONTH LETTNG LIST-SUBJECT TO CHANGE
County TIP # Route Location Description Estimate Est. Let Date Est. Let Date Est. Let Date
Joint Sealing from I-85 to Durham Co. Line (Additional scope: 9/15/2009 Orange I-4716 I-40 $6.8 million 1/20/2010 March 16, 2010 patch spalls, repair broken slabs and diamond grind) $1.5 million original cost before scope change
2/5/2010 TARPO TCC/TAC Meeting 2/4/2010 Division 8 Project Report
TOTAL FUNDING CONTRACT BID COUNTY WBS # ROUTE DESCRIPTION 20090414_STATUS 20090727_STATUS 20091105_STATUS 20091202_STATUS 20100203_STATUS ALLOCATION AMOUNT Dellinger, Inc began work on Dellinger, Inc began work on Dellinger, Inc. began work Sept. 15, Dellinger, Inc began work on 9/18/08 Dellinger, Inc began work on 9/18/08 9/18/08 and is currently at 9/18/08 and is currently at 98.8% 2008; Girders, deck, barrier rails, PE: $150,000.00 and is currently at 70.1% complete; and is currently at 98.8% complete; 98.8% complete; Structure & complete; Structure & roadway B-4063 Replacement of bridge # 20 over approach slabs complete; Working on Chatham NC 902 ROW: $75,000.00 $1,205,103 Structure & roadway complete, open to Structure & roadway complete, open to roadway complete, open to complete, open to traffic; working on 33427.3.1 Sandy Creek and approaches grading, pipe installation; Currently at CONST: $1,390,181.00 traffic; working on signs, guardrail, etc.; traffic; working on punchlist items; traffic; working on punchlist punchlist items; Estimated 42.5% complete; Scheduled completion Scheduled completion is 12/31/09 Estimated completion is December 2009 items; Estimated completion is completion is December 2009; is December 31, 2009 December 2009 Complete, accepted 11/19/09 Awarded to S. T. Wooten Corp.; Awarded to S. T. Wooten Corp.; Awarded to S. T. Wooten Corp.; Awarded to S. T. Wooten Corp.; 4 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Available 7/20/09; Scheduled Chatham 8CR.20191.11 $1,040,350.00 $697,376.00 Available 7/20/09; Scheduled completion Available 7/20/09; Scheduled completion Available 7/20/09; Scheduled secondary roads purchase order completion is 12/16/09; Complete, is 12/16/09 is 12/16/09 completion is 12/16/09 accepted on 12/16/09 Install protected permitted traffic Design is complete; ROW being Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. PE: $10,000 Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Available 41700 SF- signal and left turn lane at Design is complete; ROW being acquired; Utilities being relocated; Available 10/5/09; Scheduled Available 10/5/09; Scheduled Chatham NC 751 ROW: $58,214.50 $301,260.69 10/5/09; Scheduled completion is 4908J intersection of NC 751 and SR acquired; Anticipated letting in 2009 Anticipated letting September 2009; completion is 4/30/10 completion is 4/30/10 Economic Const: $523,000.00 4/30/10 Economic Stimulus Project 1731 (O'Kelly Church Road) Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Stimulus Project Letting scheduled for 10/20/09; Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc.; Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc.; 8 sections of Chatham 8CR.20191.12 Contract resurfacing $798,000.00 $2,641,575.45 Available 11/30/09; Scheduled Available 11/30/09; Scheduled Available 11/30/09; Scheduled secondary roads completion 8/13/10 completion 8/13/10 completion 8/13/10
Project let on January 21, 2010; Awarded to Sanford Contractors, NC 87 from south of Anticipated letting in January Inc; Availability date is 3/1/10; Construct eliptical roundabout Anticipated letting in January 2010; Anticipated letting in January 2010; Chatham R-5181, 42221 SR 1516 to north of $375,000.00 2010; Economic Stimulus Scheduled completion date is near CCCC in Pittsboro Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project SR 1516 Project 8/13/10; Economic Stimulus Project ehuled for January 21, 2010; Economic Stimulus Project
Chatham County Municipal Agreement; Letting scheduled for Chatham County Municipal US 15-501 from Cole Chatham County Municipal Agreement; Chatham County Municipal Agreement; 12/3/09; Awarded to White Oak Agreement; Letting scheduled Chatham U-4726FA Park Plaza to Orange Install pedestrian facilities Letting not scheduled; Economic Letting not scheduled; Economic Construction Corp; Availability Date for 12/3/09; Economic County Stimulus Project Stimulus Project is 1/5/10; Scheduled completion is Stimulus Project 6/15/10; Economic Stimulus PE: $22,000.00 Project Chatham County Municipal US 15-501 from Cole Chatham County Municipal Agreement; Chatham County Municipal Agreement; Agreement; Letting scheduled Chatham ER-5100HA Park Plaza to Orange Streetscaping/Landscaping Letting not scheduled; Economic Letting not scheduled; Economic for 12/3/09; Economic County Stimulus Project Stimulus Project PE: $2,525.00 Stimulus Project US 64 and SR 2229 Design is complete; ROW being (Treatment Plant Island construction and PE: $27,000.00 Design is complete; ROW being Design is complete; ROW being Design is complete; ROW being 41848.3 SS- acquired; Letting is not Chatham Road)/SR 1363 improvements to accommodate ROW: $11,000.00 acquired; Letting is not scheduled; acquired; Letting is not scheduled; acquired; Letting is not scheduled; 4908K scheduled; Insufficient funds (Pearlman Teague U-turns CONST: $19,000.00 Insufficient funds available Insufficient funds available Insufficient funds available available Road)
Reynold's Fence & Guardrail began Reynold's Fence & Guardrail Guardrail rehabilitation to work October 27, 2008; Contractor Reynold's Fence & Guardrail began Reynold's Fence & Guardrail began Reynold's Fence & Guardrail began began work October 27, 2008; 38913.3.1 R- US 421, US 15-501, upgrade sub-standard guardrail, PE $210,000.00 currently at 64.6% complete; Randolph, work October 27, 2008; Scheduled work October 27, 2008; Scheduled work October 27, 2008; Scheduled Divisionwide $2,280,491 Scheduled completion is April 4425 US 1 end treatments and bridge Const $2,622,565.00 Chatham Co. complete; Working in Lee completion is April 24, 2009. Complete, completion is April 24, 2009. Complete, completion is April 24, 2009. 24, 2009. Complete, accepted anchor units Co. and moving to Hoke Co.; Scheduled accepted 6/17/09 accepted 6/17/09 Complete, accepted 6/17/09 6/17/09 completion is April 24, 2009
Yellow Highlighting indicates new project. Red Type denotes other changes from prior report. TARPO TCC/TAC Meeting 2/4/2010 Division 8 Project Report
TOTAL FUNDING CONTRACT BID COUNTY WBS # ROUTE DESCRIPTION 20090414_STATUS 20090727_STATUS 20091105_STATUS 20091202_STATUS 20100203_STATUS ALLOCATION AMOUNT S. T. Wooten Corp. began work S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on on 7/27/09; Scheduled 45039.3.ST1 R- Project was let on 6/16/09; Awarded to 7/27/09; Scheduled completion is US-1 from US-1 Bus. PE: $1,000.00 Tentative Letting: 6/16/09 7/27/09; Currently at 79.2% complete; completion is 11/20/09; Lee 5139 F.A. Resurfacing, Rehabilitation $2,148,224.52 S. T. Wooten Corp. 11/20/09; Project Complete, To SR 1423 Const: $2,470,458.00 Proposed Stimulus Project Scheduled completion is 11/20/09 Project Complete, Accepted STM-0001(123) Economic Stimulus Project Accepted 10/30/09 Economic Stimulus Project 10/30/09 Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project S. T. Wooten Corp. began work S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on 45041.3.ST1 R- Project was let on 6/16/09; Awarded to on 9/15/09; Currently at 22.4% 9/15/09; Currently at 40.3% NC 78 from US-1 to PE: $1,000.00 Tentative Letting: 6/16/09 9/15/09; Currently at 13.2% complete; Lee 5141 F.A. Widening to three lanes $1,179,044.45 S. T. Wooten Corp. complete; Scheduled complete; Scheduled completion is SR 1001 Const: $1,591,470.00 Proposed Stimulus Project Scheduled completion is 4/30/10 STM-0078(4) Economic Stimulus Project completion is 4/30/10 4/30/10 Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. 3 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Available 8/03/09; Scheduled Lee 8CR.20531.11 $720,530.00 $467,389.62 8/03/09; Scheduled completion is 8/03/09; Scheduled completion is Available 8/03/09; Scheduled secondary roads purchase order completion is 12/16/09; Complete, 12/16/09 12/16/09 completion is 12/16/09 accepted on 10/7/09 Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Available Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. 3 sections of US-1 Contract resurfacing let as Lee 8CR.10531.12 $905,500.00 $595,877.12 10/5/09; Scheduled completion is Available 10/5/09; Scheduled Available 10/5/09; Scheduled Business purchase order 4/30/10 completion is 4/30/10 completion is 4/30/10 8CR.20531.12 - Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Available Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. Awarded to S.T. Wooten Corp. 8CR.20531.12 & 3 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Lee $207,000.00 8C.053008 $640,520.41 10/12/09; Scheduled completion is Available 10/12/09; Scheduled Available 10/12/09; Scheduled 8C.053008 secondary roads purchase order - $225,000.00 6/25/10 completion is 6/25/10 completion is 6/25/10
Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. 3 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Lee 8CR.20531.13 $898,700.00 $617,084.71 10/12/09; Scheduled completion is Available 10/12/09; Scheduled Available 10/12/09; Scheduled secondary roads purchase order 6/25/10 completion is 6/25/10 completion is 6/25/10 Administered by City of Sanford; Endor Iron Furnace Administered by City of Sanford; Project let October 22, 2009; Greenway from Anticipated Letting October 2009; Anticipated Letting October 2009; Anticipated Letting October Awarded to Narron Contracting; Lee EB-4981 Construct Greenway PE: $45,000 Kiwanis Family Park Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project 2009; Available 12/31/09; Scheduled to Boone Drive Economic Stimulus Project completion is 10/7/2010 Economic Stimulus Project Project let on 12/15/09; Awarded to Tentative Letting December D.H. Griffin Infrastructure, LLC; US 421/NC 87 from PE: $148,257.25 Tentative Letting December 2009; Tentative Letting December 2009; Lee R-2417C Freeway on new location 2009; Availability date is 2/1/10: NC 42 to NC 87 ROW: $11,008,207.75 Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Scheduled completion is 11/15/2012 Economic Stimulus Project Landscape planting at the US 1 & US 421 interchanges of US-1 & Lee 34431.3.9 $575,662.00 Letting scheduled for 2/10/10 Letting scheduled for 2/10/10 BYP SR-1406 (Burns Dr.) and US-1 & US 421 BYP Construct right turn lanes at SR Lee 42112 US 1 NB & SB 1182 (Cedar Lane) and SR 1173 $140,000 Anticipated letting in 2009 Anticipated letting in May 2010 Anticipated letting in May 2010 Anticipated letting in May 2010 Anticipated letting in May 2010 (Pine Forest Road) Revise existing flasher to a four way stop flasher with advance PE: $2,000 Construction is on hold until Construction is on hold until further Construction is on hold until further Construction is on hold until further Construction is on hold until further Lee 41702 SR 1001 & SR 1146 Stop Ahead flashers and stop ROW: $1,000 further investigations can be investigations can be completed investigations can be completed investigations can be completed investigations can be completed sign flashers on Lemon Springs CONST: $10,000 completed Road at Saint Andrews Road
Yellow Highlighting indicates new project. Red Type denotes other changes from prior report. TARPO TCC/TAC Meeting 2/4/2010 Division 8 Project Report
TOTAL FUNDING CONTRACT BID COUNTY WBS # ROUTE DESCRIPTION 20090414_STATUS 20090727_STATUS 20091105_STATUS 20091202_STATUS 20100203_STATUS ALLOCATION AMOUNT New roadway open to traffic; Currently NC 22 at Moore Co. installing final surface layer; pvment Moore Relocation of NC 22 Project complete. Project complete. Project complete. Project complete. Airport markings, and entrance to Airport to be completed this spring. Dane Construction, Inc. began Dane Construction, Inc. began work Replacement of bridge # 43 over PE: $250,000.00 Dane Construction, Inc. began work on 33554.3.1 B- Project was let on 5/19/09; Awarded to work on 6/29/09; Currently at on 6/29/09; Currently at 32.0% Moore NC 22-24-27 Mclendons Creek and ROW: $18,000.00 $1,797,803.68 Tentative Letting: 5/19/09 6/29/09; Currently at 14.7% complete; 4207 Dane Construction, Inc. 28.9% complete; Scheduled complete; Scheduled completion is approaches CONST: $2,067,791.00 Scheduled completion is 12/31/10 completion is 12/31/10 12/31/10 S. T. Wooten Corp. began work S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on S. T. Wooten Corp. began work on 45040.3.ST1 R- Project was let on 6/16/09; Awarded to on 7/28/09; Currently at 89.0% 7/28/09; Currently at 89.8% US-1 From SR 1309 PE: $1,000.00 Tentative Letting: 6/16/09 7/28/09; Currently at 85.0% complete; Moore 5140 F.A. Paved Shoulders, Resurfacing $1,383,886.65 S. T. Wooten Corp. complete; Scheduled completion complete; Scheduled completion is to SR 2175 Const: $1,355,901.00 Proposed Stimulus Project Scheduled completion is 11/20/09. STM-0001(124) Economic Stimulus Project is 11/20/09. 11/20/09. Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Riley Paving, Inc. began work on Riley Paving, Inc. began work on 45042.3.ST1 R- Riley Paving, Inc. began work on NC 24/27 From NC Project was let on 6/16/09; Awarded to 8/11/09; Currently at 20.3% 8/11/09; Currently at 23.3% 5142 Widening at multiple PE: $1,000.00 Tentative Letting: 6/16/09 8/11/09; Currently at 16.0% complete; Moore 705 to Mongomery $2,837,762.50 Riley Paving, Inc. complete; Scehduled completion complete; Scehduled completion is F.A. STM- intersections, Resurfacing Const: $3,263,427.00 Proposed Stimulus Project Scehduled completion is 6/25/10 County Line Economic Stimulus Project is 6/25/10 6/25/10 0024(37) Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Economic Stimulus Project Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. 7 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Moore 8CR.20631.11 $1,130,150.00 $663,673.55 7/20/09; Scheduled completion is 7/20/09; Scheduled completion is Available 7/20/09; Scheduled Available 7/20/09; Scheduled secondary roads purchase order 12/16/09 12/16/09 completion is 12/16/09 completion is 12/16/09 Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Available Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. Awarded to Riley Paving, Inc. 2 sections of Contract resurfacing let as Moore 8CR.20631.12 $742,100.00 $515,520.45 10/5/09; Scheduled completion is Available 10/5/09; Scheduled Available 10/5/09; Scheduled secondary roads purchase order 4/30/10 completion is 4/30/10 completion is 4/30/10 Has been submitted as a W Has been submitted as a W project. Has been submitted as a W project. project. Preliminary cost NC 24/27 at SR Lower west leg of NC 24/27 to Preliminary cost estimate complete. Preliminary cost estimate complete. Moore 40539 $233,000.00 estimate complete. Preliminary 1809/SR 1814 improve sight distance Preliminary plans complete. Insufficient Preliminary plans complete. plans complete. Insufficient funds available. Insufficient funds available. funds available. R.E. Goodson began work on R.E. Goodson began work on 12/08/08 R.E. Goodson began work on 12/08/08 R.E. Goodson began work on 12/08/08 12/08/08 and is at 22.1% US-1 From SR-1001 PE: $2,920,412.37 and is at 9.3% complete; Currently and is at 11.6% complete; Beginning and is at 17.4% complete; Beginning complete; Beginning grading, R.E. Goodson began work on Moore & 34438.3.3 R- Widening to 4 Lanes, to North of Moore ROW: $8,906,153.41 $26,633,346.18 clearing & grubbing, relocating utilities, grading, beginning bridge const, grading, beginning bridge const, beginning bridge const, 12/08/08 and is at 25.8% complete; Richmond 2502A & 2502B Richmond/Moore Counties County Line CONST: $26,716,570.18 installing waterline; Scheduled relocating utilities, installing waterline; relocating utilities, installing waterline; relocating utilities, installing Scheduled completion is 11/20/11 completion is November 20, 2011 Scheduled completion is 11/20/11 Scheduled completion is 11/20/11 waterline; Scheduled completion is 11/20/11
Yellow Highlighting indicates new project. Red Type denotes other changes from prior report.