Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Greensboro Oak Ridge Pleasant Garden Sedalia Stokesdale Summerfield Guilford County

2016-2025 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Greensboro Oak Ridge Pleasant Garden Sedalia Stokesdale Summerfield Guilford County

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Chapter 1 What is the Purpose of the MTIP?

1. Executive Summary The 2016-2025 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) lists transportation investments within the Greensboro Urban Area scheduled for federal or state funding. The document includes the Highway Program, the Non-Highway Program (transit, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian, and aviation), and the Statewide Program (umbrella projects which may be used to make investments across the entire state as needed). The Greensboro Urban Area includes the City of Greensboro and much of Guilford County with the exception of the Burlington/Gibsonville/ Whitsett area in the east and the High Point/Jamestown area in the southwest.

Under federal law and regulations all projects included in the MTIP must be consistent with: • the MPO’s federally required 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Greensboro Urban Area; and • the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) which includes all federal and state funded projects for the State of North Carolina.

The MTIP is a subset of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. The MTIP and STIP can be collectively referred to as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) develops the MTIP in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The MPO and NCDOT must approve the final MTIP. The STIP and MTIP are generally updated every two years. Updates to the STIP and MTIP may include project delays, project accelerations, addition of new projects, or deletion of old projects. For federal purposes, the first four years are considered committed, while the later years are anticipated.

NCDOT policy states that for the projects it selects and directs funding towards through at least the right of way phase during the first five years of the TIP (2016-2020), also known as the Five Year Work Program, is considered committed through construction. NCDOT stated its intent to deliver these projects even if some of them take longer than the first five years of the program to implement. These projects are not subject to future reprioritization. In contrast, the Developmental Plan (years 2021-2025) is subject to reprioritization rather than a commitment to deliver and is primarily illustrative in nature at this time.

NCDOT released the Draft 2016-2025 STIP in December 2014 for public review and comments. NCDOT approved the STIP on June 3, 2015. The STIP and Project information can be viewed at the following NCDOT website: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/default.aspx. Readers are encouraged to learn more about the STIP. However, for projects in the Greensboro area, this MTIP is intended as the primary vehicle for public review, comment, and explanation.

The MPO is scheduled to adopt the MTIP on September 23. An electronic copy of the MTIP is available at www.guampo.org.

Chapter 1 Page 1 August 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

2. What is the MPO? The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) administers the transportation planning process as required under Federal Law. The MPO plans for area surface transportation needs including highways, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. This planning includes the development of many federally mandated and regulated documents including the MTIP, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, and the air quality conformity process. MPOs are required for all urban areas over 50,000 in population.

The Greensboro Urban Area includes the City of Greensboro and much of Guilford County with the exception of the Burlington/Gibsonville/Whitsett area in the east and the High Point/ Jamestown area in the southwest. The MPO area contains over 200,000 people and is therefore classified as a Transportation Management Area. This designation brings additional responsibilities as well as flexibility in developing the MTIP. For example, the designation provides the MPO the authority to direct Surface Transportation Direct Apportionment Program, Transportation Alternatives Program, and Section 5310 Transportation for Elderly and Disabled Persons Program funds to area projects.

The Greensboro DOT is the Lead Planning Agency (LPA) of the MPO, meaning the transportation planners at GDOT are also the staff for the MPO. MPO staff performs administrative functions, project planning and programming, and a variety of technical analyses. The MPO has a policy board and a technical committee which provide the MPO direction on executing planning activities and developing project priorities.

The MPO’s policy board is the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). The board contains elected officials from Greensboro, Guilford County, and one shared member appointed to represent the towns of Pleasant Garden, Oak Ridge, Sedalia, Summerfield, and Stokesdale. A member of NCDOT’s Board of Transportation also serves on the board. The board serves a key role in making decisions about public investment in transportation services, infrastructure, and planning within the region. For example, the TAC board approves MPO area project prioritization decisions, direction of sub-allocated funds to area projects, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan necessary for MTIP development.

Transportation planners join with staff from stakeholder agencies to form the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). The committee facilitates transportation planning coordination and provides the Transportation Advisory Committee recommendations on transportation planning decisions. The Technical Coordinating Committee consists of staff from the City of Greensboro DOT, NCDOT Division 7, Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA), NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, City of Greensboro Planning Department, Guilford County Planning & Development Department, the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART), and the Towns of Oak Ridge and Summerfield.

3. What is the MTIP? The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) is a detailed financial program for upcoming transportation projects in the Greensboro Urban Area. The MTIP is considered a subset of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Like the STIP, the MTIP includes the Highway Program, the Non-Highway Program (transit, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian, and aviation), and the Statewide Program (umbrella projects which may be used to make investments across the entire state as needed). Both the MTIP and STIP (collectively referred to as the TIP) are required by

Chapter 1 Page 2 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

federal law and must conform to a range of regulatory requirements. The Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) generally updates the MTIP every two years. The MTIP provides a ten year listing of project activities, funding sources, and costs by fiscal year. Highway related project activities can include design, right-of-way acquisition, environmental mitigation, and construction. This is true of rail, aviation, and bicycle and pedestrian projects as well. Transit related project activities can include operations, purchase of capital equipment, and in some cases, right of way and construction.

Prioritizing and selecting projects and creating the MTIP require coordination between member agencies, especially between the MPO, NCDOT, and GTA. Under state law, NCDOT is responsible for selecting projects and directing a majority of federal highway funds and State Highway Trust Funds, and state matches for various transit grants to projects across the state including in the Greensboro area using a quantitative needs-based prioritization process. For the 2016-2025 TIP, NCDOT relied on a process called Prioritization 3.0 for selecting projects for inclusion. For the 2018-2027 STIP, NCDOT will rely on a revised process called Prioritization 4.0 for selecting projects for inclusion. See What is the STIP? For more information about that process. See How is the MTIP Developed? for more information about the MPO’s involvement in that process.

In addition to the process described above, the MPO directs a portion of state and federal highway funds (STP-DA, TAP and CMAQ) to area projects. STP-DA and CMAQ may be used for both highway and transit purposes while TAP are mainly available for pedestrian and bicycle projects. The MPO works with its member agencies to establish and cross-check MPO project priorities, project schedules, and available funds in developing these programs. The MPO then directs the allocation of these funds in the MTIP and STIP.

The MPO works with GTA to direct federal transit funds directly apportioned to the area (Section 5307 Urbanized Area Allocation Formula and Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities). This is based on ongoing consultation about GTA needs and the system’s changing circumstances through time. The MPO also directs relatively small amounts of funding under the Section 5310 Program as well as the Section 5316 and Section 5317 Program funds as may come available. These funds are directed through a competitive selection process established under the FY 2014-2018 Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. The MPO and its member transit agencies also regularly pursue non- formula transit capital funds distributed administratively through competitive processes administered directly by the Federal Transit Administration. Finally, the MPO works with GTA and PART to seek state matching funds for federal grants under the prioritization process described in the What is the STIP? section.

4. What is the STIP? The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) includes all federal and state funded projects for the State of North Carolina. The Greensboro Urban Area MPO MTIP, like the MTIPs of other NC MPOs, is a subset of the STIP. The STIP is essentially a collection of all the MTIPs in the state plus listings for the non-metropolitan portions of the state for which there is no corresponding Metropolitan TIP document. NCDOT generally updates the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) every two years alongside the updates to MPO MTIPs statewide. One recent exception was the FY 2012-2018 STIP, which remained in effect for the full four year maximum term allowed under federal law.

The majority of Federal Highway funds, State Highway Trust Funds, and those State Highway applied to project matching costs are directed by the NCDOT based on the results of a formalized

Chapter 1 Page 3 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

prioritization process and in consultation with MPOs and local officials. As previously noted, MPO adoption of the MTIP is required for any STIP projects to move forward in a given MPO area. Therefore, MPO – NCDOT consultation is a key part of MTIP and STIP development. The development and articulation of MPO and NCDOT priorities is therefore an important part of the MTIP and STIP process.

As noted above, NCDOT relies on a needs-based quantitative prioritization process called Prioritization 3.0 for selecting projects for inclusion in the STIP and the MTIPs. This process dates back to 2009, when then Governor Perdue issued Executive Order No. 2. This order mandated a professional approval process for project selection. NCDOT created the Strategic Prioritization Process in response. The first version of the Strategic Prioritization Process (Prioritization 1.0) was used to support development of the FY 2012-2018 Transportation Improvement Program. The second version (Prioritization 2.0), initiated in June 2011, supported development of the FY 2014-2020 Transportation Improvement Program. However, due to the enactment of new federal Surface Transportation Authorization legislation that modified the structure of the federal funding programs and a change in administration at the State level from the election of Governor Pat McCrory, the FY 2014-2020 was delayed and not approved by the Board of Transportation. NCDOT chose instead to revamp the process a third time to let the FY 2012- 2018 STIP run through a full four year period, the maximum time allowed under federal law.

The third version of prioritization, known as Prioritization 3.0 was developed in part in response to the new administration's priorities, but the introduction and later enactment into law of House Bill 817 also known as An Act to Strengthen the Economy through Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) gave it an even greater impetus.

The STI law established funding tiers (Statewide, Regional, and Division). Statewide tier includes interstates and major US and NC routes, as well as class 1 railroads (Norfolk Southern) and the PTI Airport. Regional tier includes other US and NC routes as well as services operated by PART. Division Needs tier includes everything else, including all other functionally classified roadways, GTA service, individual freight rail intermodal facilities , passenger rail, or transit facilities. One of the most important aspects of the STI, is that it decoupled the State Highway Trust Fund from the Intrastate System and Urban Loops codified by the legislature in 1989. Instead of dedicating this billion dollar revenue source to a limited set of specific projects, the STI made those dollars available for a much larger range of transportation needs. As a result, 40% of State Highway Trust fund and included Federal Highway funds are for allocation at the state level, 30% at the regional level, and 30% at the division level. STI limits funding for some modes; caps maximum investment per project/corridor at the Statewide level; exempts some maintenance type of activities from the percentage calculations at the statewide, regional, and division levels; and mandates various aspects of the prioritization process including MPO, RPO, and Division Engineer roles and the usage of certain criteria in the process.

Under STI and Prioritization 3.0, projects could be proposed by MPOs, RPOs, and NCDOT Division Engineers. NCDOT evaluated projects in each mode using a set of formalized needs- based criteria. NCDOT prioritized projects in light of this evaluation in addition to priority points applied by MPOs and RPOs as well as NCDOT Division Engineers. MPOs, RPOs, and NCDOT conducted public involvement and outreach in this process in an effort to provide transparency and access to the decision making process. Projects funded during Fiscal Years 2016-2020 through the right of way phase are considered committed through construction, while projects funded after 2020 are considered developmental and illustrative. Committed projects are not subject to

Chapter 1 Page 4 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area reprioritization, but developmental projects are. See How is the MTIP Developed? for more information about the MPO’s involvement in that process.

After analyzing SPOT priority rankings and considering revenue availability, project status, and other indications of need and ability to implement, the NCDOT finalized and released the State’s Draft STIP in December 2014. Since, as previously noted, the majority of Federal Highway funds are directed by the NCDOT based on prioritization results and in consultation with MPOs and local officials, the draft STIP becomes the basis for most of the roadway project listings in the MTIP.

5. How do the MTIP & STIP relate to Transportation Plans and Air Quality? The MTIP document has a special relationship with a key MPO Plan: the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The MTP identifies needed transportation investments that either have a committed funding source or for which funding may reasonably be expected over the planning period. All projects in the MTIP must be consistent with the MTP. Schedules in the MTIP must be consistent with the assumptions of the MTP. The MTP must be updated every four years or more frequently when (1) federal air quality requirements change and/or new State Implementation Plans (SIP) are enacted; or (2) when MTIP or significant locally funded roadway investment schedules deviate from MTP timing assumptions. The MTIP may not be adopted unless it is consistent with the MTP. The MTP may not be adopted unless air quality conformity can be demonstrated. Air quality conformity relies on analyses of expected future emissions based on the consistent project implementation assumptions of the MTP and the MTIP.

MPOs must demonstrate that the MTIP and MTP comply with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards established for airborne pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act establishes standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter.

If an MPO fails to meet the standards for any of these pollutants, the area is classified as a “nonattainment” area. “Nonattainment” MPOs are later classified as “maintenance” areas once they demonstrate they are meeting a pollutant’s standards. When an MPO is classified as maintenance or non-attainment, it must demonstrate that estimated emissions from transportation investments (roadway projects) are consistent, or in “conformity” with, levels set forth in the State Implementation Plan for the pollutants noted above. This requires a review of all projects included in both the MTIP and the MTP. Both plans must demonstrate “conformity” with the emissions budgets for each air quality pollutant.

The Greensboro Urban Area MPO was a “maintenance” area for ground level Ozone (1-hour). Ground level 1-hour ozone is usually highest in late spring and summer. Main contributors to 1- hour ozone include power plants and motor vehicles. The pollutant is called 1-hour ozone because emissions from contributing sources are measured over a period of an hour using monitors. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revoked the 1-hour standard on April 15, 2009 and the MPO is no longer required to show conformity for the one-hour standard.

The MPO is currently non-attainment for Particulate Matter 2.5 (PM 2.5). PM 2.5 consists of extremely small particles and liquid droplets approximately the size of 2.5 micrometers. Contributors to PM 2.5 include motor vehicles, power plants, construction equipment, and natural sources.

Chapter 1 Page 5 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

When updating the MTIP and MTP, the MPO must generate a Conformity Determination Report that demonstrates the plan will meet the required pollutant standards. The Report outlines the transportation and air quality modeling assumptions, as well as the emissions forecasts for “maintenance” and “nonattainment” pollutants. The Conformity Determination Report is included in Appendix C.

6. What is the MTIP Development Process? The Greensboro Urban Area MPO updates to the MTIP involve creating up to date project listings, accompanying texts and maps, and documenting of compliance to federal requirements most notably for air quality. Major steps include:

Step 1: Identifying & Prioritizing Candidate Projects

Prioritization 3.0 involved three pieces of information: 1) a data driven, quantitatively scored estimate of project need, 2) MPO priority score, and 3) NCDOT Division priority score. The MPO and NCDOT Division 7 initiated the process through the identification of projects for evaluation and scoring by NCDOT’s Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT). MPO staff compiled a list of candidate projects, coordinating with potential implementing sponsor agencies (including the City, Towns, and Guilford County Parks & Open Space) in the process. MPO staff then screened the candidate project list to narrow it to not exceed the maximum number of new project submittals. The number of project submittals varied by mode: 13 highway projects, 20 bicycle and pedestrian projects, and an unlimited number of transit projects. Previously submitted highway projects were retained in the database and did not require re-submittal The TAC then voted to finalize the list of candidate projects in January 2014 following a public involvement period on the candidate projects and transportation needs more generally. Staff then submitted these projects through an online project submittal tool connected to NCDOT's website.

The next step of the process includes the NCDOT SPOT Office scoring the projects. This was completed and project scores were released in May 2014. At this time the statewide funding results were announced as well, since the statewide needs did not involve local input point assignments by MPOs and Division Engineers.

The next step of the process was for the MPO and the Division Engineer to assign local input points. The MPO developed a methodology for this, which was put out for public review in spring 2014. The MPO then applied the methodology to develop a recommended points assignment for projects by tier and mode. The MPO had one set of local points (1700) to apply across all modes at the regional level, and another set of local points (1700) for use at the division needs level. The Division Engineer also had 2500 points at the regional and division tier levels respectively. Assignment of the local points was the MPO’s method for communicating top priority projects to NCDOT. The points assignments were submitted to the SPOT Office for final prioritization. The final prioritization was based on combining the SPOT Office scores with the MPO and Division Engineer scores. NCDOT then assigned funding to the project based on the total, scheduling, and project cost.

In addition, the Transportation Advisory Committee adopted a Priority Needs List of official MTIP priorities. The Priority Needs List establishes the MPOs top unfunded project priorities for roadways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle, and rail transportation in a simple, easy to read and understand two page format and is a companion piece to the MPO priority point assignment document (See Appendix A).

Chapter 1 Page 6 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Draft MTIP: The Draft MTIP Document was available for review and comment between August 14 and September 14.

Step 2: Public Outreach

Greensboro Urban Area MPO Public Meeting(s): The following public open house meeting was held in the Greensboro Urban Area for the draft MTIP. • August 18 from 4-8pm at the City of Greensboro Melvin Municipal Office Building

Final MTIP: The final MTIP, reflecting the expected program of projects, and incorporating initial public comments received and MPO responses was approved September 23, 2015

Step 3: Air Quality Conformity

Air Quality Conformity: The Conformity Determination Report for the 2016-2025 MTIP was released for a thirty day public comment period from August 14 through September 14.

Step 4: MTIP Adoption

STIP adoption: The NCDOT State Board of Transportation adopted the State TIP FY 2016 – 2025 June 3, 2015.

MTIP adoption: The MPO adopted the MTIP on September 23, 2015.

Effective Date of the MTIP FY 2016 – 2025: The date on which the MTIP FY 2016 – 2025 is expected to go into effect is October 1, 2015.

Chapter 1 Page 7 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Chapter 2 What Investments are identified in the MTIP?

1. Funding Background The MTIP accounts for Federal and State surface transportation funding assumptions between FY 2016 and 2025. Therefore, Federal and State funding issues largely determine the funding levels shown herein.

Federal Funding Levels Surface Transportation Authorization Acts have been in continuous use to authorize annual expenditures for Federal Highway programs since the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916. Each act has typically covered a multi-year program, but can also occur in the form of a stop-gap funding bill, designed to extend the program and keep it operational while more comprehensive authorizing legislation is debatedi. Between Stop-gap funding bills have become business as usual since the expiration of SAFETEA-LU in 2009.

The Surface Transportation Authorization Act in effect at any given time provides an important basis for MTIP and MTP funding assumptions. However, actual expenditures depend on revenue availability, which is ultimately decided through the annual appropriations process. Therefore, there is a certain amount of uncertainty in future federal funding levels inherent in the process. This uncertainty is increased significantly in today’s climate of stop-gap funding measures and contentious budget wrangling over whether to increase transportation budgets and if so, how to pay for it at the national level.

The current Surface Transportation Authorization ACT MAP-21 was originally set up as a two year bill, and is now overdue, having expired on October 1, 2014. An extension until May 30, 2015 has also expired, with a new extension slated to be in effect until July 2015. MAP-21 was essentially a two year extension of SAFETEA-LU for funding purposes however; funding levels remained essentially the same with some adjustments for inflation. MAP-21 did include some significant policy changes including some restructuring of the federal highway and transit funding programs. This included streamlining the federal highway transportation programs by consolidating existing programs into small number of broad based programs. Smaller programs were eliminated, including discretionary programs, with the eligibilities generally continuing under core programs. MAP-21 also consolidated 5 transit programs into three core programs. Figures 1 and 2, taking from Making the Most of Map-21 by Transportation for America show what programs were collapsed.

Chapter 3 Page 8 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Figure 1 Highway Funding Programs Restructuring

Chapter 3 Page 9 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Figure 2 Transit Funding Programs Restructuring

Chapter 3 Page 10 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

The next Surface Transportation Authorization Legislation has the potential to significantly affect MTIP and MTP assumptions. Until new Surface Transportation Legislation is passed, uncertainty surrounds the funding levels for future transportation programs.

State Funding Levels State transportation revenues are dependent on revenues from the State Highway Fund and the State Highway Trust Fund. Most of the State’s roadway construction dollars come from the Highway Trust Fund. Revenues to both funds have been pinched over the last five to seven years by economic recession. Future funding levels will depend on trends in the sources of revenues feeding the Highway Fund and the Highway Trust Fund and whether the state legislature takes action to increase or otherwise alter the revenue stream. Therefore, there is a certain amount of uncertainty in future funding levels inherent in the state funding process.

At the same time, one of the most important aspects of the STI law mentioned above is that it decoupled the State Highway Trust Fund from the Intrastate System and Urban Loops codified by the legislature in 1989. Instead of dedicating this billion dollar revenue source to a limited set of specific projects, the STI made those dollars available for a much larger range of transportation needs. While this did not increase the overall amount of available funding, it did make the Highway Trust Funds available to meet current needs.

A Funding Summary Table of federal and state dollars is included in Appendix B. The table is broken out by funding sources and does include local matching funds. A total close to $322,726,000 has been identified for projects in the Greensboro Urban Area from federal fiscal year 2016 through 2019 (the first four years are considered funded by the federal government). The total for the ten-year period reflected in this MTIP (2016-2025) is over $896,000,000.

2. Overall MTIP Funding Analysis The MTIP FY 2016-2025 includes substantial investment in the MPO area transportation system. Total funding over the period is $896,591,000, approximately $101,409,000 decrease from the 2012-2018 MTIP, according to MPO analysis. The overall decrease is a reflection of projects being completed or currently under construction. Two major projects under construction are High Point Road (U-2412B) and the US 220/ NC 68 Connector (R-2413). This equates to an average annual investment level of $89,659,100 over a ten-year period. The following pages analyze the MTIP by mode and funding sources.

Figure 3 represents the total investment included in the MTIP FY 2016-2025 for all funded projects by project category. The Statewide, Regional, and Division categories represent the highest percentage at 68%. This percentage represents only the roadway projects. Transit, at 14%, primarily consists of GTA and PART projects. The non-highway modes comprise 9.19% and Interstate Maintenance is the lowest at 4%. It is important to note the MPO requests pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on all highway projects where feasible. The accommodations may include sidewalks and / or bicycle lanes or extra shoulder width. Also, bicycle and pedestrian projects are being constructed locally; including those built with local road widening, and are not included in this analysis. Additional information on the local projects can be found at the following website: http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/index.aspx?page=2119

Chapter 3 Page 11 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Project Category Breakout

Rail 0.19%

BiPed Transit

3% 14%

Aviation 6%

Bridges 5% Statewide Interstate 54% Maintenance Regional & 4% Division 14%

3. Highway Funding Profile Figure 4 depicts the balance of Federal and State highway funding sources. A total investment of $685,000,000 is indicated over the 2016 to 2025 period, by source. This analysis did not include transit projects or post year (unfunded) highway projects. The largest percentage of funds came from the State Highway Trust Fund. This percentage remained relatively the same from the 2012-2018 MTIP. Projects funded by this source include a portion of the Urban Loop (U-2525), PTIA projects, Church Street (U- 5851), and Randleman Road (U-5850). The second highest funding source, National Highway Performance Program (NHP), increased by 7%. Many of the projects in this funding category are pavement resurfacing with the exception of the interchange improvement at Sandy Ridge Road and I-40. The Surface Transportation Program (STP0, which also includes STP-DA funds decreased from 9% in the 2012-2018 MTIP to 6.19%.

Chapter 3 Page 12 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Figure 4: Highway Funding Source Breakout

STATE BRIDGES SAFETY 2.74% 6.19% 0.00% STP/ STPDA 6.19% PASSENGER LOCAL CMAQ RAIL 7.23% 0.55% 0.54%

STATE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND 36.55% NHP/IM 40.03%

4. Transit Funding Profile The Public Transportation Element of the MTIP accounts for federal and state funds for the three transit operators in the Greensboro Urban Area. Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA) operates buses and paratransit vehicles within the City of Greensboro. The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) operates regional bus service and vanpool service that connects the Triad Region. Guilford County Transportation and Mobility Services (TAMS) operate van service for unincorporated Guilford County residents accessing employment, medical appointments, and education opportunities.

The Public Transportation Element identifies current funding commitments as well as projected use of future formula funding levels for later years. Unlike in the past, when earmarks for transit projects were a common occurrence, discretionary funding is now not much of a factor. That is because federal transit discretionary funds are now directed by FTA via competitive process, and such highly competitive processes are only conducted on a somewhat irregular basis. It is possible that future discretionary funding will be added to the TIP at a future time, but none are reflected at this time although the earmark-funded PART operations & maintenance facility is currently under construction. It is also expected that the MPO will award additional federal funding to transit needs under the FY 2016-2025 MTIP through an amendment. Such funding will consist of federal CMAQ funding and possibly STP-DA, two MPO-directed programs that can fund transit needs.

Chapter 3 Page 13 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

The following is a key to the major transit sources and how they are allocated:

Transit Funding Sources 5307 Urbanized Area Formula GTA is the FTA designee to receive 5307 funds for the MPO Program region. GTA directs funds towards eligible 5307 activities. GTA also receives a Section 5339 apportionment for bus and bus 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities facility projects each year. Additional Section 5339 funds are Program periodically distributed by FTA through a competitive selection process. The MPO conducts a competitive application process to award 5310 Transportation for 5310 funds each spring. The 5310 program is intended for Elderly and Disabled persons transportation projects that serve elderly persons and persons with disabilities.

State Maintenance Assistance NCDOT uses a formula each year to allocate SMAP funds to Program (SMAP) public transportation authorities to use towards operating costs. As a non-attainment area, the MPO has the authority to distribute Congestion Mitigation and Air FHWA CMAQ funds to eligible area transportation projects that Quality (CMAQ) benefit air quality including various transit projects. Since it has an urbanized area population over 200,000, the Surface Transportation Greensboro Urban Area MPO is annually apportioned a share of Program-Direct FHWA STP-DA funds to direct to area project priorities. Apportionment (STP-DA) Roadway, bicycle & pedestrian, and transit project are eligible.

Figure 5 represents a total investment of $126,501,000 for the funded transit projects in the Greensboro Urban Area according to MPO staff analysis. GTA has the highest percentage of funded projects, with most of the funding used to replace or maintain the bus fleet. PART has the smallest percentage.

Figure 5: Transit Projects by System

TAMS PART 1.39% 0.40%

GTA 98.21%

Figure 6 represents the funded transit projects by funding source. The figure represents the same total investment as Figure 5. The Urbanized Area funding sources provide funding for GTA projects, while the Federal, Local, State, and Bus Earmarks support funding for GTA, PART, and County projects. The funding sources included in the OTHER category solely support operations for county services.

Chapter 3 Page 14 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Figure 6: Transit Funding Source Breakout CMAQ 3%

LOCAL 35%

URBANIZED AREA (FUZ) 41%

STATE (S, SMAP) 14%

MISC FEDERAL BUS EARMARKS OTHER (FNU) (FBUS) 2% 0% 5%

5. Surface Transportation Program Direct Apportionment Funds As a Transportation Management Area, the Greensboro Urban Area MPO has the authority to direct funding under the Federal Highway Surface Transportation Program Direct Apportionment (STP-DA) to area projects. STP-DA funds are the most flexible Federal Highway funding source available to the MPO, and may be applied towards roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. The estimated total amount of STP-DA funds available during the 2016-2025 MTIP is $42,3920,000.

The following chart contains projects and project phases that were authorized to receive STP-DA funds under the MTIP 2012- 2018. As the next chart shows, many of these project’s schedules carry over into the 2016-2025 MTIP.

Battleground Rail Trail Market Street Widening (EB-4709B) - Markland Drive to Spring Garden Street; (R-2611) – Widening from Bunker Hill Road to NC 68 (Funding reallocate to other projects; see paragraph below) Greensboro Sidewalks High Point Road (EL-5101) – Sidewalk construction at various locations (U-2412) – Sidewalk participation US 220 Widening (R-2309) – Sidewalk participation

Chapter 3 Page 15 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

The following chart contains projects and project phases that are authorized to receive STP-DA funds in the MTIP 2016- 2025. The projects can also be found in the Highway Element tables of the 2016-2025 MTIP.

Greensboro Sidewalks Pine Street Rail Crossing Closure & Lowdermilk (EL-5101) – Sidewalk construction at various locations and Sykes Avenue realignment (Y-4807B) STPDA Future Funding Latham Park Greenway / Hill Street (EB-5518) (U-5021) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and TAP Program (U-5532)

6. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) As a maintenance area for fine particulate matter, NCDOT has granted the MPO the authority to direct a portion of the states allocation of CMAQ funding. CMAQ funds are used to fund transportation projects in non-attainment and maintenance areas to improve air quality. CMAQ funds are apportioned to states based on population and severity of air quality problems. CMAQ funds can be used for projects with demonstrated air quality benefit (as documented through quantitative analysis techniques specified by the FHWA). Project types are further restricted to specific categories including buses, transit service expansion, intelligent transportation systems, various air quality programs, and some roadway projects (projects expanding roadway capacity are excluded). Pedestrian and bicycle projects are eligible and demonstrate air quality benefits, especially when projects are along transit corridors. It is worth noting that CMAQ is the only USDOT funding program that may be used to support new transit service operating costs. This support is available for the first three years of new service. It is important to note CMAQ eligible projects must be included in the MPO’s current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and MTIP.

NCDOT directs a portion of NC’s CMAQ apportionment via competitive selection process. The rest is directed by eligible MPOs and RPOs. The total amount of CMAQ funds included in the MTIP FY 2016- 2025 is approximately $13,480,000. This amount includes balances directed by the MPO, but also reflects longstanding project commitments made by the NCDOT using CMAQ funding under its direction.

The following chart contains projects that were authorized to receive CMAQ funds under the MTIP 2012-2018.

HEAT Service to Retail Destinations (TO-4950) Greensboro Signal System (U-4711- Upgrade and expand the system) US 421 Interchange at Neelley Road and Woody GTA Expanded Evening Service (TO-5101) Mill Road (R-2612)

The MPO’s FY 2016 and 2017 proposed CMAQ commitments were approved by the TAC on June 24, 2015 and will be incorporated into the FY 2016-2025 TIP by amendment after approval of the air quality analysis. For FY 16 and 2017, NCDOT indicates $1.8 million dollars per year is expected to be available for the MPO to direct. The TAC approved the following projects for the FY 2016 and 2017 timeframe:

GTA- 9 Diesel Replacement Buses (TA-4771) Construct Sidewalks Along Major Pedestrian and Transit Corridors (EL-5101DL & C-5555B)

Chapter 3 Page 16 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

7. Transportation Alternatives Program MAP-21 created the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to replace former funding programs such as Safe Routes to School, Recreational Trails Program and Transportation Enhancements. MAP-21 apportioned funding distributions to MPOs with greater than 200,000 urbanized area populations to direct to MPO area projects. The Greensboro Urban Area MPO's allocations were estimated at $349,000 per year. MAP-21 authorized funding for FY 2013 and FY 2014. So far the MPO has directed TAP funding for FY 2013 & 2014. TAP funds direction for years FY 2015 and beyond will be handled via amendment to the 2016-2025 TIP.

Eligible projects are bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, safe routes to school (Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Program for Grades K-8), recreational trails, environmental mitigation, historic preservation if related to a transportation facility, and archaeological activities related to transportation impacts. Ineligible projects include roadway capacity, transit, landscaping, and resurfacing or reconstruction. The eligible entities to receive TAP funds are: local governments, GTA, PART, TAMS, National Park Agency, and Guilford County Schools. Under TAP, nonprofits are not eligible as direct grant recipients of the funds. Nonprofits are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible TAP project, if State or local requirements permit.

Federal Law requires the MPO use a competitive project selection process for directing TAP funds to area projects. This process is subject to FHWA review and approval. The Greensboro MPO process is documented on the MPO website. The MPO uses a needs-based prioritization process using a mix of quantitative and qualitative variables grouped under four major categories: land use connectivity, transportation system connectivity, safety and mobility, and project readiness and viability.

Projects currently listed in the FY 2016-2025 MTIP were selected by the MPO in January 2014. The MPO amended the projects June 24, 2015 removing the pedestrian signals and modifying Aycock and Walker, and the Phillips Avenue sidewalk. They include:

Aycock Street Corridor & Walker Avenue Greensboro Pedestrian Signals* (U-5532C) Intersection Improvements (U-5532A) Phillips Avenue Sidewalk Installation- Downtown Greenway- Phases B,C,D (El- construction only (U-5532B) 5101DJ)

*The MPO determined to drop this project from TAP funding. Instead the City will fund it using local dollars. Although this is very needed project it was determined local funds provided more flexibility and lower cost installation options than possible under federal funds due to the rule that such federal projects required contractor installation and prohibit the use of local municipal forces for installation.

Chapter 3 Page 17 September 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Chapter 3 2016-2025 MTIP Projects

Major Project Map The attached map (page 19) depicts the location of major TIP projects. The map key indicates the type of project and funding program. Each project is labeled with its unique identification code. Use this code when referring to the Major Project Summary (page 20) or TIP Tables (page 22).

Major Project Summary The Major Project Summary provides project descriptions and schedules along with any changes in scheduling or implementation progress for each project. It is intended as an informational supplement to the MTIP tables in a more readable format.

Funding Elements The MTIP funding elements are arranged into three categories: the Highway Program, Non-Highway Program, and Statewide Highway and Non-Highway Program. The entire statewide list is included to ensure that any project pertaining to this area is approved so it can move forward to implementation.

Chapter 3 Page 18 September 2015 ?{ ?x K² B-5715 ?x R-2413C K² I¡ ?ã K² MAJOR TIP PROJECTS ?{ ?ã ?ã GREENSBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA B-5731 ?u ?ã ?ã ¨¦§785 B-5726 R-2413B MTIP Major Projects B-4756 R-5725 GF B-4958 B-5354 FY 2016 - 2025 K¹ I¡ ?ã R-2413A B-4959 U-2525C ?{ U-2524D B-5345 ¨¦§840 EL-5101 DL FS-1507B GF LEGEND I-5110 U-2524C U-5842 B-4758 INTERSTATE PROJECTS GF U-2525B ?u K¹GF U-5812 B-5344 URBAN LOOP PROJECTS 840 U-5306 B KÈ ¨¦§ INTERCHANGE PROJECTS .! /02i B-5553 B-5732 I-5712 o !"`$ U-5851 REGIONAL & DIVISION PROJECTS ! U-5852 !"_$ 5 !"_$ K¹ ROADWAY INTERSECTION G I§ ¨¦§840 I§ U-5326 K¹ BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS GF EB-5717 RAIL PROJECTS I2 ?{ KÈ I§ ¨¦§785 P-5700 EL-5101 DJ B-4961 BRIDGE PROJECTS !( B-4759 U-5849 I¡ !"_$ B-4960 !"_$ I2 EB-5716 !"_$ !"c$ AVIATION PROJECTS o EB-5712 5! B-5713/02j PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY !"`$ K¹B-5356B-5718U-5754 I§ KÈ I¡ ?u /02j B-5724 U-5580 KÈ !"c$ B-5736 ® !"`$ ?v K¹ /02j !"c$ KÈ 00.75 1.5 3 I¡ Miles I§

B-4956 ?v K¹ ?v !"`$ ?v ?ø KÈ September 2015 !"c$ 2016 - 2025 MTIP Major Project Summary

Current TIP # Project Description Schedule Schedule

Urban Loop U-2524 Western Urban Loop

Section C (Bryan to Battleground) - Under Construction Completion 16

Section D (Battleground to Lawndale) CST 17-19 CST FY 2016

U-2525 Eastern Urban Loop Sections B (US 70 to US 29) - Under Construction Completion 17

Section C (US 29 to Lawndale) CST 19-22 No change Interstate Projects

I-5110 I-73 Connector (NC 68 to I-73/I-840) - Under Construction No change CST 16 US 220/NC 68 Connector - Future I-73 - Sections A & B (US 220 to NC 68) R-2413 CST 14-17 No change Under Construction

Various Interstate Pavement Rehabilitation on I-40, I-85, and I-73: 34 Miles CST 16 -20

Regional & Division Needs Roadway Projects

I-5712 Sandy Ridge Road / I-40 Interchange Improvements N/A R/W 19 CST 20

R-5725 NC 68 / NC 150 Intersection Improvements N/A R/W 17 CST 18

U-5754 US 29 (O'Henry Boulevard) / I-40 / Bus I-85 - Ramp Improvements N/A R/W 20 CST 21

U-5851 Church Street Widening - Wendover Ave to Cone Blvd N/A R/W 20 CST 22

U-5580 Randleman Road Widening - Glendale Dr to Elmsley Dr N/A R/W 20 CST 21

R/W 20 U-5852 Benjamin Parkway / Bryan Boulevard Widening Wendover Ave to Holden Rd N/A CST 21 Lawndale Drive / Pisgah Church Road / Martinsville Road Intersections R/W 19 U-5812 N/A Improvements CST 20

U-5842 Elm Street / Pisgah Church Road Intersection Improvements N/A R/W 17 CST 18

FS-1507B Battleground Avenue Widening - Westridge Road to Cotswold Avenue N/A Feasibility Study

Chapter 3 Page 20 September 2015 2016 - 2025 MTIP Major Project Summary

Current TIP # Project Description Schedule Schedule

R/W 14 U-5326 Market-College-Guilford College Intersection Improvements CST 16 CST 2019 Aycock Street Widening - Spring Garden St to Lee St and Railroad Overpass R/W 18 U-5849 CST PY Replacement CST 20

U-5306 B Battleground Avenue / Westridge Road Intersection Improvements CST 15 CST 16

Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects

EL-5101 DJ Downtown Greenway Phase 2 N/A CST 16

EB 5717 Lindsay Street Sidewalk - Murrow Blvd to Bessemer Ave, north side N/A CST 18

EB-5716 Holden Road Sidewalk - Meadowview to Spring Garden, west side N/A CST 18 EB-5714 Lees Chapel Road Sidewalk - Church St to Yanceyville St FY 2017 CST 17 (EL-5101DL)

EB-5712 Lovett Street Sidewalk - Florida St to Freeman Mill Rd FY 2016 CST 16

Rail Project

P-5700 Norfolk Southern Roundhouse Property, Construct Intermodal Container Parking N/A CST 19

Bridge Projects

Various 16 Locations CST 16 - 24

Aviation Projects

Various 6 PTIA Projects CST 16 - 20

Chapter 3 Page 21 August 2015 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Highway Program

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016 - FY 2025 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Funding Category DIV Division REG Regional EX Exempt SW Statewide HF State Dollars (Non-STI) TRN Transition Project

Key to Highway and Aviation Funding Sources

National Highway Performance APD Appalachian Development NHPBA Program (Bonus Allocation) BA Bonus Allocation NHPIM National Highway Performance

BOND (R) Revenue Bond O Others CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality S State Construction DP Discretionary or Demonstration S(M) State Match

ER Emergency Relief Funds STP Surface Transportation Program

HFB Highway Fund Bridge Replacement S State Construction

HP Federal-Aid High Priority S(M) State Match

HRRR STP Surface Transportation Program High Risk Rural Roads

Surface Trans. Program-Direct HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program STPDA Attributable Surface Transportation Program (Off L Local STPOFF System Bridge) National Highway Performance Surface Transportation Program (On NHP STPON Program System Bridge) NHPB National Highway Performance T State Highway Trust Funds

Work Type

A Acquisition O Operations C Construction P Paving CG Construction (GARVEE) PE Preliminary Engineering F Feasibility Study R Right of way G Grading and Structures RG Right of way (GARVEE) I Implementation S Structures L Landscaping U Utilities M Mitigation

Highway Program Page 23 August 2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Highway Element Notes • Each project has its own identification code. The initial letter(s) indicates the funding source, while the digits that follow uniquely identify the project. • Specific projects are listed by funding program. The projects are listed in numeric order based on project identification code. • Funding category identifies the STI funding category for the project and any project breaks. STI funding categories are Statewide, Regional Needs, and Division needs. The fiscal years scheduled for planning and design are shown as FY. The type or phase of work is shown for each interstate, rural, and urban project. The cost of right-of-way and construction, and the anticipated funding sources are also listed. • Highway projects frequently extend across MPO area boundaries in the Triad. When such situations occur, both MPO areas are listed for the project. • The Secondary Roads Program (county construction) is not included in the MTIP. That program is developed annually by NCDOT and the Guilford County Board of Commissioners. The Small Urban Program, which is developed annually by NCDOT and municipal officials, is likewise excluded from the MTIP. • The descriptions and maps for most projects are preliminary and subject to change. All major projects require extensive planning, environmental impact review, and design studies. The location and exact type of improvements are subject to refinement and modification during the project planning and design phases. • GARVEE bonds are Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles. GARVEE bonds are tax-exempt debt instrument financing mechanisms that are backed by annual federal appropriations for federal-aid transportation projects. Proceeds from the financing can be used for the costs of right of way and/or construction of highway or other transportation projects that are eligible under Title 23 of the United States Code and that meet all federal requirements.

Highway Program Page 24 August 2015

HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

TOTAL PRIOR TYPE OF WORK / ESTIMATED COST IN THOUSANDS / PROJECT BREAKS PROJ YEARS MPO / STATE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAM UNFUNDED COST COST COUNTY ROUTE/CITY TIP ID LOCATION / DESCRIPTION LENGTH (THOU) (THOU) FUNDS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 FUTURE YEARS INTERSTATE PROJECTS

GUILFORD I-40 I-4715 SR 4121 (HIGH POINT ROAD) TO I-85 9.9 17291 14783 NHP CG 836 CG 836 CG 836 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN BYPASS. MILL AND RESURFACE.

PROJECT COMPLETE - GARVEE BOND FUNDING $9.3 MILLION. PAYBACK FY 2007 - FY 2018

GUILFORD FUTURE I-73 I-5110 NC 68 TO GREENSBORO WESTERN 3 153391 133991 NHP C 19400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN LOOP. SIX-LANE FREEWAY ON NEW LOCATION.

COMBINED WITH R-2413A AND R-2413B FOR DESIGN-BUILD LET - UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD US 220 / I-73 / I-74 I-5329 SOUTH OF ELLERBE IN RICHMOND 70 1595 1595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COUNTY TO I-85 / US 421 IN GUILFORD COUNTY. UPGRADE SIGNING TO INTERSTATE STANDARDS.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD I-40 / US 421 I-5712 SR 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD) IN 0 2575 400 NHP 0 0 0 0 C 1875 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW GREENSBORO. INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS. NHP 0 0 0 R 300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD I-40 I-5734 1.3 MILES EAST OF SR 1850 (SANDY 3 6402 0 NHPIM C 3201 C 3201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW RIDGE ROAD) TO 1.1 MILES EAST OF SR 1556 (GALLIMORE DAIRY ROAD) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

COORDINATE WITH I-5762

GUILFORD I-73 I-5735 RANDOLPH COUNTY LINE TO 1.2 2 2620 0 NHPIM C 2620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW MILES NORTH OF NC 62. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-40 I-5762 FORSYTH COUNTY LINE TO 1.3 MILES 4 3262 0 NHPIM C 1631 C 1631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW EAST OF SR 1850 (SANDY RIDGE ROAD). PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

COORDINATE WITH I-5734

GUILFORD I-85 I-5790 0.2 MILE NORTH OF SR 3039 2.4 4176 0 NHPIM C 2088 C 2088 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW (NELSON FARM ROAD) TO 1.3 MILES NORTH OF SR 3029 (YOUNGS MILL ROAD) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

COORDINATE WITH I-5855

Highway Program 26 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD I-40 I-5811 0.2 MILE EAST OF SR 1541 2 613 0 NHPIM 0 0 0 C 613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO 0.6 MILE EAST OF SR 4239 (PATTERSON STREET) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-40 I-5812 1 MILE EAST OF SR 3029 (YOUNGS 2 334 0 NHPIM 0 C 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW MILL ROAD) TO 0.2 MILE EAST OF SR 3045 (MOUNT HOPE CHURCH ROAD) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-73 I-5852 I-40 / US 421 TO SR 2085 (BRYAN 3.4 5174 0 NHPIM 0 0 0 0 C 2587 C 2587 0 0 0 0 0 SW BOULEVARD) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-85 / US 29 / US 70 I-5853 0.4 MILE NORTH OF I-85 BUSINESS 2 930 0 NHPIM 0 0 0 0 C 930 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW TO 0.3 MILE NORTH OF I-73 / US 421. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-85 I-5854 0.3 MILE NORTH OF BUSINESS 85 TO 1.9 3391 0 NHPIM C 3391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0.2 MILE NORTH OF SR 1115 (REHOBETH CHURCH ROAD). PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

GUILFORD I-85 I-5855 0.8 MILE NORTH OF SR 3505 3.8 5531 0 NHPIM C 2766 C 2765 0 0 C 5531 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW (PLEASANT GARDEN RD.) TO 0.2 MILE NORTH OF SR 3039 (NELSON FARM ROAD) IN GREENSBORO. PAVEMENT REHABILITATION.

COORDINATE WITH I-5790 RURAL PROJECTS

GUILFORD US 220 R-2309 SR 2182 (HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD) 6.3 75385 75385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TO US 220-NC 68 CONNECTOR (R- 2413) IN GREENSBORO AND SUMMERFIELD. WIDEN TO MULTI- LANES.

AA COTSWALD TERRACE NORTH OF GREENSBORO TO SR 2182 (HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD) - COMPLETE AB SR 2182 (HORSEPEN CREEK ROAD TO NORTH OF SR 2313 (WINFREE ROAD) IN GREENSBORO - UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Highway Program 27 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD US 220 / FUTURE I-73 R-2413 NC 68 AT SR 2011 (EDGEFIELD ROAD) 12.1 280249 280249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN IN GUILFORD COUNTY TO US 220-NC 68 INTERSECTION IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY. FOUR-LANE FREEWAY, ON NEW LOCATION, NC 68 TO US 220 AND FOUR LANES ALONG US 220 TO NC 68 IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY.

TRN A FOUR LANES AT SR 2011 (EDGEFIELD ROAD) TO SR 2127 (BROOK BANK ROAD) - COMBINED WITH I-5110 AND R-2413B FOR DESIGN BUILD LET - UNDER CONSTRUCTION TRN B SR 2127 (BROOK BANK ROAD) TO HAW RIVER - COMBINED WITH I-5110 AND R-2413A FOR DESIGN-BUILD LET - UNDER CONSTRUCTION TRN C HAW RIVER TO NC 68-US 220 INTERSECTION - UNDER CONSTRUCTION TRN CA NC 68 INTERSECTION-CONVERT AT-GRADE INTERSECTION TO INTERCHANGE - IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD US 158 R-2577 MULTI-LANES NORTH OF US 421 / I- 18.8 110504 2196 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 25400 C REG 40 BUSINESS IN WINSTON-SALEM TO US 220 IN STOKESDALE. WIDEN TO T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 4800 C MULTI-LANES. T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 36100 B T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 6800 B NHP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 12050 A C 12050 A NHP 0 0 0 0 0 U 1654 A U 1654 A 0 0 0 0 NHP 0 0 0 0 0 R 3900 A R 3900 A 0 0 0 0

REG A MULTI-LANES NORTH OF US 421 / I-40 TO SR 1965 (BELEWS CREEK ROAD) B SR 1965 (BELEWS CREEK ROAD IN FORSYTH COUNTY TO SR 2034 (ANTHONY ROAD) IN GUILFORD COUNTY C NORTH OF SR 2034 (ANTHONY ROAD) TO US 220 PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD SR 1008(WEST MARKET R-2611 SR 2007 (BUNKER HILL ROAD) AT 3.6 31284 31284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST) COLFAX TO NC 68 IN GREENSBORO. WIDEN TO MULTI-LANES.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD US 421 R-2612 SR 3389 (WOODY MILL ROAD) AND 0 37453 37453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX SR 3418 (NEELLEY ROAD) SOUTH OF GREENSBORO. CONVERT AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS TO INTERCHANGES.

EX A SR 3389 (WOODY MILL RD) INTERSECTION SOUTH OF GREENSBORO - COMPLETE TRN B SR 3418(NEELEY ROAD) INTERSECTION SOUTH OF GREENSBORO - UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Highway Program 28 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD NC 68 R-5725 NC 150 INTERSECTION IN OAK 0 948 250 NHP 0 0 C 563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REG RIDGE. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. NHP 0 R 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS URBAN PROJECTS

GUILFORD SR 1486 (GREENSBORO U-2412 PROPOSED US 311 BYPASS IN HIGH 7.8 165958 117858 NHP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 12025 A C 36075 A ROAD) / SR 4121 (HIGH DIV POINT TO SR 1424 (HILLTOP ROAD) POINT ROAD) IN GREENSBORO. WIDEN TO MULTI- LANES, PART ON NEW LOCATION.

DIV A (VICKREY CHAPEL ROAD) - RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS TRN B SR 4228 (VICKREY CHAPEL ROAD) TO SR 1424 (HILLTOP ROAD) - UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD I-73 / I-840 / FUTURE I- U-2524 GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, 15 682011 494996 NHP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 15000 F 840 / US 421 NORTH OF I-85 TO LAWNDALE DRIVE IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT S(M) C 4167 D C 4166 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FREEWAY ON NEW LOCATION. NHP CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 2145 D CG 10725 D S(M) C 8827 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NHP CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C CG 10857 C 0 0 NHP C 12484 D C 12483 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AA SOUTH OF SR 1541 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO NORTH OF SR 1560 (SAPP ROAD) - COMPLETE AB GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, NORTH OF I-85 NEAR SR 1129 (GROOMTOWN ROAD) TO NORTH OF SR 4121 (HIGH POINT ROAD) - COMPLETE AC GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, NORTH OF SR 4121 (HIGH POINT ROAD) TO SOUTH OF I-40 - COMPLETE AE GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, INTERCHANGE AT PROPOSED HIGH SPEED ROAD RELOCATION - UNDER CONSTRUCTION BA GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, SOUTH OF I-40 TO NORTH OF SR 2147 (WEST FRIENDLY AVENUE) - COMPLETE BB GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, NORTH OF 2147 (WEST FRIENDLY AVENUE) TO NORTH OF 2176 (BRYAN BOULEVARD) - COMPLETE TRN BC SR 2085 (BRYAN BOULEVARD) INTERCHANGE MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING AUXILIARY LANES, ITS, AND INMAN ROAD BRIDGE REPLACEMENT TRN C GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, NORTH OF SR 2176 (BRYAN BOULEVARD) TO US 220 (BATTLEGROUND AVENUE) - UNDER CONSTRUCTION SW D GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, US 220 (BATTLEGROUND AVENUE) TO SR 2303 (LAWNDALE DRIVE) - RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS E GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, ITS INSTALLATION - COMPLETE F GREENSBORO WESTERN LOOP, INTERCHANGE AT PROPOSED LEWISTON-FLEMING ROAD EXTENSION GARVEE BOND FUNDING $105.9 M FOR SEGMENT C. PAYBACK BY FY 2013-2024 - GARVEE BOND FUNDING $25 M FOR SEGMENT D. PAYBACK FY 2016-2030.

Highway Program 29 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD I-785 / I-840; FUTURE I- U-2525 GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP, 12.6 380408 138013 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 785; FUTURE I-840 LAWNDALE DRIVE TO NORTH OF I-40 / I-85 IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 15000 D FREEWAY ON NEW LOCATION. T R 7123 C R 7122 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T C 28775 B C 28775 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

A GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP, SOUTH OF SR 3041 (CLAPP FARMS ROAD) TO US 70 RELOCATION - COMPLETE TRN B GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP, US 70 RELOCATION TO US 29 NORTH OF GREENSBORO - UNDER CONSTRUCTION SW C GREENSBORO EASTERN LOOP, US 29 NORTH OF GREENSBORO TO SR 2303 (LAWNDALE DRIVE) D INTERCHANGE AT PROPOSED CONE BOULEVARD EXTENSION PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD SR 1818 (JOHNSTON U-4758 SR 1820 (SKEET CLUB ROAD) TO I-40 4.4 25818 7518 T 0 0 0 0 0 C 6650 C 6650 0 0 0 0 STREET) / SR 1850 (SANDY DIV IN HIGH POINT. WIDEN TO MULTI- RIDGE ROAD) LANES. T 0 0 0 R 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD VARIOUS U-5021 GREENSBORO URBAN AREA 0 29805 0 STPDA 0 0 C 2393 C 3916 C 3916 C 3916 C 3916 C 3916 C 3916 C 3916 0 DIV METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (GUAMPO) STPDA FUNDS - RESERVED FOR FUTURE PROGRAMMING.

GUILFORD US 220 (BATTLEGROUND U-5306 INTERSECTION AND SIDEWALK 0 7046 3946 NHP C 3100 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AVENUE) TRN IMPROVEMENTS AT CONE BOULEVARD-BENJAMIN PARKWAY, WESTRIDGE ROAD, NEW GARDEN ROAD, AND BRASSFIELD ROAD INTERSECTIONS IN GREENSBORO.

TRN A INTERSECTION WITH BENJAMIN PARKWAY / CONE BOULEVARD AND APPROACHES - RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS REG B INTERSECTION WITH WESTRIDGE ROAD AND APPROACHES - PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS TRN C INTERSECTION WITH NEW GARDEN ROAD AND APPROACHES - PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS D INTERSECTINO WITH BRASSFIELD ROAD AND APPROACHES - UNDER CONSTRUCTION PLANNING / DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY / CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD SR 1541 / SR 2254 U-5322 CLIFTON ROAD IN GREENSBORO. 0 700 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (WENDOVER AVENUE) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

Highway Program 30 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD SR 1008(MARKET ST) U-5326 SR 1546 (COLLEGE ROAD) IN 0 2200 700 T C 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV GREENSBORO. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD SR 2136 (FLEMING ROAD) U-5505 ISAACSON BOULEVARD IN 0 3041 3041 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GREENSBORO. REALIGN FLEMING ROAD AND CONSTRUCT NEW INTERSECTION.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD US 29 / US 70 / US 220 U-5754 I-40 / BUSINESS 85 TO SOUTH OF 0.8 17064 0 NHP 0 0 0 0 0 C 16450 0 0 0 0 0 (O'HENRY BOULEVARD) REG FLORIDA STREET IN GREENSBORO. ADD LANE ON I-40 / BUSINESS 85 NHP 0 0 0 0 U 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 EASTBOUND RAMP ONTO NHP 0 0 0 0 R 548 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND US 29 / US 70 / US 220 AND EXTEND US 29 / US 70 / US 220 SOUTHBOUND RAMP ONTO SR 3672 (MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DRIVE)

GUILFORD VARIOUS U-5812 LAWNDALE DRIVE AND PISGAH 0 930 0 L 0 0 0 0 C 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV CHURCH ROAD IN GREENSBORO. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT STP 0 0 0 0 C 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 LAWNDALE ROAD AND PISGAH L 0 0 0 R 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHURCH ROAD, AT LAWNDALE ROAD STP 0 0 0 R 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AND MARTINSVILLE ROAD, AND AT MARTINSVILLE ROAD AND PISGAH CHURCH ROAD

NON-STATE-SYSTEM - LOCAL MATCH BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD LINDELL ROAD U-5841 FRIENDLY AVENUE IN GREENSBORO. 0 233 0 T 0 0 0 0 C 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV WIDEN LINDELL ROAD (SR 2254 [WENDOVER AVENUE] OFF-RAMP) T 0 0 0 R 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TO ADD A SECOND LEFT TURN LANE.

GUILFORD PISGAH CHURCH ROAD U-5842 NORTH ELM STREET IN 0.5 1180 250 L 0 0 C 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV GREENSBORO. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. STP 0 0 C 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 R 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 0 R 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS - NON-STATE-SYSTEM - LOCAL MATCH BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

Highway Program 31 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD AYCOCK STREET U-5849 SR 4240 (WEST LEET STREET) TO 0.2 1844 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 C 266 0 0 0 0 0 DIV SPRING GARDEN STREET IN GREENSBORO. REPLACE RAILROAD STP 0 0 0 0 0 C 1066 0 0 0 0 0 OVERPASS AND WIDEN ROADWAY. T 0 0 U 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 0 0 U 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 R 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 0 0 R 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NON-STATE-SYSTEM - LOCAL MATCH BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD SR 1007 (RANDLEMAN U-5850 ELMSLEY DRIVE TO GLENDALE DRIVE 0.3 2158 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 C 1635 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD) DIV IN GREENSBORO. WIDEN TO MULTLANES. T 0 0 0 0 U 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 R 467 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 1001 (CHURCH STREET) U-5851 US 220 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO 1.6 15771 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 12312 0 0 0 0 DIV EAST CONE BOULEVARD IN GREENSBORO. ADD LANES. T 0 0 0 0 U 371 0 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 R 3088 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 2085 (BENJAMIN U-5852 SR 2254 (WENDOVER AVENUE) TO 1.2 13416 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 1246 0 0 0 0 PARKWAY / BRYAN DIV HOLDEN ROAD IN GREENSBORO. BOULEVARD) ADD LANES. NHP 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 11212 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 U 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 NHP 0 0 0 0 U 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 R 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 NHP 0 0 0 0 R 769 0 0 0 0 0 0

PART - NON-STATE SYSTEM - LOCAL MATCH BY CITY OF GREENSBORO FEASIBILITY STUDIES

GUILFORD US 220 (BATTLEGROUND FS-1507B WESTRIDGE AVENUE TO COTSWOLD 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AVENUE) DRIVE IN GREENSBORO. WIDEN TO 6 LANES WITH MEDIAN.

SCHEDULED FOR FEASIBILITY STUDY FEDERAL BRIDGE PROJECTS

GUILFORD SR 2128 (BUNCH ROAD) B-4756 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 120 OVER 0 1720 1720 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV REEDY FORK CREEK IN GREENSBORO.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD SR 2824 (CREEKVIEW B-4758 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 159 OVER 0 1135 1135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD) DIV NORTH BUFFALO CREEK.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Highway Program 32 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD SR 1105 (EAST STEEPLE B-4956 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 25 OVER POLE 0 1150 0 STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 1050 0 0 CHASE ROAD) DIV CAT CREEK. STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 100 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 2128 (BUNCH ROAD) B-4958 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 106 OVER 0 1870 0 STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 1700 0 0 DIV REEDY FORK CREEK IN OAK RIDGE. STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 170 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 2719 B-4959 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 193 OVER 0 1450 350 HFB C 1050 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF BUFFALO CREEK.

RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD SR 3058 (JUDGE ADAMS B-4960 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 214 OVER 0 2368 139 STPOFF 0 C 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD) DIV LITTLE ALAMANCE CREEK. STPOFF U 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STPOFF R 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD SR 3051 (KNOX ROAD) B-4961 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 208 OVER 0 1101 100 HFB 0 C 950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF LITTLE ALAMANCE CREEK. HFB U 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HFB R 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD I-40 / BUSINESS 85 B-5119 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 291 AND 0 8293 8293 NHPB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (WESTBOUND) SW BRIDGE NO. 349 OVER US 29 / US 70 / US 220 IN GREENSBORO.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD SR 2821 B-5344 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 161 OVER 0 1117 142 STPOFF C 975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK.

GUILFORD SR 2136 (FLEMING ROAD) B-5345 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 456 OVER 0 1435 200 HFB 0 C 1125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF BRUSH CREEK IN GREENSBORO. HFB R 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD SR 4771 (REEDY FORK B-5354 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 360 OVER US 0 5195 575 NHPB 0 0 C 2100 C 2100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PARKWAY) DIV 29 IN GREENSBORO. NHPB 0 R 420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COORDINATE WITH R-4707 - PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

Highway Program 33 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD I-40 / BUSINESS 85 / US B-5356 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 299 OVER 0 9120 100 NHPB 0 0 0 C 8200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 / US 70 / US 220 SW SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK IN GREENSBORO. NHPB 0 0 R 820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD WILLOW ROAD B-5713 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 352 OVER I-40 0 3484 0 NHPB 0 0 0 0 0 C 3318 0 0 0 0 0 DIV / BUSINESS 85 IN GREENSBORO. NHPB 0 0 0 0 R 166 0 0 0 0 0 0

ROCKINGHAM SR 2351 (WITTY ROAD) B-5715 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 17 OVER HAW 0 1442 0 STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 1373 0 0 0 0 DIV RIVER. STPOFF 0 0 0 0 0 R 69 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 4240 (EAST LEE B-5717 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 121 OVER 0 3290 0 NHPB 0 0 0 0 0 C 3133 0 0 0 0 0 STREET - WESTBOUND) DIV SOUTH BUFFALO CREEK IN GREENSBORO. NHPB 0 0 0 0 R 157 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PATTON AVENUE B-5718 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 329 OVER I-40 0 4571 0 NHPB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 4353 0 0 DIV / BUSINESS 85 / US 29 / US 70 / US 220 IN GREENSBORO. NHPB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 218 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 3314 (WILEY LEWIS B-5724 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 293 OVER 0 550 0 HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 500 0 0 0 0 ROAD) HF LITTLE ALAMANCE CREEK. HFB 0 0 0 0 0 R 50 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 1001 (NORTH CHURCH B-5726 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 135 OVER AN 0 470 0 HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 425 0 0 0 0 STREET) HF UNNAMED BRANCH. HFB 0 0 0 0 0 R 45 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 2109 (EVERFIELD B-5731 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 112 OVER 0 2005 0 HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 1825 0 0 0 ROAD) HF HAW RIVER IN OAK RIDGE AND STOKESDALE. HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 180 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD SR 2526 (SUMMIT B-5732 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 412 OVER 0 2695 0 HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 2450 0 0 AVENUE) HF NORTH BUFFALO CREEK IN GREENSBORO. HFB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 245 0 0 0

Highway Program 34 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD NC 61 B-5736 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 38 OVER 0 586 586 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REG BEAVER CREEK.

RIGHT OF WAY IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD VARIOUS BD-5107 DIVISION 7 PURCHASE ORDER 0 19304 19304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV CONTRACT BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS.

IN PROGRESS - BRIDGE PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT (BPOC) MUNICIPAL BRIDGE PROJECTS

GUILFORD BALLINGER ROAD B-5553 REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 98 OVER A 0 940 115 L 0 C 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV TRIBUTARY OF HORSEPEN CREEK IN GREENSBORO. STPON 0 C 600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L R 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STPON R 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY / CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO - IN PROGRESS - MUNICIPAL BRIDGE PROJECT MITIGATION PROJECTS

GUILFORD VARIOUS EE-4907 ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT 0 17824 17824 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROGRAM FOR DIVISION 7 PROJECT MITIGATION.

IN PROGRESS HIGHWAY SAFETY PROJECTS

GUILFORD NC 68; SR 2269 (ALCORN SF-4907D NC 68 AND SR 2269 (ALCORN ROAD) 0 715 715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD) IN OAK RIDGE. CONSTRUCT TURN LANES ON ALCORN ROAD APPROACHES AND UPGRADE SIGNAL.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD NC 68 W-5114 SOUTH OF SR 2111 (EAST HARRELL 0.5 2923 2923 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD) TO SR 4831 (BARTONSHIRE DRIVE) IN OAK RIDGE AND SUMMERFIELD. CONSTRUCT TURN LANES, CLOSE ACCESS TO SR 2029 (WEST HARRELL ROAD), AND RELOCATE SR 2111 INTERSECTION AND PORTION OF SR 2111.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD VARIOUS W-5207 DIVISION 7 RUMBLE STRIPS, 0 4770 4770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GUARDRAIL, SAFETY AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS.

IN PROGRESS

Highway Program 35 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD NC 62; SR 1129 W-5305 SR 1129 AT SR 4019 (GROOMETOWN 0 735 735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (GROOMTOWN ROAD) REG ROAD); NC 62 AT SR 1129 (GROOMETOWN ROAD). REALIGN BOTH INTERSECTIONS AND REMOVE ACCESS BETWEEN SR 4019 AND NC 62.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION CONGESTION MITIGATION PROJECTS

GUILFORD VARIOUS C-4936 PIEDMONT AUTHORITY FOR 0 714 714 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION (PART). IMPLEMENT A REGIONAL AIR QUALITY AWARENESS PROGRAM.

IN PROGRESS BY PIEDMONT AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

GUILFORD FLORIDA STREET C-5511 RANDOLPH STREET INTERSECTION IN 0 378 378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT LEFT TURN LANES.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO

GUILFORD VARIOUS C-5555 SIDEWALK PROJECTS AT SELECTED 0 1456 1456 C 0 C 45 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX LOCATIONS IN GREENSBORO. CMAQ 0 C 180 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C R 10 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CMAQ R 40 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

E SIDEWALKS AT COLLEGE ROAD AND NEW GARDEN ROAD PLANNING / DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY / CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO - IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD VARIOUS C-5607 PROJECTS TO IMPROVE CONGESTION 0 3666 0 CMAQ C 1833 C 1833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX AND AIR QUALITY IN THE GREENSBORO URBAN AREA MPO.

ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

GUILFORD VARIOUS E-5501 FREEDOM ROADS. INSTALL 0 272 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN INTERACTIVE WAYSIDE SIGNAGE FOR DESIGNATED SITES.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Highway Program 36 September 2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Non-Highway Program

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016 - FY 2025

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Key to Non-Highway Projects Funding Category

DIV Division REG Regional HF State Dollars (Non-STI) SW Statewide

Project Types (Indicated in Project ID No., Transit Only)

TA Transit Vehicles TP Transit Planning TD Transit Facilities TS Transit Safety Transit Routine Project Type Not Yet TG Capital & Preventive NA Assigned Maintenance TM Miscellaneous Transit

Transit Element Notes • Federal Highway Funds allocated to the transit projects are typically transferred to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) accounts. These may be listed as Urbanized Area Formula Program (FUZ) and are also known as 5307 funds. Funding Sources Appalachian Development Other ADTAP Transportation Assistance Program O CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality RR Rail-Highway Safety DP Discretionary or Demonstration S State FBUS Capital Program – Bus Earmark (5309) SMAP Operating Assistance and State Maintenance FED Federal Rail Funds SRTS Safe Routes to School

FEPD Elderly and Person with Disability (5310) STHSR Stimulus High Speed Rail

FMPL Metropolitan Planning (5303) STP Surface Transportation Program Surface Transportation Program Direct FNF New Freedom Program STP DA Apportionment Non urbanized Area Formula Program FNU T State Highway Trust Funds (5311)

FUZ Urbanized Area Formula Program (5307) TAP Transportation Alternatives Program

JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute (3037) TAPDA Transportation Alternatives Program- Direct Attributable L Local

Non-Highway Program Page 38 August 2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Work Type

A Acquisition PE Preliminary Engineering AD Administrative PL Planning/ Design C Construction R Right of way CP Capital I Implementation O Operations Oc OPS Funded Capital

Non-Highway Program Page 39 August 2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Non-Highway Program Page 40 August 2015

NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5701 RUNWAY 5R-23L EXTENSION 0 20000 0 T 0 0 0 C 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW PROGRAM (GSO) O 0 0 0 C 19500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5707 CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY G. 0 15900 0 T C 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW (GSO) O C 15400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5708 CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY OVER FUTURE 0 20000 20000 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW I-73 EAST OF SR 2085 (BRYAN (GSO) BOULEVARD). O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PLANNING / DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY / CONSTRUCTION BY OTHERS - IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5711 SURFACE MOVEMENT GUIDANCE 0 8000 0 T 0 C 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW AND CONTROL SYSTEM (SMGCS) (GSO) UPDATE. O 0 C 7500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5715 RUNWAY 5R-23L GROUP VI 0 10000 0 T 0 0 0 0 C 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW UPGRADE. (GSO) O 0 0 0 0 C 9500 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT TRIAD AV-5718 HIGH SPEED TAXIWAY TO RUNWAY 0 3000 0 T 0 0 C 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SW 5R-23L. (GSO) O 0 0 C 2500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS

GUILFORD LATHAM PARK GREENWAY EB-5518 BATTLEGROUND AVENUE TO 0.7 425 425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN MENDENHALL STREET IN GREENSBORO. REMOVE THROUGH LANE ON HILL STREET AND CONSTRUCT MULTI-USE PATH.

PLANNING / DESIGN / RIGHT OF WAY / CONSTRUCTION BY CITY OF GREENSBORO - IN PROGRESS

GUILFORD LOVETT STREET EB-5712 SR 1398 (FREEMAN MILL ROAD) TO 0.6 286 0 SRTS C 286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV FLORIDA STREET IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS ON WEST SIDE AND ON EAST SIDE FROM EXISTING SIDEWALK TO FLORIDA STREET.

Non-Highway Program 41 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD LEES CHAPEL ROAD EB-5714 SR 2751 (CHURCH STREET) TO SR 0.9 144 0 SRTS 0 C 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV 2523 (YANCEYVILLE STREET) IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES WHERE NONE EXISTS.

GUILFORD HOLDEN ROAD EB-5716 SOUTH OF MEADOWVIEW ROAD TO 0.8 204 0 SRTS 0 0 C 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV SPRING GARDEN ROAD IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE.

GUILFORD EAST LINDSAY STREET EB-5717 MURROW BOULEVARD TO 1 170 0 SRTS 0 0 C 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV BESSEMER AVENUE IN GREENSBORO. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK ON NORTH SIDE.

GUILFORD VARIOUS EL-5101 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECTS 0 21633 15349 TAP 0 C 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV IN THE GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING L C 257 C 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ORGANIZATION (GUAMPO). STPDA C 1027 C 3600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CMAQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L R 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STPDA R 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L R 212 C 526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CMAQ R 847 C 2106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD VARIOUS U-5532 GREENSBORO URBAN AREA MPO: 0 10607 1239 L C 301 C 89 C 792 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES L C 175 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 74 C 43 0 PROGRAM (TAP) - ELIGIBLE PROJECTS TAPDA C 700 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 295 C 170 0 L R 10 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 0 TAPDA R 40 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 R 10 0 STPDA C 1203 C 356 C 3169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 PE 2 0 TAPDA PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 PE 10 0

TAPDA FUNDING INCLUDES UNPROGRAMMED BALANCE - PROGRAMMING SUBJECT TO MPO APPROVAL

Non-Highway Program 42 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TA-4767 REPLACEMENT - PARATRANSIT 0 4617 3277 S CP 55 CP 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUTHORITY EX VEHICLE L CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 FBUS CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553 CP 553

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TA-4771 HYBRID REPLACEMENT BUSES 0 12807 7707 S CP 254 CP 57 CP 52 CP 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUTHORITY EX L CP 286 CP 64 CP 58 CP 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FBUS 0 0 CP 554 CP 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CMAQ CP 2544 CP 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT AUTHORITY TA-6263 CAPITAL 0 439 439 FNU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOR REGIONAL HF TRANSPORTATION

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TG-4759 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE 0 58487 29234 L O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 O 700 AUTHORITY HF FUZ O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801 O 2801

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TG-4957 OPERATING ASSISTANCE - ADA 0 8610 3748 L O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 O 119 AUTHORITY HF PARATRANSIT SERVICE FUZ O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475 O 475

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TG-5105 ROUTINE CAPITAL - BUS STOP 0 1815 1315 L CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 CP 13 AUTHORITY HF SHELTERS, BENCHES, SHOP EQUIPMENT, SPARE PARTS, FUZ CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 CP 52 ENGINES, FAREBOX, SERVICE VEHICLES, ETC

GUILFORD GUILFORD COUNTY TK-6132 ADMINISTRATION 0 3119 1358 S AD 88 AD 120 AD 120 AD 120 AD 120 AD 120 AD 120 AD 120 0 0 0 TRANSPORTATION HF L AD 26 AD 34 AD 34 AD 34 AD 34 AD 34 AD 34 AD 34 0 0 0 FNU AD 58 AD 73 AD 73 AD 73 AD 73 AD 73 AD 73 AD 73 0 0 0

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TM-5308 TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS 0 305 122 L CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 AUTHORITY HF FUZ CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49

Non-Highway Program 43 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD PIEDMONT AUTHORITY TM-5313 6316 OPERATING - PART: CAREER 0 1000 500 L O 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOR REGIONAL HF EXPRESS DEVIATED FIXED ROUTE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE JARC O 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD PIEDMONT AUTHORITY TM-6139 OPERATING ASSISTANCE 0 634 634 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FOR REGIONAL HF TRANSPORTATION JARC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TO-4971 OPERATING ASSISTANCE - FIXED 0 79471 23935 L O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 AUTHORITY HF ROUTE SMAP O 1628 O 1628 O 1628 O 1815 O 1815 O 1815 O 1815 O 1815 O 1815 0 0 L O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 FUZ O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493 O 1493

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TO-5101D OPERATING ASSISTANCE - ROUTE #15 0 684 684 CMAQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUTHORITY HF

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TO-6139 ELDERLY AND DISABLED OPERATING 0 1868 856 L O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 AUTHORITY HF FEPD O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95 O 95

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TP-5101 PLANNING ASSISTANCE - 5303 0 2005 796 S CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 AUTHORITY HF L CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 CP 14 FMPL CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111 CP 111

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TQ-6783 5310 CAPITAL PROJECTS 0 883 442 L CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 CP 29 AUTHORITY HF FEPD CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117 CP 117

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TQ-7000 ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT OF 0 132 90 FEPD AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AD 24 AUTHORITY HF 5310

GUILFORD GREENSBORO TRANSIT TS-4758 SAFETY & SECURITY - MIN. 1% SET 0 843 355 L CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 CP 12 AUTHORITY HF ASIDE FUZ CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49 CP 49

Non-Highway Program 44 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

GUILFORD NORFOLK SOUTHERN P-5700 NORFOLK SOUTHERN 0 1700 0 O 0 0 0 C 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAINLINE DIV "ROUNDHOUSE" PROPERTY. CONSTRUCT PARKING LOT WITH T 0 0 0 C 850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SPACE FOR INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERS, INCLUDING SECURITY FENCE, POLE-MOUNTED LIGHTING, AND PAVED ENTRANCE.

"OTHER" FUNDS REFLECT NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION PARTICIPATION PASSENGER RAIL PROJECTS

GUILFORD PIEDMONT CORRIDOR P-2918 TRAIN 74 / 75 OPERATIONS 0 151756 148006 CMAQ O 3750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX BETWEEN CHARLOTTE AND RALEIGH, EQUIPMENT AND CAPITAL YARD MAINTENANCE FACILITY.

ADDITIONAL PROJECT FUNDING INCLUDES ANTICIPATED $6.6 MILLION / YR LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FROM STATE HIGHWAY FUND, TO BE USED FOR OPERATIONS

GUILFORD VARIOUS P-4405 PRIVATE CROSSING SAFETY 0 14937 10116 O C 880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN INITIATIVE TO CLOSE OR ENHANCE PROTECTION AT RAILROAD STHSR C 3000 C 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CROSSINGS BETWEEN RALEIGH AND CHARLOTTE.

GUILFORD PIEDMONT CORRIDOR SR P-5204 GRADE SEPARATION AND ROAD 0 9212 9212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2819 (MCLEANSVILLE TRN REALIGNMENT, CARMON ROAD ROAD) CROSSING CLOSURE AND MCLEANSVILLE ROAD CROSSING CLOSURE.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

GUILFORD SYKES AVENUE Y-4807B PINE STREET CROSSING CLOSURE 0 960 0 L R 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REALIGNMENT AND LOWDERMILK STREET - SYSKES AVENUE REALIGNMENT STPDA R 800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Highway Program 45 September 2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Statewide Program

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program FY 2016 - FY 2025

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

2016-2015 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Funding Category DIV Division REG Regional EX Exempt SW Statewide HF State Dollars (Non-STI) TRN Transition Project

Key to Highway and Aviation Funding Sources

National Highway Performance APD Appalachian Development NHPBA Program (Bonus Allocation) BA Bonus Allocation NHPIM National Highway Performance

BOND (R) Revenue Bond O Others CMAQ Congestion Mitigation Air Quality S State Construction DP Discretionary or Demonstration S(M) State Match

ER Emergency Relief Funds STP Surface Transportation Program HFB Highway Fund Bridge Replacement S State Construction HP Federal-Aid High Priority S(M) State Match

HRRR High Risk Rural Roads STP Surface Transportation Program Surface Trans. Program-Direct HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program STPDA Attributable Surface Transportation Program (Off L Local STPOFF System Bridge) National Highway Performance Surface Transportation Program (On NHP STPON Program System Bridge) NHPB National Highway Performance T State Highway Trust Funds

Work Type

Statewide Program Page 49 August 2015 2016-2015 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Statewide Program Page 50 August 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS I-9999 INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE BALANCE 0 488522 0 NHPIM C 5000 C 5000 C 5000 C 5000 C 5000 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 0 SW

RURAL PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0219 PHOTOGRAMMETRY, PRELIMINARY 0 4257 1757 T PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW PE 100 SW 0 SW ENGINEERIN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS T PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG PE 75 REG 0 T PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV PE 75 DIV 0

SW DIV PHOTOGRAMMETRY, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERIN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS SW REG PHOTOGRAMMETRY, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERIN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS SW SW PHOTOGRAMMETRY, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERIN FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0360 DESIGN SERVICES, PRELIMINARY 0 21180 11180 T PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW PE 400 SW 0 SW ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS T PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG 0 T PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV 0

SW DIV DESIGN SERVICES, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS SW REG DESIGN SERVICES, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS SW SW DESIGN SERVICES, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0376 STATEWIDE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES 0 20066 11066 T PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW PE 360 SW 0 SW AND INVESTIGATIONS PROJECT TO COVER NON-PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK T PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG PE 270 REG 0 T PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV PE 270 DIV 0

SW DIV STATEWIDE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS PROJECT TO COVER NON- PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SW REG STATEWIDE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS PROJECT TO COVER NON- PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK SW SW STATEWIDE GEOTECHNICAL STUDIES AND INVESTIGATIONS PROJECT TO COVER NON- PROJECT SPECIFIC WORK

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0391 STRUCTURE DESIGN, PRELIMINARY 0 8478 4478 T PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW PE 160 SW 0 SW ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. T PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG PE 120 REG 0 T PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV PE 120 DIV 0

SW DIV STRUCTURE DESIGN, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW REG STRUCTURE DESIGN, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW SW STRUCTURE DESIGN, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. IN PROGRESS

Non-Highway Program 51 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0392 HYDRAULICS, PRELIMINARY 0 3720 2120 T PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW PE 64 SW 0 SW ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. T PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG PE 48 REG 0 T PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV PE 48 DIV 0

SW DIV HYDRAULICS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW REG HYDRAULICS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW SW HYDRAULICS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0405 STATEWIDE MOWING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW MAINTENANCE CONRACTS FO PROPERTIES ACQUIRED BY NCDOT IN ADVANCE OF STIP PROJECTS.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0479 STATEWIDE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 0 5500 500 T PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW PE 200 SW 0 SW AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR T PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG PE 150 REG 0 MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. T PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV PE 150 DIV 0

SW DIV STATEWIDE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW REG STATEWIDE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS. SW SW STATEWIDE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROJECTS.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-4049 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (INCIDENT 0 158759 158759 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MANAGEMENT, 511, SMARTLINK, TEC, TMC).

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-4067 POSITIVE GUIDANCE PROGRAM 0 89398 89398 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND MARKERS, LED SIGNAL HEAD REPLACEMENT)

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-4073 ASPHALT MATERIALS TESTING 0 17399 17399 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LABORATORIES CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR GROUNDWATER CLEAN- UP AT 54 SITES.

IN PROGRESS

Non-Highway Program 52 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-4436 NPDES PERMIT, RETROFIT FOURTEEN 0 61399 31399 STP C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV C 3000 DIV 0 SITES PER YEAR TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY.

DIV NPDES PERMIT, RETROFIT FOURTEEN SITES PER YEAR TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY. IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-4701 TRAFFIC SYSTEM OPERATIONS 0 265523 265523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PROGRAM (SIGNAL MAINTENANCE).

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-5753 FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX POGRAM (FLTP), ROAD AND BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS TO E CONSTRUCTED ON TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THAT ARE OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT PROVIDE ACCESS TO FEDERAL LANDS

PROGRAM IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-9999WM ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND 0 73971 63971 T M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW 0 SW MINIMIZATION. T M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG 0 T M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV 0 NHP M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW 0 NHP M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG 0 NHP M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV 0

SW DIV ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. SW REG ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. SW SW ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. IN PROGRESS FEASIBILITY STUDIES

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0452 TOLLING/FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 0 3064 1064 T PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 PE 200 0 SW STUDIES.

Non-Highway Program 53 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS B-9999 BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM 0 300121 190121 STP I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW I 4400 SW 0 STP I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG I 3300 REG 0 STP I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV I 3300 DIV 0

DIV BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM REG BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM SW BRIDGE INSPECTION PROGRAM IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BK-5100 ESTABLISH BRIDGE MANAGEMENT 0 5000 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV SYSTEM.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BK-5101 DECK PRESERVATION AT 15 0 7747 7747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV SELECTED LOCATIONS.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BK-5102 BRIDGE PAINTING AT 19 SELECTED 0 2027 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV LOCATIONS.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BK-5131 BRIDGE PRESERVATION AT SELECTED 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV LOCATIONS.

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BK-5132 IN-DEPTH ENGINEERING 0 1000 1000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 REG EVALUATION OF WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON LOAD POSTED BRIDGES ON US AND NC DESIGNATED ROUTES.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS BP-5500 BRIDGE PRESERVATION ISSUES AT 0 14270 14270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW SELECTED SITES

SW DIV BRIDGE PRESERVATION ISSUES AT SELECTED SITES SW REG BRIDGE PRESERVATION ISSUES AT SELECTED SITES SW SW BRIDGE PRESERVATION ISSUES AT SELECTED SITES

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0379 SCOUR EVALUATION PROGRAM OF 0 3100 3100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV EXISTING BRIDGES

IN PROGRESS

Non-Highway Program 54 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0418 STORM WATER RUNOFF, RESEARCH, 0 5860 5860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND MONITOR STORM WATER DRAINAGE FROM 50 BRIDGES OVER WATERWAYS (HB 2346, SECTION 25.18).

UNDER CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS R-9999MW ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND 0 73971 63971 T M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW 0 SW MINIMIZATION T M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG 0 T M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV 0 NHP M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW M 200 SW 0 NHP M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG M 150 REG 0 NHP M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV M 150 DIV 0

SW DIV ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. SW REG ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. SW SW ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION. IN PROGRESS HIGHWAY SAFETY PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS W-5300 SIGNAL RETIMING TO IMPROVE 0 15808 5808 HSIP C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW C 400 SW 0 SAFETY HSIP C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG C 300 REG 0 HSIP C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV C 300 DIV 0

DIV SIGNAL RETIMING TO IMPROVE SAFETY REG SIGNAL RETIMING TO IMPROVE SAFETY SW SIGNAL RETIMING TO IMPROVE SAFETY

STATEWIDE VARIOUS W-5508 HIGHWAY SYSTEM DATA 0 1500 1500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COLLECTION. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING BRANCH T PARTICIPATE IN A THREE YEAR DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM.

Non-Highway Program 55 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS W-5517 SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 0 66000 11000 HSIP PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW PE 2200 SW 0 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING HSIP PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG PE 1650 REG 0 HSIP PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV PE 1650 DIV 0

DIV SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REG SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SW SAFETY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

STATEWIDE VARIOUS W-5601 RUMBLE STRIPS, GUARDRAIL, SAFETY 0 105078 7078 HSIP C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW C 3360 SW 0 AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS. HSIP R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW R 560 SW 0 HSIP C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG C 2520 REG 0 HSIP R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG R 420 REG 0 HSIP C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV C 2520 DIV 0 HSIP R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV R 420 DIV 0

DIV RUMBLE STRIPS, GUARDRAIL, SAFETY AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS. REG RUMBLE STRIPS, GUARDRAIL, SAFETY AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS. SW RUMBLE STRIPS, GUARDRAIL, SAFETY AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS. IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS W-9999 HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT 0 186200 0 HSIP 0 0 C 8600 SW C 9000 SW C 9480 SW C 9480 SW C 9480 SW C 9480 SW C 9480 SW C 9480 SW 0 SW PROGRAM BALANCE. HSIP 0 0 C 6450 REG C 6750 REG C 7110 REG C 7110 REG C 7110 REG C 7110 REG C 7110 REG C 7110 REG 0 HSIP 0 0 C 6450 DIV C 6750 DIV C 7110 DIV C 7110 DIV C 7110 DIV C 7110 DIV C 7110 DIV C 7110 DIV 0

SW DIV HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BALANCE. SW REG HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BALANCE. SW SW HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BALANCE.

CONGESTION MITIGATION PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-3600 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 0 6702 6702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX (DMV), VEHICLE EMISSION COMPLIANCE SYSTEM. UPGRADE NORTH CAROLINA'S MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (I/M) PROGRAM.

IN PROGRESS BY DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Non-Highway Program 56 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-4902 NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 0 4694 4694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX SOLAR CENTER CLEAN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM. DEVELOP AND ADMINISTER A SEVEN YEAR CLEAN FUEL-ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY REBATE PROGRAM IN ALL CMAQ ELLIGIBLE COUNTIES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS.

IN PROGRESS BY NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-4903 NORTH CAROLINA AIR AWARENESS 0 2125 1500 O I 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX OUTREACH PROGRAM TO PROVIDE EDUCATION AND PRODUCE DAILY CMAQ I 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AIR QUALITY FORECAST.

IN PROGRESS BY NCDENR DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-5554 DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY SCHOOL 0 1775 1775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX BUS REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. REPLACE BUSES WITH NEW BUSES THAT MEET THE NEW HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCK AND BUS STANDARDS.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-5600 STATEWIDE CMAQ PROJECTS TO 0 31342 0 CMAQ C 15671 C 15671 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX IMPROVE AIR QUALITY WITHIN NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-5601 CMAQ PROJECTS TO IMPROVE AIR 0 4500 0 CMAQ C 2250 C 2250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EX QUALITY ACROSS MULTIPLE NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS C-9999 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AIR 0 240000 0 CMAQ 0 0 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 C 30000 0 EX QUALITY (CMAQ) PROGRAM BALANCE IN NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS.

ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS ER-5600 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - CLEAR 0 40000 0 STP C 4000 DIV C 4001 DIV C 4002 DIV C 4003 DIV C 4004 DIV C 4005 DIV C 4006 DIV C 4007 DIV C 4008 DIV C 4009 DIV 0 ZONE IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE.

DIV VEGETATION MANAGEMENT - CLEAR ZONE IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT STATEWIDE - IN PROGRESS IN PROGRESS

Non-Highway Program 57 September 2015 HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS M-0451 STATEWIDE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR 0 1112 412 T PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW PE 28 SW 0 SW STIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS T PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG PE 21 REG 0 T PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV PE 21 DIV 0

SW DIV STATEWIDE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR STIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SW REG STATEWIDE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR STIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS SW SW STATEWIDE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR STIP CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS (REST AREA)

STATEWIDE VARIOUS K-4704 REST AREA SYSTEM PRESERVATION. 0 4100 4100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW PAVEMENT, MARKING, CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER REHABILITATION ITEMS.

IN PROGRESS SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS PROJECTS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS SR-5000 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 6435 6435 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV PROGRAM. EDUCATIONAL, TRAINING AND OTHER NON- INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.

IN PROGRESS

STATEWIDE VARIOUS SR-5001 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 0 10926 10926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DIV PROGRAM. PROJECTS TO IMPROVE SAFETY, REDUCE TRAFFIC, FUEL CONSUMPTION AND AIR POLLUTION IN VICINITY OF SCHOOLS.

IN PROGRESS - $200,000 IN STPDA FUNDS ALLOCATED TO SR-5001C

Non-Highway Program 58 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS E-4018 NATIONAL RECREATIONAL TRAILS. 0 12645 645 TAP C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 C 1200 0 DIV

STATEWIDE VARIOUS EB-3314 STATEWIDE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 0 5260 5260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN PROGRAM.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS EB-4411 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BICYCLE SAFETY ON STATE AND LOCAL DESIGNATED BIKE ROUTES.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS EB-5542 STATEWIDE BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN 0 10000 0 STP PE 1000 PE 1001 PE 1002 PE 1003 PE 1004 PE 1005 PE 1006 PE 1007 PE 1008 PE 1009 0 DIV PROGRAM.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS ER-2971 SIDEWALK PROGRAM IN ALL 0 25408 25408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRN FOURTEEN HIGHWAY DIVISIONS.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TA-6520 SECTION 5317 NEW FREEDOM 0 443 443 FNF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF CAPITAL FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ACROSS THE STATE

STATEWIDE NCDOT FERRY DIVISION TA-6535 CAPITAL 0 789 789 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF FNF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STATEWIDE GREYHOUND LINES TI-6105 INTERCITY BUS SERVICE FROM 0 1402 1402 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF RALEIGH TO NORFOLK ALONG US 64 AND US 258 WITH STOPS AT FNU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RALEIGH, ROCKY MOUNT, AHOSKIE, AND SUFFOLK.

STATEWIDE GREYHOUND LINES TI-6106 INTERCITY BUS SERVICE FROM 0 1592 1592 FNU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF RALEIGH TO WILMINGTON ALONG US 70 AND US 117 WITH STOPS AT RALEIGH, SMITHFIELD, GOLDSBORO, WALLACE, AND WILMINGTON

Non-Highway Program 59 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE GREYHOUND LINES TI-6107 INTERCITY BUS SERVICE FROM 0 1910 1910 FNU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF RALEIGH TO JACKSONVILLE ALONG US 70 AND US 17 WITH STOPS AT RALEIGH, SMITHFIELD, GOLDSBORO, KINSTON, AND NEW BERN

STATEWIDE GREYHOUND LINES TI-6108 INTERCITY BUS SERVICE FROM 0 4081 4081 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF RALEIGH TO JACKSONVILLE VIA WILMINGTON ALONG US 70, US 117, FNU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AND US 17 AND FROM JACKSONVILLE TO MYRTLE BEACH VIA WILMINGTON ALONG US 17

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TK-4900Z STATE ADMINISTRATION - RURAL 0 17091 7446 FNU AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 AD 1945 0 0 0 HF AREA GENERAL PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TK-4902 STATE ADMINISTRATION OF 0 145 0 ADTAP AD 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

STATEWIDE SUB REGIONAL TM-5301 STATE ADMINISTRATION - JOB 0 5592 3092 JARC AD 500 AD 500 AD 500 AD 500 AD 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF ACCESS NON-URBAN

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TM-6155 OPERATING FUNDING FOR EXISTING 0 350 0 L O 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF PROJECTS STATEWIDE JARC O 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

STATEWIDE SUB REGIONAL TN-5112 STATE ADMINISTRATION - NEW 0 4270 2412 FNF AD 386 AD 386 AD 386 AD 386 AD 386 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF FREEDOM - 5317

STATEWIDE REGIONAL COORDINATED TP-4901 PLANNING ASSISTANCE - RESEARCH 0 7739 4139 S CP 120 CP 120 CP 120 CP 120 CP 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 AREA TRANSPORTATION HF SUPPORT ACTIVITIES FSPR CP 600 CP 600 CP 600 CP 600 CP 600 0 0 0 0 0 0

Non-Highway Program 60 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TP-4902 STATEWIDE SUPPORT TO UPDATE 0 3710 3010 FNU PL 700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF LOCAL COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PLANS - 5311

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TS-4900Z STATEWIDE TRAINING AND SUPPORT 0 1472 1057 RTAP AD 415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF SERVICES RTAP (RURAL, SMALL- URBAN, AND PARATRANSIT)

STATEWIDE STATEWIDE TS-7000 DEVELOP AND EMPLIMENT AN 0 844 844 SSO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HF ENHANCED STATE SAFETY OVERSIGHT PROGRAM

STATEWIDE REGIONAL COORDINATED TT-9702A TECHNOLOGY - ADMINISTRATION 0 50 50 UTCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AREA TRANSPORTATION HF (ITRE)

STATEWIDE SUB REGIONAL TV-4903 STATE ADMINISTRATION - ELDERLY 0 9959 5147 FEPD AD 262 AD 650 AD 650 AD 650 AD 650 AD 650 AD 650 AD 650 0 0 0 HF AND DISABLED PERSONS (FEDERAL PROGRAM)

PASSENGER RAIL PROJECTS

STATEWIDE NORTH CAROLINA C-5571 NCDOT PIEDMONT AND CAROLINIAN 0 1637 819 CMAQ I 818 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RAILROAD EX PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND AWARENESS PROGRAM.

STATEWIDE VARIOUS P-5602 STATEWIDE RAIL PRELIMINARY 0 10000 0 T PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW PE 300 SW 0 ENGINEERING T PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV PE 300 DIV 0 T PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG PE 300 REG 0

DIV STATEWIDE RAIL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REG STATEWIDE RAIL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SW STATEWIDE RAIL PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

Non-Highway Program 61 September 2015 NON HIGHWAY PROGRAM STATEWIDE

STATEWIDE VARIOUS Y-5500 TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY 0 30000 0 RR C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW C 1000 SW 0 IMPLEMENTATION AND CLOSURES RR R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW 0 RR C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG C 750 REG 0 RR R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG 0 RR C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV C 750 DIV 0 RR R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV 0

DIV TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY IMPLEMENTATION AND CLOSURES REG TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY IMPLEMENTATION AND CLOSURES SW TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY IMPLEMENTATION AND CLOSURES

STATEWIDE VARIOUS Z-5400 HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING 0 41817 7517 RR C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 1200 SW C 900 SW C 900 SW 0 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RR R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 200 SW R 150 SW R 150 SW 0 RR C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG C 900 REG 0 RR R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG R 150 REG 0 RR C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV C 900 DIV 0 RR R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV R 150 DIV 0

DIV HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS REG HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS SW HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

Non-Highway Program 62 September 2015 2016-2015 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Appendices

A. MPO Priorities 1. MPO Priority Needs List 2. SPOT Priority Rankings

B. NCDOT Funding Summary 1. Funding Summary 2. Funding Summary Source Descriptions

C. Regulatory Compliance & Air Quality

D. Public Comments

E. Adopting Resolution

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Appendix A: MPO Priorities SPOT Priority Rankings

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Introduction to MPO Priorities

This section includes the priority projects adopted by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and the ranking results of the projects submitted to NCDOT.

Priority Needs: 2016-2025 Transportation Improvement Program

Statewide Tier

Urban Loop Investment Priorities

U-2524D Western Urban Loop: Battleground to Construct project Lawndale (right of way acquired)

U-2525C Northern Urban Loop: US 29 to Acquire right of way Lawndale (design currently 75% complete) Construct project

Rail Improvement Priorities Franklin Blvd Grade Separation at the TBD Establish funding NCRR Ward Road Grade Separation at the TBD Establish funding NCRR TBD Hilltop Grade Separation at the NCRR Fund Grade Separation Study

Regional Tier

Roadway System Investment Priorities TBD US 29 S. O’Henry Blvd., US 220, US 70 Establish Funding Battleground Avenue Widening: TBD Establish Funding Cotswold Avenue to Westridge Road US 29 at Reedy Fork Parkway R-4707B Interchange Reconstruction and Schedule Right-of-way and Construction Widening NC 68 Widening: Market Street to South U-5607 Establish Funding of Pleasant Ridge Road Document Underway U-2581B / R-2910 US 70 Widening Fund Right-of-way

Planning for the transportation f u t u r e

LEAD PLANNING AGENCY: CITY OF GREENSBORO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 3136 GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27402-3136 ∙ 336 373-4368 ∙ fax 336 412-6171 ∙ www.guampo.org

Intersection Priorities TBD NC 150 / NC 68 Establish Funding

U-5306B Battleground Avenue at Westridge Road Establish Funding

Public Transportation Priorities

TBD PART: Vehicle Replacement & Expansion Establish Funding Needs

Division Tier

Roadway System Investment Priorities Church Street widening: Wendover TBD Establish Funding Avenue to Cone Boulevard Aycock Street Overpass Replacement U-5613 and Widening: Spring Garden to Lee Establish Funding Street Gallimore Dairy Road Widening: NC 68 U-4015 Establish Funding to I-40. Sandy Ridge Widening: I-40 to West TBD Establish Funding Market Street Greensboro/ High Point Road Widening U-2412A and New Location: Vickery Chapel Road Fund Construction to US 311 (High Point MPO)

Intersection Priorities

TBD Lawndale Drive at Pisgah Church Road Establish Funding

U-5326 West Market Street at Guilford College Fund Construction Road (100% Right-of-way acquired)

TBD Pisgah Church Road at Elm Street Establish Funding

Draft MPO Priority Needs, August 27, 2014 Page 2 of 3

Public Transportation Priorities

GTA: J. Douglas Galyon Depot Upgrades, Establish Funding TBD Modernization, and Capacity Expansion Project

TA-4771 GTA : Replacement Buses Fund additional bus replacements Fund additional paratransit bus TA-4914 GTA : Replacement Paratransit Buses replacements

Bicycle & Pedestrian Priorities Greensboro Area Pedestrian & Bicycle Fund projects ready for construction in the EL-5101 & U-5532 Projects including sidewalk construction short term and repair and greenway construction Atlantic & Yadkin Greenway Extension to EB-4709B Downtown Greensboro, including Phase 4 Establish Funding of the Downtown Greenway Priority Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects, including  Downtown Greenway, Phase 2 B, C, D  Lovett Street Sidewalks TBD Establish funding  Lees Chapel Road Sidewalks  Holden Road Sidewalks  Lindsay Street Sidewalk

Rail Improvement Priorities TBD Norfolk Southern Roundhouse Property Establish funding

Draft MPO Priority Needs, August 27, 2014 Page 3 of 3

2016-2025 Transportation Improvement Program: Assignment of Local Points

Background The Strategic Prioritization Process is the methodology NCDOT uses to rank and identify projects for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP includes a listing of transportation projects, their funding sources, and schedule for implementation. The Strategic Prioritization Process is primarily performance based and includes an evaluation of all modes as well as local input through the Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and NCDOT Division 7. The process was initiated in 2009 with Executive Order No.2 under NCDOT’s Transportation Reform.

Prioritization 3.0 will be a primary input for the Fiscal Years 2016-2020 TIP and the Developmental Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025. Projects funded during Fiscal Years 2016-2020 are considered committed, while projects funded after 2020 are considered developmental. Developmental projects may be subject to reprioritization under the Prioritization 4.0. Public Involvement Initial public involvement was held March 21st through April 21st and gave citizens the opportunity to comment on the MPO Proposed Project Ranking Methodology and Recommended Project list. The MPO Project Ranking Methodology was approved by the TAC on April 23rd following the public involvement period. The approved Methodology includes six primary steps. Step four of the Methodology, Assignment of Local Points, is based on both quantitative and qualitative factors.

The second round of public involvement, July 18th through August 18th, gave the citizens an opportunity to comment on the Draft Project Assignment of Local Points. As identified in Step Four, up to 100 points may be awarded to a project. The MPO has 1700 points available at the Regional and Division Tier. Assignment of 100 points to a project is the MPOs method for communicating top priority projects to NCDOT. As noted above, NCDOT also provides local input through the assignment of local points. NCDOT has 2500 points at the Regional and Division Tier that must be allocated across the five counties included in Division 7. The MPO worked closely with the NCDOT Division 7 Office to coordinate on the assignment of local points to priority projects.

A summary of public comments along with MPO responses is included in Appendix A. Assignment of Local Points The MPO’s assignment of local points is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative factors. The factors have been weighted to reflect their relative importance. Factors include:

1. Relative performance in NCDOT’s quantitative scoring process 40% 2. Relative performance in MPO’s quantitative scoring process 10% 3. Identified on the MPO Priority List 15% 4. Feasibility of obtaining funding and construction of project 15% during fiscal years 2016-2020 5. Impact to local budget 10% 6. Impact to economic development 10%

The Project Assignment of Local Points is shown in the tables below. Table 1 reflects projects funded at the Statewide Tier. This table includes highway and aviation projects. These projects are not assigned any local points as they have already been selected for funding. Table 2 is for the Regional Tier projects (includes unfunded Statewide Projects that cascaded down) and the Table 3 includes the Division Tier projects (includes unfunded Regional Projects that cascaded down). The projects have been sorted by mode for easier review. The tables only include projects assigned a 100 points. Maps 1 and 2 respectively show the location for the Regional and Division Tiers projects assigned a 100 points. It is also important to note individual funding sources are available for bicycle/ pedestrian projects and public transportation projects. Roadway and rail projects compete for the same funding. Aviation projects received funding under the Statewide Tier in fiscal years 16-20 and therefore have not been considered under the Regional or Division Tiers. Note: Tables 2 and 3 have been revised to 1) include projects that were allocated points after the public comment period, and 2) include revisions to Total Scores due to changes in the final MPO or NCDOT point allocations.

MPO Scoring Criteria 2 August 27, 2014 TABLE 1 Funded Statewide Tier Projects

Statewide Regional Division Statewide Division Regional Rank Tier Mode Facility Description Scoring Scoring Scoring Rank Rank NCDOT Cost (Out of 185) (Out of 100) (Out of 70) (Out of 50) (Out of 516) (Out of 191) I-40/ Sandy Ridge Funded for ROW in FY 19 and Construction Statewide Highway Interchange Reconfiguration. Constructing Loops. 80.28 63.56 46.06 $ 2,175,000 (I-5712) in FY 20. Western Loop Funded for Construction in FY 16. (GARVEE Statewide Highway US 220 (Battleground Ave.) to Lawndale Drive 53.56 39.10 24.50 $ 54,600,000 (U-2524D) Project)

Eastern Loop Funded for ROW in FY 16 and Construction Statewide Highway Lawndale Drive to US 29 53.56 39.10 24.50 $ 162,145,000 (U-2525C) in FY 19. (Impacted by Corridor Cap)

Piedmont Triad Extend Runway 5R-23L toward Old Oak Ridge Funded for Construction in FY 19. Statewide Aviation International Airport Road. 75.31 55.26 41.00 $ 500,000 ($20,000,000) (AV-5701) Taxiway G. The purpose of this project is construct Piedmont Triad the parallel taxiway to Runway 5L-23R. This Funded for Construction in FY 16. Statewide Aviation International Airport 64.33 44.36 32.77 $ 500,000 project will allow access from developments from ($15,900,000) (AV-5707) the northwest of the airfield.

Piedmont Triad This Taxiway be constructed over I-73 (I-5110) to Funded for Construction in FY 15. Statewide Aviation International Airport provide airfield access to approximately 500 acres 64.27 44.33 32.75 $ 500,000 ($15,500,000) (AV-5708) on the north side of I-73. Piedmont Triad The purpose of this is to update the SMGCS on the Funded for Construction in FY 17. Statewide Aviation International Airport airfield. 62.05 40.82 29.54 $ 500,000 ($8,000,000) (AV-5711) Piedmont Triad Runway 5R-23L. The purpose of this is to upgrade Funded for Construction in FY 20. Statewide Aviation International Airport portions of our facility to Group VI requirements. 60.28 42.34 31.58 $ 500,000 ($10,000,000) (AV-5715) Piedmont Triad The purpose of this is to construct a high speed Funded for Construction in FY 18. Statewide Aviation International Airport taxiway between Runway 5R-23L and Taxiway K. 58.56 42.68 30.85 $ 500,000 ($3,000,000) (AV-5718)

Project Assignment of Local Points, July - August 2014 3 TABLE 2 Recommended Project Assignment of Local Points Aviation, Highway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Rail

REGIONAL TIER

Map ID Regional NCDOT MPO Point NCDOT Point Total Tier Mode Facility (Projects w/ Point Description Scoring * Cost Allocations** Allocations** Score Allocations Only) (Out of 70) Estimate

Battleground Avenue Regional Highway 1 Intersection Improvements at Westrigde. 59.76 $3,530,000 100 74.76 (U-5306B)

Intersection Improvements including adding Regional Highway NC 150/ NC 68 2 42.15 $698,000 100 100 72.15 crosswalks. From I-40/ I-85 to South of Florida Street. Widen one lane on exit ramp from I-40 East to US29 US-29 S. O'henry Blvd, Statewide Highway 3 North from one lane to two lanes. This will 37.73 $17,640,000 100 100 67.73 US-220 , US-70 require replacing one bridge. Extend southbound U29 to US421 exit ramp. Cotswold Avenue to Westridge Road. Widen Regional Highway Battleground Avenue 4 27.29 $15,875,000 100 100 57.29 Facility. US 29/ Reedy Fork Full Interchange Replacement at Reedy Fork Statewide Highway Interchange 5 Parkway. Construct full interchange and roadway 23.85 $45,082,000 100 100 53.85 (R-4707B) improvements. Market Street to south of Pleasant Ridge. Widen Statewide Highway NC 68 (U-5607) 6 20.88 $23,650,000 100 100 50.88 Facility. Statewide Highway US-29 , NC-150 7 Upgrade Partial Cloverleaf to Diamond 20.59 $540,000 100 100 50.59 Airport Connector I-74 in Winston-Salem to I-73 in Greensboro. Regional Highway 8 31.89 $102,789,000 93 45.84 (I-4924) Construct Facility on New Location. Linville Road (Forsyth County) to West of Sandy Statewide Highway US 421 (R-952B) 9 19.09 $47,538,000 22 22.39 Ridge Road. Pavement and Bridge Rehabilitation. Rock Creek Dairy Road to Westbrook Avenue. Regional Highway US 70 (R-2910) 10 18.23 $39,375,000 100 33.23 Widen Facility. Belews Creek Road (Forsyth Co.) to Anthony Statewide Highway US 158 (R-2577B) 11 18.05 $42,900,000 14 20.15 Road.Widen Facility. Mount Hope Church Road to Rock Creek Dairy. Regional Highway US 70 (U-2581B) 12 16.67 $30,900,000 100 31.67 Widen Facility. Statewide Rail Franklin Boulevard 13 Grade Separation at NCRR 22.55 $10,310,000 100 100 52.55 Grade separation at Ward Road crossing in Statewide Rail Ward Rd*** 14 12.42 $4,916,500 100 100 42.42 Greensboro. *70 % of the Total Score **15% of the Total Score ***Points allocated to the project after the Public Review Period Yellow highlighted projects' Total Score changed after August 27, 2014. Score changed due to revisions to point allocations shown in red.

Project Assignment of Local Points, July- August 2014 4 TABLE 2 Recommended Project Assignment of Local Points Aviation, Highway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Rail

REGIONAL TIER

Map ID Regional NCDOT MPO Point NCDOT Point Total Tier Mode Facility (Projects w/ Point Description Scoring * Cost Allocations** Allocations** Score Allocations Only) (Out of 70) Estimate

Expansion fleet vehicles - Eight 40' Bus to expand PART Greensboro Regional Transit passenger capacity on PART Express system $8,000 100 23.58 Express*** 15 operating on route corridor Greensboro Express. 8.58

Expansion fleet vehicle - LTV to expand collector and shuttle vehicle fleet to meet local service Regional Transit $8,000 100 24.65 demands in and around the Airport Area and the PART Airport Area newly developed Veterans Hospital in Kernersville. Hub Shuttle Service In addition, business park service and deviated fixed LTV #3 FY16 16 route services along the Hwy. 68 corridor. 9.65

Two Support Vehicles to provide daily PART Support Vehicle - Regional Transit maintenance and supervisory functions related to $8,000 100 19.97 Greensboro*** 17 PART Express services. 4.97 *70 % of the Total Score **15% of the Total Score ***Points allocated to the project after the Public Review Period Yellow highlighted projects' Total Score changed after August 27, 2014. Score changed due to revisions to point allocations shown in red.

Project Assignment of Local Points, July- August 2014 5 D D MAP 1 R 158 R £ ¤ K Y N Y C W T 65 H T Y N O ") 8 I 5 W C R H 1 W Assignment of Local Points

S 50 6 1 1 150 H U1 C " 1 U N ) G H I S E GGETT RD DO W H C Regional Tier Stokesdale 2 D H 7 2 Y

150 %2 0 U N ") R E D L C H R Map ID Facility Description L T H I I D D M M R 9 S R GE V R S 2 61 ID Summerfield C E K R Y N ") R T R OA S L U E E T D U E 1 IV C R A N R P N L N

E A IN A D W F S SOCKWELL R

Y G I A RD EL K D V H N D R I 29 A D I KB ¤£ L 2

O R L BRO E

T 5

N %2 R

A D

S 2 BUNCH RD D A %2 220 R £ E ¤ RD L 3 L ONE Oak Ridge HIC IL P M FRIE B D E EN C E N HU I RC E H D F RD 150 S F ") R

O U O N N L H 4 O N D R T O C D A S 4 K I H RD U L R W IL I T M 5 E R H D F NIG D RD G L C K R ON L MC ST ARM E 1 H E C E V 8 R %2 AR H D M S T I D N 6

R G

R V T F U 73 O D A S B § T U ¨¦ D 15, 16, 17 N 7 S9 3 T 6 40 I H U R K 7 E S R - T M

I Greensboro I

N E

W S V M L 1 LY A 70 2 M IEND E 220 £ 14 FR U ¤ I A W G - ¤£ M 13 I-4 R D S 8 8 N kj 0 K L W E L 220 kj 4 E 0 3 0 T E 1 O Sedalia ¤£ S 7 B

- T N H

40 E

N T ¨¦§ N 840

S MC N CO 0E 73 4 NNELL RD ¨¦§ I-85N\ 9 68 ¨¦§ E ") M 40 T 85 D L 70 ¨¦§ 421 V T ¤£ 0E ¨¦§ A R E \4

¤£ R N VE T S 85 O S S D N T U 10 EN I B µ W O M W P T 3 40 H %2 H ¨¦§ I- D D O IG 4

0 R R 11

T P

W I H E

- 40 E N 7 C ¨¦§ E

3 E

A H S

G N

M U E

E A R S 12

5 E L R E

L A 8 G O M C S K D I 85 U H - O A 73 I- U N S N § E 7 B ¨ M C R N 13 3 - WILEY LEWIS RD E 70 A D C E

£ M C ¤S N R H D 6 T

L 85 0 U E R 1 O 14 2 R H E R

S 85 C O W W U 2 H T S B S ¨¦§ R S Y

S T N D OL U D H E R R K RS LA D ITTE U R 15 S

Recommended 2 LIB 2 E 0 R N SPU T E R RD Y 2 Projects R 6 D D D C R N R C 16 Pleasant Garden T O E T 73 421 B K E %2 Interchange/Intersection ¨¦§ ¤£ L N A E N R C 73 A O D ¨¦§ P H K M U Rail P I kj D M O R

220 R C E M ¤£ U H S L A S D 17 V L T R I R 4 I T D L Transit D M O 2 N

R 1 A 62 X I E S " I H )

T L R R V W N D U D A J U Y S Highway D D MITHWOOD R

H D W L 62 62 C " 0 2 E 1.5 O 3 6 N ) NC 6 Miles September 2014 TABLE 3 Recommended Project Assignment of Local Points Aviation, Highway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Rail

DIVISION TIER

Map ID Division NCDOT MPO Point NCDOT Point Tier Mode Facility (Projects w/ Point Description Scoring* Cost Total Score Allocations** Allocations** Allocations Only) (Out of 50) Estimate

Division Highway Lawndale Drive 1 Intersection Improvements at Pisgah Church Road. 43.32 $930,000 100 50.00 80.82 West Market Street Intersection Improvements at Guilford College Division Highway 2 40.71 $1,860,000 100 50.00 78.21 (U-5326) Road. Wendover Avenue to Lindell Road. Widen Facility. Division Highway Friendly Avenue 3 37.97 $233,000 100 50.00 75.47 (includes culvert replacement) Division Highway Pisgah Church Road 4 Intersection improvements at Elm Street. 35.48 $930,000 100 50.00 72.98 Battleground Avenue Regional Highway 5 Intersection Improvements at Westrigde. 45.97 $3,530,000 100 70.97 (U-5306B)

Division Highway Randleman Road 6 Glendale Drive to Elmsley Drive. Widen Facility. 19.64 $2,158,000 100 90.00 67.14

Benjamin Parkway / Division Highway 7 Holden Road to Wendover Avenue. Widen Facility. 18.89 $13,416,000 100 92.00 66.89 Bryan Boulevard Aycock Street Spring Garden Street to Lee Street. Replace Railroad Division Highway 8 18.44 $1,844,000 100 96.00 67.44 (U-5613) Overpass and Widen Facility. Wendover Avenue to Cone Boulevard. Widen Division Highway Church Street 9 17.99 $15,771,000 100 96.00 66.99 Facility. Intersection Improvements including adding Regional Highway NC 150/ NC 68 10 32.60 $698,000 75 51.35 crosswalks. Cotswold Avenue to Westridge Road. Widen Regional Highway Battleground Avenue 11 22.02 $15,875,000 100 47.02 Facility. West Market Street Division Highway 12 Bunker Hill to Forsyth County Line. Widen Facility. 11.86 $26,763,000 25 76.00 37.11 (U-3617)*** *50 % of the Total Score **25% of the Total Score ***Points allocated to the project after the Public Review Period Yellow highlighted projects' Total Score changed after August 27, 2014. Score changed due to revisions to point allocations shown in red.

Project Assignment of Local Points, July - August 2014 6 TABLE 3 Recommended Project Assignment of Local Points Aviation, Highway, Pedestrian, Bicycle, Rail

DIVISION TIER

Map ID Division NCDOT MPO Point NCDOT Point Tier Mode Facility (Projects w/ Point Description Scoring* Cost Total Score Allocations** Allocations** Allocations Only) (Out of 50) Estimate

Pestrian/ Downtown Greenway, Along Murrow Blvd and Fisher Ave from Lee St to Division 43.38 $500,000 100 100.00 93.38 Bicycle Phase B, C, D 13 Greene St. West side: Florida Street to Freeman Mill Road. Division Pedestrian East side: Florida Street to existing sidewalk north 41.31 $286,810 100 77.00 85.56 Lovett Street 14 of Freeman Mill Road. Church St to Yanceyville St both sides where none Division Pedestrian 40.77 $144,400 100 77.00 85.02 Lees Chapel Road 15 exist. Construct sidewalk from Spring Garden St to 860' Division Pedestrian 40.10 $204,000 100 77.00 84.35 Holden Road 16 south of Meadowview Rd, west side only.

Division Pedestrian West side from Bessemer Ave to Murrow Blvd. 40.10 $170,000 100 77.00 84.35 Lindsay Street 17 North side from Lendew St to Battleground Ave and Division Pedestrian south side from Westover Terr to Battleground 38.23 $110,000 0.00 38.23 Green Valley Road 18 Ave. Convert the NS Roundhouse property adjacent to the Greensboro IMF into a parking lot with 140 spaces for international containers to accommodate growing container volumes. The paved parking lot Norfolk Southern Division Rail 19 will be approximately 4 acres and the project cost 32.00 $847,500 100 100.00 82.00 Roundhouse Property includes a security fence, pole mounted lighting, and a new asphalt entrance into the parking area. The parking expansion will increase the volume throughput by 50%. *50 % of the Total Score **25% of the Total Score Yellow highlighted projects' Total Score changed after August 27, 2014. Score changed due to revisions to point allocations shown in red.

Project Assignment of Local Points, July - August 2014 7 D

Y N Y T W H T N 8 I Y 15 HW C MAP 2 W 0 S 15 6 U C 1 U N S E DOGGETT RD H Stokesdale C W

2 D H AY ssignment of Local Points 2

0 U N R E

L D C R Division Tier L TH H I I D D M M R 9 S E V R G 2 R ID S C E K R Y RN R Summerfield T OA S L U E E T D U E Map IV C R A Facility Description N R P N LA N I.D. E IN A W F S

Y G I A RD EL K D V Intersection Improvements at Pisgah H N D R A I D I 1 Lawndale Drive KB L O R Church Rd. L RO B E T West Market Street Intersection Improvements at

N R 2

A (U-5326) Guilford College Rd. D 10 BUNCH RD S D A Wendover Ave to Lindell Rd. Widen L% R Friendly Avenue E 3 RD L Facility. (includes culvert replacement) Oak Ridge L ONE HIC IL

P M FR4IE Pisgah Church Road Intersection improvements at Elm St. B D E EN C E N HU I BaRttCleground Intersection Improvements at E H D F 5 RD S F Avenue (U-5306B) Westridge. R

O U O N 5 N L 1 H Glendale Dr to Elmsley Dr. Widen O N 6 Randleman Road D R O T Facility. 4 C D A S 1 K I 1 L% H RD Benjamin Parkway/ H o l d e n R d t o Wendover Ave. Widen U LL R W T MI 7 I E R H Bryan Boulevard Facility. D F NIG D RD G L C K R ON L C E 5 M EST CARM Aycock Street Spring Garden St to Lee St. Replace E H V R L% 1 AR H 8 D M L% S (U-5613) Railroad Overpass and Widen Facility.

I T

D N Wendover Ave. to Cone Blvd.

G R 12 9 Church Street

X Widen Facility.

R F V T 9 U O D A S B T Intersection Improvements including U D N S 3 7 T NC 150/ NC 68 40 I H U 10 R K 7 18 crosswalks. E S R - T M

I W N Greensboro E S M V L LY A Battleground Cotswold Avenue to Westridge M D E FRIEN U I A W 7 G - 11

M D S 8 I-4 R 3 1 Avenue Road. Widen Facility. N 0 K L 4 W E L

E 0 3 T E O West Market Street I-40 to West Market St. Widen

S 7 B

- T N 12 H

I 3 E (U-3617) Facility.

T 2 N N

L% S MC N CO 0E Downtown µ NNEL 5N\4 L RD I-8 Along Murrow Blvd and Fisher Ave E M 13 Greenway, 1 T D 8 L from Lee St to Greene St. V 6 T E A R % E 40 Phase B, C, D

L \ R N VE T S 85 O S S D 19 N T U West side: Florida St to Freeman Mill EN kj I 1 B W M W O 4 14 Lovett Street Rd. East side: Florida St to existing P T

H H sidewalk north of Freeman Mill Rd. I D D O IG -4

0 R R T P W I H E

S Church St to Yanceyville St both sides - E N 7

C 15 Lees Chapel Road E

3 A E

H where none exist. S G

M U E

E A R S 5 E L R E Construct sidewalk from Spring Garden L A 8 G O M C S K I D U H -7 O I U A Holden Road St to 860' south of Meadowview Rd, 3 - N 16 N 7 B E M C R 3 - WILEY LEWIS RD E A D west side only. E

M C

S N R H D T

L 85 0 U E R West side from Bessemer Ave to O R 2

E R

S C 17 O Lindsay Street 2 T W U 6 H S Murrow Blvd. B S R S

S T Recommended Projects N D OL

U D H E R North side from Lendew St to R K RS LA D TTE 18 Green Valley Road Battleground Ave and south side from U RI L% Interchange / Intersection S Westover Terr to Battleground Ave. L 2 IB 2 E Norfolk Southern Convert the NS Roundhouse 0 RT N SPUR RD Y kj Rail R 19 Roundhouse property adjacent to the Greensboro D D D Property IMF into a parking lot R R C

Highway T O E T B K E Pleasant Garden N L A E N R C Pedestrian A O D P H M P U D O R R C Bicyle and Pedestrian M U H L 0 A 1.25 2.5 S 5 D L T R I R

T 4 D September 2014 D M O 2 MileNs

R 1 A X S I

I H T R L

V W N D U

A J

U Y

D D SMITHWOOD

H RD W L 62 NC NC 62 E O

APPENDIX A

Public Involvement

Prioritization 3.0

MPO Assignment of Local Points Public Review Comment Summary July 18th - August 18th, 2014

The Greensboro Urban Area MPO appreciates the public comments submitted through the online survey, email, or by written letter. The over 40 comments have been summarized below and will be shared with TCC and TAC members. Detailed MPO responses are shown below.

Survey Responses Received

1. What do you believe is the greatest transportation need for the Greensboro Urban Area? (such as roadway widening, sidewalks, bike lanes, expanded GTA or PART routes,etc.)

Roadways General  Turning lanes  Maintain what we have in place.  Road way maintenance and improvements  Road improvement  All depending on location and needs

MPO Response: The MPO supports maintenance of existing infrastructure through evaluation and analysis in the Long Range Transportation Plan and the Congestion Management Plan. The MPO has also supported maintenance related projects financially. Thank you for your comment and the MPO will continue focus on maintaining the area’s existing infrastructure.

Specific Improvement Requests  Making I-40 and I-85 handle through and most traffic. Finish NC68 to 220 connector. Finish northern loop.  Route 68 from Route 220 to Route 40 needs to be all 4 lane to support freight traffic.  Roadway Widening (4 responses)  Widening 68  Widening Hwy 68 from Pleasant Ridge to Stokesdale  Highway 68 widening/decongestion between I40 and at least Oak Ridge.  Getting trucks off of Highway 68. Death trap! Finishing the loop for easier means of getting around Greensboro and surrounding communities.

MPO Response: The MPO is continuously evaluating the roadway system. Several projects are under construction in the MPO area with expecting completion dates between 2016 and 2017. The MPO will continue to submit NC 68 to NCDOT to acquire funding.

Public Involvement 5 July – August 2014

Against R-2577 (US 158)  Just Say No to R-2577, and the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale—the project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577!” ( 4 responses)

MPO Response: The MPO will continue evaluating the project need and scope under the environmental document process in cooperation with NCDOT. The MPO and NCDOT will continue to take public comments into consideration during the process.

Public Transportation General  More Public Transportation  Make available city transportation on current roadway.  I think that there is a significant need to help people access public transportation to meet scheduled needs, such as working several shifts and public transportation to help people get to places safely

MPO Response: The MPO supports existing and expansion of public transportation as shown in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The MPO will continue to support public transportation through technical and financial support.

PART Route Requests  PART route to Stokesdale. I have called them several times and left messages but they will not return phone calls from the Mayor of Stokesdale. Fire whoever is in charge. My problem with it is, PART asked for new route suggestions.  PART routes.  Part routes to NW Guilford County

MPO Response: Your comments will be shared with the staff at PART.

Bicycle and Pedestrian  Sidewalks (7 responses)  Certain highways should be widened and adding more bike lanes (3 responses)  Bike Lanes (7 responses)  Sidewalks and bike lanes as an adjoining unit (1 response)  Sidewalks and well marked crosswalks to allow pedestrian traffic to access shopping and eating,etc  I also think that pedestrians need support with clear signs in certain places, including billboards and other things for driver awareness of pedestrians.  Sidewalks and bike lanes I feel are most important. People are riding bikes more and more for pleasure and transportation purposes. We need to make it safer for everyone involved by providing areas for riders and walkers so they are not on the road.  Improving existing facilities to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian use.

Public Involvement 6 July – August 2014

MPO Response: The MPO continues to support bicycle and pedestrian projects through detailed analysis, partnering with other organizations, and promoting it through various avenues. General  To preserve the small town atmosphere.  To make cycling, walking, and mass transit feasibility an integral part of land use planning.

2. Which projects on the Project list do you believe are the most important? Please explain.

NC 68  U5607, traffic on 68 is very bad and why this and 68 to 220 connector is needed.  Widening roads like N HWY 68 from Greensboro  Highway 68 needs to be widened and Need to complete 220/73 Project  Widen 68 up to old oak ridge road. Lots of traffic  Highway 68 widening/decongestion between I40 and at least Oak Ridge.

MPO Response: The MPO has identified improvements for NC 68 in the Long Range Transportation Plan. The MPO will continue to submit a project to widen NC 68 to NCDOT to acquire funding.

Against or Least Important R-2577  Just Say No to R-2577, and the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale—the project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577!” (7 responses)  Please remove R-2577 from the list. This bypass is not necessary with the new highway through Summerfield and the 73/74 corridor around Greensboro. This type road through Stokesdale @55 mph, stop lights and driveway access will not "Bypass" but create a dangerous type road that will cost our fire department, relocate ( at Stokesdale’s expense) our main water line all the way up 158, destroy hundreds, if not thousands of acres of priceless NC farm land. PLEASE!! __Go to Winston Salem and get on 158 east @ I-40 and time your journey through Walkertown to Stokesdale-all the way to highway 29 in Reidsville. Then, get on 29 south_ and drive back to Winston by I-40w where you started and you will convince yourself that this R-2577 is the biggest waste of tax payer dollars and will destroy 1000's of acres of precious NC farmland. A by-pass is designed to cut time from your travels. R-2577 started out to be a by-pass and now the plan looks like a wendover/battleground on steroids! Thankyou!!' for your service and taking the time to read this rant.  Project R-2577 should not be on the list at all  Stokesdale Bypass is least important  The Stokesdale 158 By-pass should be the least important. Other priorities are more important. I don't know the Project numbers. There are sufficient connections for trucks south of Stokesdale RTs(158 & 220 connector) without creating another

Public Involvement 7 July – August 2014

disruption closer to Stokesdale. Stokesdale residents don't want a BiPass around Stokesdale. Whyspend money on something the citizens don't want !  I don't have a specific project that I think is the most important at this time. I do however have a project I would like taken off the list, which is R-2577. I don't believe 158 needs to widened because much of the 158 trafic will move to the other bypasses that are planned and underway.

Urban Loop  The by-pass around Greensboro  Greensboro Urban Loop  Loop

MPO Response: The remaining sections of the Urban from US 220 to Lawndale Drive and Lawndale Drive to US 29 have been selected to receive funding by NCDOT. Construction is expected to start in 2016 and 2019, respectively for each segment.

NC 150/ NC 68  NC 150/ NC 68 Intersection Improvements including adding crosswalks.  NC 68/ NC 150 intersection can improve safety, allow safer pedestrian access between military academy and shopping center

MPO Response: The MPO supports the project and expect it should be funded based on its project ranking and relatively low cost.

Bicycle and Pedestrian    I believe road widening because a number of cyclists have been killed on the roads and the roads are very narrow with sometimes no shoulder at all. Also, the edge of the roads are deteriorating causing holes in turn causing damage to vehicles.  I think that pedestrians and bikers need a lot of support because we are vulnerable around cars to the point of death and significant injury. I've been run over and know of other people who have been killed and injured due to cars hitting us.  Greenway, sidewalks   Bike lanes    Downtown Greenway. This is a major hub that needs to be completed as soon as possible to connect biking and walking trails generating a regional impact and expedite economic development and healthy infill development.  Bike lanes

MPO Response: The MPO continues to support bicycle and pedestrian projects through detailed analysis, partnering with other organizations, and promoting it through various avenues.  

Public Involvement 8 July – August 2014

The MPO continues make safety a focus area for both cyclists and pedestrian through technical analysis and public outreach. Currently the MPO is participating in the Watch For Me NC program in cooperation with NCDOT. The program is a statewide pedestrian and bicycle safety campaign.

Other  220 expansion  220 68 bypass. Should have been built years ago  MPO should make sure to place geographical signage for drivers.  NEW High School. Current High Schools are overcrowded with students.

3. Are there other projects that you believe should have been included on the MPO’s Project List? If so, please list.

 No (5 responses)

NC 68  Highway 68 widening/decongestion between I40 and at least Oak Ridge.  NC68 should be widened and improved from Oakridge south to Edgefield Rd.

Public Transportation  I'm not sure at this point. I just want everyone's voice to be heard, especially those of us who are vulnerable with transportation.

Bicycle and Pedestrian  More bike lanes  Multiuse (bike, pedestrian, horse, etc.) paths throughout the County.  Widen HW-68 through OakRidge  Expansion of public trails for biking and walking  I think trails should also be included.

Other  Just Say No to R-2577, and the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale—the project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577!” (7 responses)  All I've been told about is the bypass around Stokesdale so I served on a town committee that recommended the MPO put it at the bottom of the priority list because there are other ways for truckers to get around Stokesdale

MPO Response: The MPO actively seeks to identify funding for all modes of transportation by working closely with NCDOT and partnering with other agencies.

Public Involvement 9 July – August 2014

4. Please rank the following factor’s importance to you using a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the most important

Support Economic Development 3.41

Reduce Congestion 3.26

Improve Acessibility 3.00

Improve Transportation Choices(sidewalks, 2.98 bicycle facilities, transit,etc.)

Support Freight 2.77

5. Please rank the following modes importance to you using a scale of 1-6, with 1 being the most important. Roadways 4.35

Pedestrian Facilities 3.66 Public 3.56 Transportation Bicycle Facilities 3.55 Aviation (PTIA 3.47 Improvements) Rail 2.92

Public Involvement 10 July – August 2014

6. Do you agree with the Recommended Project Assignment of local points?

7.7% Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neutral 25.6% 51.3% Agree

Strongly Agree

15.4%

7. If you disagree, please state your reasons.

R-2577 ( US 158)  Just Say No to R-2577, and the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale—the project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577!” (10 responses)  The projected path goes through established neighborhoods. The project is not even needed. It will destroy businesses and homes.  Projects like R2577 (B&C) are not needed since people use Interstates while these roads should be mostly local roads. Expand interstates, stop wasting money on US highways which only destroy small towns and not needed. R-2577C will be a major impact to historic Stokesdale and is not needed!  Highway 158 bypass is going to destroy my neighborhood, literally through my yard. Just widen current 158 and save our homes.  I disagree withe the Hwy 158 bypass around Stokesdale which is project R-2577. I do not think it is needed and it will destroy homes and neighborhoods.  R-2577 C does not need to happen. The community does not want this road. It will destroy the town of Stokesdale and lower our property values.  R-2577C is not needed. The wide ing of hwy 158 is not a project that is needed at this time. It will cause a big disruption of the twos of Stokesdale. When the new roads already under construction are completed much of the traffic coming through Stokesdale now will be automatically rerouted to the new roads. Please vote no for R - 2577C  We selected this area for it's distance from city busy traffic and decrease of highway noise. We treasure our local town's heritage. We hope it's growth will not be disrupted or damaged by expanding Rt 158, taking away our area's appeal.  Should remove R-2577 project, specifically part C (new bypass around Stokesdale), as it will not add value, but instead will destroy homes and businesses.  R-2577 will remove homes, neighborhoods, stores and impact the most families.  Anything associated with project R2577 should be eliminated.

Public Involvement 11 July – August 2014

General  Too much emphasis on highways and bypasses.  So many roads going nowhere  Does not consider the impact on current residences.  Gives as advantage to commercial rather than residential interests.  I think that they leave the Southeast part of the County/City out all the time. Look at the map every time, we are always left out. Why is that??? I get very upset I do not see anything in the Southeast.  Agree with question 6, but concerned about the ranking of NC 150/ NC 68 intersection project variance between Regional and Division Tiers.

MPO Response: The MPO does short and long term planning for all transportation modes with the exception of aviation. However, there is an emphasis on the roadway mode. A majority of the federal and state funding is designated for roadways.

The MPO is required to consider both the human and natural environment when considering a project. This analysis takes place initially at the Long Range Transportation Plan phase and in more detailed during the project development phase.

The MPO evaluates the entire urban area, including the southeast area, for projects that will meet the NCDOT performance measures. Many of the measures are focused on congestion or high density areas. The interchange project at Neeley Road (R-2612B) is expected to be completed by the end of 2016.

8. Please provide any additional comments.

R-2577 ( US 158)  Too many road projects done only to not have much traffic on them. Use better and more statistical sampling and better modeling. Focus on interstates to move through traffic and trucking traffic.  Just Say No to R-2577, and the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale—the project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577 (15 responses)  We were so fortunate to be able to buy a house in Stokesdale (Providence North) where we have the best of both worlds - ‘country’ living in Stokesdale with easy access, just minutes away from a great busy city, Greensboro. Expanding 158 would take the small town living away from us and many others, bringing the unwanted big city to our front doors. Homes, businesses, small towns should not be changed/destroyed to expand yet another road into Greensboro. Say NO to R-2577, especially R-2577C the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale. The project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut a small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577C! Public Involvement 12 July – August 2014

 Agree with several of the higher priority items. But strongly disagree with project R- 2577  We do not want Highway 158 widened/redirected through or around Stokesdale. We do not believe it is needed and will have a negative impact on our town. We would like to see it removed from the list of projects. Please remove R-2577. (3 responses)

General  This survey is biased towards commercial interests and does not include questions on adverse impacts.  There are very few alternatives that consider residential interests. This survey is very business/ development focused. How about sending out broader based survey which includes residential concerns.  Look at he Southeast more, near Alamance Church Road, Liberty Road, everything done in the Southeast area needs to be looked at  I can't comment on the Local Point Assignment because I don't understand. I need to talk to someone in order to understand it, so that I can provide feedback.

Written Comments Received

Against R-2577 (US 158 )

Comment 1:

August 15, 2014 Rodney G. & Patricia R. Brown

Attn Lydia McIntyre Greensboro Department of Transportation P.O. Box 3136 Greensboro, NC 27402-3136

Dear Ms. McIntyre,

We are expressing our opinions to say NO to R-2577, especially R-2577C the Highway 158 bypass around Stokesdale. The project is not needed and will have a negative impact on the citizens of Stokesdale. The project will needlessly destroy businesses and homes and has the potential to cut this small town farming community in half. Just say no to R-2577C!

The amount of money spent on this project will not have a significant positive economic impact on the area. This is especially true when taking into account the road improvement currently under construction on US 220 and the I-73 I I-40 connector that is part of this same project.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Public Involvement 13 July – August 2014

Regards,

Rodney G. Brown & Patricia R Brown

Against I- 4924 (Airport Connector) Comment 2: August 13, 2014

Dear Greensboro MPO Officials.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization's Project Prioritization Plan for surface transportation in our general "Triad" region. We appreciate the extensive degree of planning, coordinating, funding and then construction of the number of transportation elements that go into this multi-year plan.

We also appreciate the opportunity for residents of our areas to provide inputs through surveys and comments as we will be directly impacted by these plans- hopefully in a positive way. New road development has a negative impact on those who own tracts of land (farmers) and neighborhoods directly affected when the proposed roadways run through farmlands and through, near or around residential areas. Thus these written comments come from Guilford County residents that will be negatively impacted by the proposed I-73-74 Airport Connector, project# 1-4924.

In looking at the placement of this Airport Connector, it will traverse through prime Colfax farmland in some locations, run directly adjacent to the large Pheasant Ridge neighborhood in Colfax, will come about 1/3rd of a mile SE of our Stafford Ridge neighborhood in Oak Ridge, will split in-half the nearby neighborhood of Ridgecrest in Kernersville as the roadway continues its path through other residences, beautiful rural woods and farmlands in Kernersville until it eventually ties-into the 1-74 beltway around Winston-Salem.

As it is now, we hear plenty of truck and "road noise" coming from 1-40 and the under-expansion Rte. 421 from Greensboro through Colfax to Kernersville. Having another, redundant 4 to 6 lane highway - paralleling both 1-40 and Business 40/421 to the Winston-Salem 174 loop -will just create more highway noise pollution for us residents in this beautiful, rural, Colfax/Oak Ridge/Kernersville area. And with the 6 and 4 lane highways currently moving through this area- we already have excellent highway access to Greensboro, Kernersville and Winston-Salem. With the future Project Plan tying both 1-40 and Business 40/421 to the 174 Winston-Salem beltway, we would recommend that future enhancements to existing roadways be considered rather than clearing rural/residential land and tarring another 4 to 6 lane highway through our beautiful, rural farm and residential areas.

Lastly when it comes to local, County, State and Federal tax dollars available to fund future roadway projects, from most accounts, those funding sources are diminishing. With that reality, we would strongly recommend to the Greensboro Urban Area MPO that you delete the proposed 173-74 connector project and apply potential out year funds to enhance existing roadways from this area to the proposed 174 beltway. Such a move will preserve the quality of the residential areas noted above, will preserve farmland that has been in families for centuries, will prevent vastly increased traffic (and crime) in our area and will

Public Involvement 14 July – August 2014

remove future "uncertainties" for those who live in this quality, rural area of Colfax, Oak Ridge and Kernersville.

Thank you for listening and considering our recommendation.

Sincerely, Robert & Michele Valliere Cc: Mr. Alan Branson Mayor Ray Combs

Comment 3:

8-18-2014

Dear MPO officials, Re: Proposed 1-73 - 74 Airport Connector, project#l-4924

I'm writing in opposition to the connector road that is proposed to come thru Oak ridge, bisecting the Ridgecrest Development and tracts of land owned by our local Colfax farmers. This road would greatly disturb the existing community and unduly cause degradation in property values. This community and the surrounding community have enjoyed a quite environment and the addition of a large interstate connector would tremendously harm the value of the surrounding community. If this road is needed, please consider relocating this road to a less populated area of the county.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input. Please consider not moving forward with this road development as, it will have a significant negative value on our community.

Sincerely,

Jeff and Shannon Smith

Comment 4:

08/17/2014 Comments Regarding the Prioritization Process

Thank you GUAMPO officials for your recent informational session regarding NC's new project prioritization process. We appreciate you listening to us and discussing our concerns with us . As discussed, we object to the I-73-74 airport connector, project I-4924, or H090040. You have made it clear that the mapping is "just a line on the map" and is just a guess at best. However, when we discovered about 10 years that it, the line, comes through our living room, it was and remains very troubling.

For review purposes, we are fifth generation owners and operators of two NC Century Farms that are enrolled into VADs. The airport connector currently spares one of them, but barely.

Our concerns about this road are not merely personal. NC has led the nation in the loss of farmland since 2000. While agribusiness is NC's leading economic contributor now, it cannot be sustained if farmland continues to be paved. The current routing of the airport connector is mostly through rural land between Winston-Salem and PTIA.

Greensboro's Western Area Plan notes that the geographical features of the plan area in Guilford County would limit commercial development and make it very expensive. Public Involvement 15 July – August 2014

During the prioritization informational sessions, we learned that the project would be very expensive. Regionally, the widening projects of I-40 from Winston-Salem to its intersection with Business 40 in Guilford County, US 421 from Bunker Hill Rd. in Colfax to Kernersville., and the widening of US 158 from Winston- Salem to Stokesdale all scored higher and will produce more east/west lanes.

With widening generally costing much less than construction on a new location, these projects would seem to be a wiser use of our limited transportation dollars. Transportation facilities should produce safe and efficient movement of travelers at a reasonable cost without producing congestion. If the improvements to the three projects are made, there will be three parallel multi-lane roads within a few miles of each other, and two of them will be less than a mile apart at some locations.

Squeezing the six lane airport connector in the mix seems to be aimed at compressing more traffic and congestion into a smaller area and counterproductive to efficient travel. Let's call it what it is, a developmental corridor.

Years ago, I-73 and I-74 were touted as great new routes to NC and SC beaches. Not all of the travelers that will use these routes when completed will want to go to the airport. A better way to reduce future congestion within the Heart of the Triad would be use US 158 or parts of it to create a route further north to ease the trip around Greensboro towards the coast.

It is wrong for "a line on a map" to hold hostage the lives of citizens who live underneath the line for decades. The Winston-Salem Northern Beltway has set the misery standard for this. It is wrong for any one citizen, family, or community to have to endure such a miserable experience, and it is wrong for state taxpayers to have to fund this misery upon our neighbors. This is also why we have taken this stand for 10 years.

The I-73-74 airport connector was and continues to be a developer's dream. It will not be an efficient mover of goods and travelers and a good use of our scarce transportation dollars. It continues NC's horrible record of preserving farmland, and it's morally and ethically wrong to hold citizens hostage by "a line on a map". If the priority process is approved and implemented as drafted, many additional east-west lanes will be built in close proximity between Greensboro and Winston-Salem, further reducing its need. The low score received by the airport connector, especially from the Winston-Salem area MPO, indicates it is not a priority.

Therefore, we ask that you support our request to remove the I-73-74 connector from future local and State Transportation Improvement Plans (STIPs). Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Jimmy and Joanne Morgan

Comment 5:

Ms. McIntyre, I’m not sure if you are the right person to talk to about this. But the information concerning this project was emailed to one of the homeowners on July 28th and we did not receive the email until September 3, 2014. All of the deadlines have passed and as you can see the residents of the Ridgecrest Community are upset about this. Will there be any further hearings concerning this issue in the near future? Please let me know. Thank you.

Public Involvement 16 July – August 2014

Also, please any further contact concerning DOT projects old or new in the area, especially the possibility of a new road going through their neighborhood, please make sure that our office is made aware as soon as possible so that we can let the residents know about meetings dates, etc. Thank you.

Jeanne Gillenwater

Prestige Management Group, Inc.

Managing Agent for Ridgecrest Homeowners Association

MPO Response: The MPO has done initial analysis showing the need for facility in the future (2035). The MPO is requesting a feasibility study to further solidify the need for and the alignment of a future roadway. The MPO does not expect construction of the project during the 2016-2025 timeframe. The MPO will also continue to consider public comments during any future work on the project.

Public Involvement 17 July – August 2014

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Appendix B: NCDOT Funding Summary

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Introduction to NCDOT Funding Summary

This section includes NCDOT’s Funding Summary materials that provide additional information on funding sources in the Greensboro Urban Area.

NORTH CAROLINA 2016 – 2025

STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

What is a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)?

The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement document which denotes the scheduling and funding of construction projects across the state over a minimum 4 year time period as required by State and Federal laws. North Carolina’s STIP covers a 10 year period, with the first five years (2016-2020 in this version) referred to as the delivery STIP and the latter five years (2021-2025 in this version) as the developmental STIP. Per 23 CFR 450.216 & 23 U.S. Code § 135 STIP’s must also:

• Be submitted to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) & Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for approval at least every 4 years • Be fiscally constrained by year • Include all capital and non-capital projects using Title 23 USC or Title 49 USC funds, other than certain safety, planning, and research funds • Include metropolitan TIPs from Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Provide public comment opportunity on STIP document • And include the following information: o Project description and termini o Estimated total cost (NCDOT includes Utility, R/W, and Construction costs) o Federal funds to be obligated o Responsible agency (such as municipality)

North Carolina’s STIP is updated every two years and developed in concert with federal and state revenue forecasts, North Carolina Department of Transportation’s (NCDOT’s) Strategic Prioritization process, preconstruction and project development timetables, and in adherence with federal and state laws. North Carolina state law requires Board of Transportation (BOT) action to approve the STIP.

This is the first STIP developed under the new Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law passed in June 2013. This landmark legislation elevates the use of transportation criteria and the input of local communities to determine project priorities and directs the use of dollars from the state’s Highway Trust Fund for construction. The result has generated one of the largest STIP’s in recent memory with projects in all transportation modes represented and projects in all 100 counties of the state.

How is the STIP organized?

T-1 The STIP contains funding information and schedules for transportation modes and programs including: Highways, Aviation, Bicycle and Pedestrian, Ferry, Public Transportation, Rail, Governor’s Highway Safety and statewide related programs. The Appendix also contains a reference list of project accomplishments, completions and deletions since the 2012-2015 STIP which was approved in 2011.

The transportation program in the STIP is organized by the 14 transportation divisions. Each Division section includes a funding source reference table and is divided between highway and non-highway project schedules. Projects are also listed by county within each division. This results in some duplication since transportation projects frequently extend across county and division lines. When this duplication occurs, a project is listed in each county in which it is found.

Projects are further subdivided by category: interstate, rural, urban, federal bridge, municipal bridge, bicycle and pedestrian (& Safe Routes to School), congestion mitigation, highway safety improvement program, ferry, passenger rail, and roadside environmental. Interstate, rural, urban, federal bridge, and ferry projects are described by route number. Municipal bridge, bike and pedestrian projects are listed by city or county. Congestion mitigation and passenger rail projects are listed alphabetically by city or county. Highway safety improvement program projects may be listed by route, city or county. The Public Transportation program list projects first by the transportation partners and providers then by identification numbers. (Note: Highway Funded (HFB) bridge projects are funded from maintenance funds and are not selected through the STI process. Therefore they are shown in the STIP for information only.)

Projects are also listed by the STI category they are funded from, i.e., by Statewide Mobility, Regional Impact, or Division Needs. The phases of projects (such as Right of Way (R), Utility relocation (U), and Construction (C) are listed by Fiscal Year along with their costs and anticipated funding sources.

All projects require extensive planning, environmental impact and design studies. The location and exact type of improvements are subject to refinement and modification during the planning and design phases.

Strategic Prioritization

The Department manages a strategic project prioritization process. The 3rd generation of this process, Prioritization 3.0 or P3.0 was underway during the passage of STI and was a significant component of this STIP development. Strategic prioritization uses transportation data and the input of local government partners and the public to generate scores and rankings of projects across the state. Multiple public input opportunities were provided during the spring and summer of 2014 regarding the submittal of new projects and the assignment of local points to projects. This input assisted each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural Planning Organization (RPO) and NCDOT’s transportation divisions to produce criteria based methodologies which directed how local points were allocated.

The P3.0 process resulted in each transportation mode using different quantitative criteria, measures and weights to provide technical scores for projects. Also, per the intent of STI for transportation modes to compete for funding, a normalization process was recommended to create minimum percentages of funding for highway and non-highway projects in the combined Regional Impact and Division Needs categories. The minimum percentage for highways was 90% and minimum percentage for non-highways was 4%. These percentages guided the programming process, which ultimately yielded a 95% to 5% highway vs non-highway programmed amount in the combined Regional Impact and Division Needs categories.

T-2

Figure A

The results of the P3.0 process do not necessarily mean that projects will be programmed in the order of their score and rank. Over a 10-year time frame, funding was provided to the highest scoring projects. However, there are other considerations and factors in developing the actual program (Figure A). A major factor in deciding when the top scoring projects are funded is project delivery time. Projects need to fulfill a series of environmental and preliminary engineering requirements, right–of-way must be purchased, utility relocation (where applicable) must be addressed, and final plans must be developed for lettings. The time period to accomplish these activities can be lengthy. Construction funding cannot be allocated to projects before these preconstruction activities have taken place.

There were also STI law provisions (including a corridor cap and individual modal caps) which directed programming decisions and the entire program had to meet budget tests and fiscal constraint per state and federal requirements. STI law also included a provision to exempt from prioritization select projects (Transition Period Projects) scheduled to be obligated for construction prior to July 1, 2015. The funding required for these projects was accounted for when budgeting for other projects.

Public Involvement – Draft STIP

After the release of the Draft STIP in December 2014, NCDOT hosted 10 public information sessions – nine regional and one statewide - across the state from March 17 to April 23, 2015. The purpose of these sessions was to inform citizens about projects in the Draft STIP and to gather input on the process which produced the Draft STIP. Nearly 160 individuals participated in these sessions and citizens also provided feedback via online. As noted in the Strategic Prioritization section multiple public input opportunities were also available ahead of the development of the Draft STIP and from the beginning of the STI implementation process.

Each session was structured as a 3-hour open house format to allow participants to view a brief video, study maps of projects in the Draft STIP, and review proposed project schedules and information with Department staff. Sessions were held in transit accessible locations and the Department provided auxiliary aids for participants under the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as special services for English limited participants.

A public engagement tool (referred to as “MindMixer”) was deployed to create an active social media presence with citizens and to act as an additional venue for feedback and posting of session materials. Consultation

T-3 was conducted with stakeholder groups (traditional and non-traditional) throughout North Carolina via emails and direct mailing to encourage participation via multiple feedback options. Transportation Conformity

Each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to develop a 20+ year Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). In MPOs that are listed as either a non-attainment or maintenance air quality area, Transportation Conformity must be demonstrated on all plans, projects and TIPs. This ensures that transportation projects that receive federal funding do not negatively impact an area’s ability to meet air quality goals. Projects must be grouped by horizon year and the travel demand model must be run for each horizon year. From the travel demand model, speeds and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) are obtained and used in the air quality model to calculate emissions that are compared to the budgets approved by the US EPA. As long as the calculated emissions are less than the budget, the area can make a conformity finding. If the area cannot meet the budget, then the MPO’s project list does not meet the transportation conformity test and the area may be subject to lapse. A lapse can delay projects as federal actions cannot take place during a lapse and only exempt projects can move forward. A revised Transportation Conformity analysis can be triggered whenever a project is delayed or accelerated such that it crosses a horizon year. Whenever an MPO develops a new MTP, a new conformity analysis must be performed. When a new TIP comes out, the new TIP must be checked to make sure it is consistent with the MTP. If there is any inconsistency between the TIP and the MTP (conformity finding) then FHWA cannot take any federal action including approval of the TIP until this inconsistency is resolved.

North Carolina Air Quality Non-Attainment/Maintenance Area Summary

Pollutant(s) Region Counties 8- Hour PM 2.5 Ozone Cabarrus (Partial)  Gaston (Partial)  Iredell (Partial)  Metrolina Lincoln (Partial)  Mecklenburg  Rowan (Partial)  Union (Partial)  Guilford  Triad Davidson  Greater Hickory/Unifour  Catawba

Note: Forsyth County is under a limited maintenance plan for Carbon Monoxide until 11/7/15 Project Descriptions

EPA’s Transportation Conformity Regulation states “The degree of specificity required in the transportation plan and the specific travel network assumed for air quality modeling do not preclude the consideration of alternatives in the NEPA process of other project development studies.” In an effort to not unduly influence the outcome of NEPA studies the STIP has used fairly generic descriptions of proposed work although the cost estimates were derived from specific future cross sections. In future documents, more specific descriptions will be used as the NEPA process determines a preferred alternative. So while the out years 6 through 10 may use a description like “widen to multi-lanes” as the NEPA process defines a recommended cross section this

T-4 may become “widen to 4 lane median-divided cross section” as the project comes closer to having right of way and construction actually funded.

PROGRAM BUDGETS

Transportation Revenue Forecast State Budget

State transportation revenues are derived from user fees in the form of Motor Fuel Tax (MFT), driver and vehicles fees collected by the NC Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV Fees) and a Highway Use Tax (HUT) on vehicle title transfers. Federal transportation revenues are derived from a federal MFT tax, vehicle fees (mostly on trucks) and since 2008 it has included transfers from the U.S. General Fund. North Carolina’s transportation funding consists of roughly 75 percent state revenues and 25 percent federal.

State revenue projections are obtained from a consensus forecast by the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM), Legislative Fiscal Research Division and NCDOT. Budget estimates developed for the Governor’s biennial budget serves as a base from which NCDOT staff develops the forecast for the remaining years. Motor Fuel revenues are forecasted based on crude oil prices and expected consumption, derived from information from the US Department of Energy and IHS Global Insight, a private financial forecasting company. DMV fee revenue forecasts are based on historical transactional information, vehicle registration, licensed driver numbers and Office of State Budget and Management projected population growth in the age range 19– 84. Highway Use Tax revenue is forecasted based on the number of vehicles purchased or traded in, vehicle price and the statutory rate. The number of vehicles sold and the price depend on economic conditions. Regarding DMV/Title Fees, the two variables are statutory rates and the number of transactions, which is based on licensed drivers and vehicle registration. Generally, DMV fees correlate with projected changes in population. Title fees correlate closer to forecasted changes in car sales.

Previous Federal Budget

MAP-21, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), was signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012. Funding surface transportation programs at over $105 billion for fiscal years (FY) 2013 and 2014, MAP-21 was the first new highway authorization enacted since 2005 and its policies and funding were extended through May 31, 2015.

MAP-21 is a milestone for the U.S. economy and the Nation’s surface transportation program. By transforming the policy and programmatic framework for investments to guide the system’s growth and development, MAP- 21 created a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program and built upon many of the highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991.

MAP-21 restructured core highway formula programs. Activities carried out under some existing formula programs – the National Highway System Program, the Interstate Maintenance Program, the Highway Bridge Program, and the Appalachian Development Highway System Program – are incorporated into the following new core formula program structure:

• National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) • Surface Transportation Program (STP) • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)

T-5 • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Railway-Highway Crossings (subset of the HSIP) • Metropolitan Planning

It created two new formula programs: • Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities – replaces a similarly purposed discretionary program. • Transportation Alternatives (TA) – a new program, with funding derived from the NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ and Metropolitan Planning programs, encompassing most activities funded under the Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, and Safe Routes to School programs under the previous reauthorization bill (known as SAFETEA-LU.)

Federal transportation funding is distributed by Congress based on multi-year reauthorization bills and annual appropriations. Federal-Aid revenues are assumed to remain at the FY 2014 level through 2025.

The primary variables for both state and federal revenues are the MFT rate and fuel consumption. The state MFT rate, under state law, has a fixed portion and variable portion that is based on wholesale prices and can adjust every six months, on January 1st and July 1st. Note – the passage of S.L. 2015-2 / S20 altered the variable MFT rate formula starting April 1, 2015. The new variable rate formula is based on changes in population and the Consumer Price Index for Energy (CPI-E) beginning on January 1, 2017. The federal MFT rate, set by Congress in 1993, is 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel. Fuel consumption is affected by fuel prices, which are determined by world markets and economic domestic output, vehicle fuel efficiency and alternate fuel vehicles.

Federal Aid Program

The Federal Aid Construction Program consists of many funding categories. Funding in most of these individual categories is subject to overall federal budget constraints and Federal Obligation Limitation. The obligation limitation effectively limits the amount of federal funds that can be utilized in any one year.

North Carolina’s availability of federal funds for the STIP in FFY 2016 is expected to be about $886.7 million, excluding CMAQ and State Planning and Research funds.

Virtually all federal-aid projects require a local or state fund contribution. Most highway and transit programs require a 20% local or state share. The amount of state matching funds needed for the Federal Aid Program is expected to be $239 million, which will be funded by the State Highway Trust Fund.

Public Transportation Project Funding

The projects listed in the STIP are funded from several different FTA Funds and State Funds. In addition, many of the FTA Funds require a match to the project. Annually, the NCDOT Public Transportation Division conducts a call for projects to provide state funds to assist with part of the match requirements. The amount available for state match is limited to the amount provided in the approved state budget for that year. All of the FTA program funding amounts are published annually in the Federal Register and posted to the FTA website. NCDOT uses these apportionments to distribute the various funding sources overseen by the Department. Most of the funding for programs in the MPO’s with a population of 200,000 or greater is managed directly by the MPO. The MPO’s develop projects to list in the STIP from the total apportioned amount received from FTA. NCDOT allocates federal funds to small urban areas less than 200,000 population and for the rural areas. The small urban MPO’s then develop projects to list in the STIP within the total allocated amount received from NCDOT and any prior year funding that is unspent. For the rural areas, the NCDOT applies

T-6 directly to FTA for the funds. The NCDOT funds rural projects to match the total apportioned amount and any available prior year funding. These rural projects are listed in the STIP. Planning Funds (5303) are allocated by NCDOT to urbanized areas from a formula based on transit service hours. The allocated amounts are then provided by NCDOT to the urbanized areas and are programmed in the MPO Planning Work Programs to match the allocation amount. NCDOT applies to FTA for the 5303 funds for the urbanized areas. Section 5310 Funds are allocated for small urbanized and rural areas by NCDOT. A competitive call for projects is announced for specific projects and those projects must be included as an unmet need in the Locally Coordinated Plan for the area. Projects are selected and funded based on the total available budget for the funds. These projects are included in the STIP.

Federal Aid Construction Program - FFY 2016 ($ in Millions)

Federal Required State Matching Category Funds Funds Total National Highway Performance Program 420 105 525 Rail Hwy Crossing 6 2 8 Statewide Planning 14 4 18 TAP 22 6 28 Research Development 5 1 6 Metropolitan Planning 6 2 8 Congestion Mitigation 50 12 62 Surface Transportation Program 424 106 530 Highway Safety Improvement 40 10 50 Total Apportionment 987 248 1235

Obligation Limitation 956 239 1195

T-7 Proposed Use of FFY 2016 Obligation Authority

9% 9% AC Conversion New Projects GARVEE debt service 82%

The program is fiscally constrained to the amount of funds projected to be available each year in order to prevent the Department from over committing future revenues. “Advance Construction” (AC) allows states to begin a project even in the absence of sufficient Federal-aid obligation authority to cover the Federal share of project costs. It is codified in Title 23, Section 115. Advance construction eliminates the need to set aside full obligational authority before starting projects. As a result, a state can undertake a greater number of concurrent projects than would otherwise be possible. In addition, advance construction helps facilitate construction of large projects, while maintaining obligational authority for smaller ones. At some future date when the state does have sufficient obligation authority, it may convert an advance-constructed project to a Federal-aid project by obligating the permissible share of its Federal-aid funds and receiving subsequent reimbursements. Advance construction allows a state to conserve obligation authority and maintain flexibility in its transportation funding program. NCDOT uses AC both to support its GARVEE Bond program and to assist in its cash management.

GARVEE Bonds

In 2005, House Bill 254 authorized NCDOT to issue Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE bonds) to finance federal aid highway projects. All funds derived from GARVEE bonds are backed by the receipt of future federal funds and no state funds may be committed to the debt service. In October 2007, the Department received $287.6 million in GARVEE bond proceeds, $242.5 million in 2009, $145.5 million in 2011, and $179.5 million in 2012. The Department is expected to sell $300 million in 2015 and $300 million in 2016.

T-8 GARVEE Bond Program $ in Millions

State Fiscal Year Proceeds Including Premium Debt Service 2008 $299.80 $ 5.06 2009 59.33 2010 263.14 67.17 2011 82.00 2012 364.90 59.84 2013 86.33 2014 86.33 2015 *300.00 86.32 2016 *300.00 100.00 2017 111.07 2018 112.18 2019 112.19 2020 90.03 2021 90.03 2022 90.02 2023 90.03 2024 74.38 2025 74.37 2026 74.38 2027 74.38 2028 74.38 2029 74.38 2030 74.37 2031 74.38

*Proceeds and debt service for proposed 2015 & 2016 sales are estimated

State Highway Trust Fund

The 1989 General Assembly created the North Carolina Highway Trust Fund to complete a 3,600-mile intrastate system of four-lane roads; widen and improve 113 miles of existing interstate highways; build multi– lane loops and connectors near seven major cities (now expanded to ten); provide additional funds in order to pave all unpaved secondary roads and provide additional funds for municipal streets. In 2013 the General Assembly passed HB 817, creating the STI law and establishing a strategic mobility formula for the prioritization of projects.

Revenues for the Trust Fund are generated from the state motor fuels tax, the 3 percent use tax on the transfer of motor vehicle titles, DMV titles and other fees, and interest income. $49 million of Trust Fund revenues are transferred each year to the NCTA for project funding.

T-9 The STIP budget is based on a consensus forecast by the OSBM, Legislative Fiscal Research Division, and NCDOT. These estimates were used to develop the draft program and are the basis for air quality and fiscal constraint tests. The Trust Fund revenues are projected to be about $1,160.4 million for FY 2016 and $12.8 billion during the 10-year period. Of this $12.8 billion in revenue, $490 million goes to NCTA, $654 million is used for debt service on previous GO bonds and Administration, and $4 million is transferred to the Highway Fund for Visitor Centers. The remaining $11.7 billion is available for STIP purposes. After preliminary engineering and a reserve for construction cost overruns, $18.5 billion is available for programming. (Note – funds available for programming and used in the development of the 2016-2025 STIP were prior to the actions of the 2015 General Assembly.)

Funds Available for Programming 10 Year State Fiscal Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 STIP Total

Motor Fuels Tax $ 454.7 $ 479.5 $ 502.6 $ 512.8 $ 493.6 $ 499.5 $ 504.4 $ 512.4 $ 517.7 $ 523.8 $ 5,001.0 Investment Income 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 Certificates of Title Fees 88.5 90.9 92.3 93.7 92.3 93.5 94.6 95.5 96.6 97.7 935.6 Miscellaneous Fees 15.7 16.1 16.4 16.6 16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 16.9 17.2 164.9 Use Tax 600.5 627.7 643.8 659.7 667.9 682.4 695.0 706.5 719.4 733.2 6,736.1 Total State Trust Fund Revenues $ 1,160.4 $ 1,215.2 $ 1,256.1 $ 1,283.8 $ 1,271.0 $ 1,292.8 $ 1,311.6 $ 1,332.2 $ 1,351.6 $ 1,372.9 $ 12,847.6 NCTA GAP Funding (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (49.0) (490) GO Debt Service (48.6) (61.0) (52.2) (50.0) (59.8) - - - - - (272) Visitors Center (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (4) Program Administration (34.5) (36.2) (37.4) (38.2) (37.8) (38.5) (39.0) (39.7) (40.2) (40.9) (382) Available Trust Fund Revenues $ 1,027.8 $ 1,068.6 $ 1,117.2 $ 1,146.2 $ 1,124.0 $ 1,204.9 $ 1,223.2 $ 1,243.1 $ 1,262.0 $ 1,282.6 $ 11,699.6 Federal Aid 956.0 956.0 956.0 956.0 961.0 1,016.0 1,021.0 1,026.0 1,031.0 1,036.0 9,915.0 Less SPR Funds (24.3) (24.3) (24.3) (24.3) (24.4) (24.6) (26.0) (26.1) (26.2) (26.3) (250.8) Less CMAQ (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0) (300.0) Less EEP (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (250.0) Available Federal Aid $ 876.7 $ 876.7 $ 876.7 $ 876.7 $ 881.6 $ 936.4 $ 940.0 $ 944.9 $ 949.8 $ 954.7 $ 9,114.2 Total Available Funds $ 1,904.5 $ 1,945.3 $ 1,993.9 $ 2,022.9 $ 2,005.6 $ 2,141.4 $ 2,163.2 $ 2,188.1 $ 2,211.8 $ 2,237.3 20,813.8 Preliminary Engineering $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (165.0) $ (1,650.0) Construction Cost Overruns $ (59.6) $ (61.2) $ (63.2) $ (64.3) $ (63.6) $ (69.1) $ (69.9) $ (70.9) $ (71.9) $ (72.9) $ (666.6) Funds Available for Programming $ 1,680.0 $ 1,719.1 $ 1,765.7 $ 1,793.5 $ 1,776.9 $ 1,907.3 $ 1,928.3 $ 1,952.1 $ 1,974.9 $ 1,999.4 $ 18,497.2

Anticipated Inflation Impact

Inflation is not explicitly factored into the above revenue estimates. However, before programming projects in the STIP, available funds were reduced by an amount for inflation. The following inflation factors for future construction and right of way cost increases were used: 2016 - 1.0608, 2017 - 1.1032, 2018 – 1.1474, 2019 through 2025 - 1.1933. This allows project costs used in the Program to be shown in current (2015) dollars.

Cash Model NCDOT uses a cash model to manage its operations on a cash-flow basis; the Department uses statistical models that were developed specifically to support NCDOT programs. The models are used to forecast future cash demands and financial capacity. These projections serve as the basis for the dollar values found herein.

T-10 60 Month Cash Model Sample View ($ in Millions)

NCGS §143C:6-11 revised the cash target to between 15% and 20% of the total appropriations from the Highway Fund and Highway Trust Fund for the current fiscal year. Any federal funds on hand shall not be considered as cash for this purpose. The target shall include an amount necessary to make all municipal-aid funding requirements. Also, NCGS §143C:6-11 revised the cash balance floor to at least 7.5% of the total appropriations for the current fiscal year. If this floor is not maintained, no further transportation project contract commitments may be entered into until the floor is restored. Session Law 2014-100 Senate Bill 744 Section 34.23(c) established a cash balance ceiling of one billion dollars. If the balance exceeds the ceiling, the Department must report to the General Assembly and Fiscal Research the reasons for exceeding the ceiling and the plans to reduce the balance.

The proposed STIP was modeled to insure that the department would have adequate cash to pay for all programmed projects, operations and maintenance activities. Based on the program of projects and anticipated revenue, it appears that there should be adequate funding available to support the program.

The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA)

NCTA is a public agency of the State of North Carolina located within NCDOT. The Triangle Expressway, the first toll facility in North Carolina was completed January 2, 2013. It is approximately 18.8 miles of new highway construction, extending the partially complete “Outer Loop” around the greater Raleigh area from I-40 in the north to the NC 55 Bypass in the south.

Two projects will be built with the remaining funds from the Triangle Expressway. The new exchanges are within the existing footprint of the Triangle Expressway: the Holly Springs-Apex Road Interchange and the Morrisville Parkway Interchange.

T-11 Total revenues, inclusive of toll revenue and processing fees but excluding transponder revenues were $24.3 million and $13.0 million for fiscal year 2014 and 2013. Fiscal year 2014 revenues increased $11.3 million from the prior year. Operating expenses totaled $13.4 million and $9.7 million for fiscal year 2014 and 2013. Fiscal year 2014 costs increased $3.7 million from the prior year reflecting the increased number of transactions. Sales of transponders peaked with the opening of the final phase in January 2013 and remained steady through the end of fiscal year 2014.

T-12 (INFLATED) STIP FUNDING SUMMARY 2016 - 2019 (JUNE 2015)

GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION HIGHWAY PROGRAM (ESTIMATED COST ARE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) FUNDING FUNDING FUND_DESCRIPTION TYPE FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 CMAQ Congestion Mitigation F 1944 2022 HFB Highway Fund Bridge Replacement Program S 1336 2289 L Local O 15 204 288 42 NHP National Highway Performance Program F 51788 29184 16522 15871 NHPB National Highway Performance Program(Bridge) F 463 3349 12675 NHPIM National Highway Performance Program (Interstate Maintenance) F 16663 10151 731 S(M) State Match for STP-DA or Garvee Projects S 13783 4595 STP Surface Transportation Program F 158 1157 171 STPDA Surface Transportation Program (Direct Attributable) F 2745 4672 STPOFF Surface Transportation Program (Off System) F 1366 882 STPON Surface Transportation Program (On System) F 63 661 T Highway Trust Funds S 39671 39600 47665

(INFLATED) STIP FUNDING SUMMARY 2016 - 2019 (JUNE 2015)

GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION NON-HIGHWAY PROGRAM (ESTIMATED COST ARE IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) FUNDING FUNDING FUND_DESCRIPTION TYPE FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 CMAQ Congestion Mitigation F 3175 625 FBUS Capital Program - Bus Earmark (5309) F 586 610 635 661 FEPD Elderly and Persons with Disability (5310) F 274 286 273 284 FMPL Metropolitan Planning (5303) F 117 122 127 132 FNF New Freedom Program F 98 102 106 110 FNU Non Urbanized Area Formula Program (5311) F 61 80 83 87 FUZ Capital Program - Bus Earmark (5309) F 6563 6829 7101 6114 JARC Job Assistance and Reverse Commute (3037) F 424 165 172 178 L Local O 6129 6365 6200 5428 O Local, Non Federal or State Funds O 16457 8274 2868 24283 S State S 472 309 253 264 SMAP Operating Assistance and State Maintenance S 1726 1796 1867 2165 SRTS Safe Roads to School F 303 158 429 STHSR Stimulus High Speed Rail F 413 134 STPDA Surface Transportation Program (Direct Attributable) F 2365 4363 3636 T Highway Trust Funds S 530 551 573 1610 TAP Transportation Alternatives Program F 441 TAPDA Transportation Alternatives Program (Direct Attributable) F 829 517 537

FUNDING: "F" - Federal "S" - State "O" - Other "C" - City 7/27/2015

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

APPENDIX C: Regulatory Compliance and Air Quality Summary

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Introduction to Regulatory Compliance and Air Quality

This section includes a summary from the final Air Quality Conformity Determination Report. Additional information is also included in this report in Chapter 1 and Section 5: How do the MTIP & STIP relate to Transportation Plans and Air Quality. Triad Air Quality Conformity Determination Report 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and 2016-2025 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)

 Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford County)  Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford County)  High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties)  Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization ( Forsyth and Davidson Counties)

Released for Public Comment August 2015

Report Prepared by:

The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART),

In Partnership with the:

Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization, Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization, Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization,

and In cooperation with The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality

and The North Carolina Department of Transportation - Transportation Planning Branch

Contact Information

Additional copies of this report can be obtained from the:

Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation 107 Arrow Rd Greensboro, NC 27409 www.partnc.org

North Carolina Department of Transportation Transportation Planning Branch 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1554

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONFORMITY DETERMINATION REPORT OVERVIEW……………………………………………………………………………………... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………………………………………………………...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 6

2. AIR QUALITY PLANNING ...... 11 2.1 Emissions Budget and Baseline Emissions 3. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANS ...... 12 3.1 Consultation 3.2 Financial Constraint Assumptions 3.3 Latest Planning Assumptions 3.4 Future Year Roadway Projects 3.5 Transit Network 3.6 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Projects 3.7 Travel Demand Model 3.8 Mode Split / Mode Choice 3.9 Method of Reporting VMT and Speed

4. REGIONAL EMISSIONS ANALYSIS...... 17 4.0.1 Sub-area motor vehicle emission budgets 4.0.2 Emissions analysis source 4.0.3 Emission comparison Years (CO) 4.0.4 Emission comparison Years (PM2.5) 4.1 Emission Model 4.1.1 Development of Emission factors 4.2 Transportation Conformity Measures 4.3 Emission Comparison Test by location and Pollutant

5. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND INTERAGENCY CONSULTATION...... 24 6. CONCLUSION ...... 25

iii

List of Appendices (All contained in electronic format)

Appendix A: Triad Area Federal Register Notices . CO Limited Maintenance SIP . PM2.5 SIP Appendix B: Interagency Consultation . 12/8/14 . 1/26/15 . 2/23/15 . 3/23/15 . 4/27/15 . 5/26/15 . Triad Consensus Plan . Conformity Process Schedule

Appendix C: Lists of Roadway and Transit Projects C1: Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP Projects C2: Greensboro MPO 2016-2020 TIP C3: High Point MPO 2040 MTP Projects C4: High Point MPO 2016-2020 TIP C5: Winston-Salem MPO 2040 MTP Projects C6: Winston-Salem MPO 2016-2020 TIP C7: Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP Projects C8: Burlington-Graham MPO 2016-2020 TIP

Appendix D: CMAQ Projects

Appendix E: MOVES2014 Emissions Full MOVES2014 Emissions Computer Run files can be obtained by request from the NC Division of Air Quality from Todd Pasley, Environmental Engineer Phone: 919-707-8713, and PART from Scott Rhine 336-662-0002

Appendix F: VMT and Speeds

Appendix G: Regional Emissions Analysis Results by County

Appendix H: Public Participation Policies / Advertising Affidavits (This will be added to the CDR by 9/1/15)

Appendix I: Public Comments and Responses (This will be added to the CDR by 9/1/15)

Appendix J: Agency Comments and Responses (This will be added to the CDR by 9/1/15)

Appendix K: MPO TAC Conformity Determination Resolutions (2040 MTPs, 2016-20 TIP) (This will be added to the CDR in by 9/23/15) . Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP and 2016-20 TIP . High Point MPO 2040 MTP and 2016-20 TIP . Winston Salem MPO 2040 MTP and 2016-20 TIP . Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP and 2016-20 TIP

Appendix L: MPO TAC 2040 MTP Adoptions (This will be added to the CDR by 9/23/15) . Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP . High Point MPO 2040 MTP . Winston Salem MPO 2040 MTP . Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP

Appendix M: USDOT Conformity Determination (This will be added to the CDR by 10/1/15)

This page intentionally left blank

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Reference Full Term BGMPO Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization. Conformity Demonstration that when the projects planned in the TIP and Analysis LRTP are implemented the area will not exceed allowable motor vehicle emissions thresholds (emissions budgets). Conformity Statement that the projects contained in the MTIP are Finding essentially consistent with those listed in the LRTP and that no new Conformity Analysis is needed to account for noted differences. CMS Congestion Management System. A program of strategies for monitoring, evaluating, and addressing traffic congestion. Required for Transportation Management Areas. CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. A federal highway fund category for projects that will improve air quality. DAQ Division of Air Quality. DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Emissions Budget See Conformity Analysis. EIS Environmental Impact Statement. Federally required environmental study for projects with potentially significant environmental effects. FHWA Federal Highway Administration (USDOT) FCEAP Forsyth County Environmental Assistance and Protection. FTA Federal Transit Administration (US Department of Transportation) GUAMPO Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. HPMPO High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization. LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan: 25 year planning document identifying long and short term transportation investment needs. MAB Metropolitan Area Boundary. The boundary of the area within the transportation planning jurisdiction of an MPO. MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization. MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. MVEB Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets.

vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont’d)

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation. NEPA National Environmental Policy Act. Federal law that requires consideration of environmental impacts for all major expenditures of federal funds. NOx Oxides of Nitrogen: key precursor to smog. According to NCDAQ, roadway sources produce around 31% of total NC NOx emissions. PART Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation. PTRM Piedmont Triad Regional Model. Prospectus Document outlining responsibilities and procedures for carrying out the cooperative transportation planning process. Defines ongoing work tasks cited in the Planning Work Program. PWP- Planning Accounting document for use of planning grant funds; lists Work Program approved activities that these funds may reimburse. The PWP thus guides transportation planning activities for the year. RPO Rural Planning Organization. RPOs are partnerships among non-MPO counties, established to provide rural areas a greater voice in state transportation decisions affecting those areas. Section 104(f) PL Funds distributed through the Federal Highway Administration for transportation planning tasks. SIP State Implementation Plan. The modeling analysis and the state and federal regulations demonstrating that the air in an area will meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TCM Transportation Control Measures. Specific projects or programs enumerated in the SIP that are designed to improve air quality are implemented in a timely fashion. TDM Travel Demand Model. TMA Transportation Management Area: urbanized area over 200,000 in population. US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. WSMPO Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization.

viii

Conformity Determination Report

2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP); and 2016-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP):

Overview

Transportation Conformity ("conformity") ensures that Federal funding and approval is distributed to those transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals. Conformity applies to Metropolitan Transportation Plans (MTPs), Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and projects funded or approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in areas that do not meet or previously have not met air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, or nitrogen dioxide.

These areas are known as "nonattainment areas" or "maintenance areas," respectively. A conformity determination demonstrates that the total emissions projected for a plan or program are within the emissions limits ("budgets") established by the air quality plan or State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality, and that transportation control measures (TCMs) – specific projects or programs enumerated in the SIP that are designed to improve air quality – are implemented in a timely fashion.

Conformity Determination

Regional emissions are estimated based on highway and transit usage according to the MTPs and TIPs. The projected emissions for the MTPs and the TIPs must not exceed the emissions limits (or "budgets") established by the SIP. Where TCMs are included, responsible Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are required to demonstrate that TCMs are implemented in a timely fashion to obtain conformity.

The Decision Process

A formal interagency consultation process involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FHWA, FTA and State and Local transportation and air quality agencies is required in developing SIPs, TIPs, MTPs, and in making conformity determinations. MPO policy boards make initial conformity determinations in metropolitan areas.

Four organizations are responsible for making the conformity determinations in four distinct parts of the Triad Maintenance Area:

a. the Burlington-Graham MPO (BGMPO) within its portion of the metropolitan area boundary in Guilford County; b. the Greensboro MPO (GMPO) within the metropolitan area boundary of Guilford County; c. the High Point MPO (HPMPO) within its metropolitan area boundary part in Guilford,

Davidson and Forsyth Counties; d. the Winston-Salem MPO (WSMPO) within its portion of the metropolitan area boundary in Forsyth and Davidson Counties

Each of these responsible organizations must make a conformity determination for its respective area in order for all of the areas to be designated in conformity.

Conformity determinations must also be made at the Federal level by FHWA and FTA. These determinations must be made at least every four years, or with the updating of MTPs or TIPs, or within one year of the effective date of a non-attainment designation.

Conformity analysis is made available to the public as part of the MPO and/or State DOT planning processes. MPOs are required to make MTPs, TIPs, and conformity determinations available to the public, accept and respond to public comments, and provide adequate notice of relevant public meetings. Project sponsors of specific transportation projects within the MTPs and TIPs must also include appropriate public involvement during project development.

Emissions Budget

The SIP places limits on emissions of each pollutant for each source type (mobile, stationary, and area sources). Projected emissions from highway and transit usage must be less than or equal to the emissions limits for on-road mobile vehicles that are established by the SIP. These emissions limits for motor vehicle emissions sources are called "budgets." Budgets are developed as part of the air quality planning process by State air quality/environmental agencies, and approved by EPA. Transportation agencies participate in this process.

Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

Areas can include TCMs in their SIPs. TCMs are specific programs designed to reduce emissions from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. North Carolina does not have any TCM’s included in their SIPs.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of July 6, 2012. This report demonstrates that the activities resulting from the implementation of the fiscally constrained metropolitan transportation plans (MTPs) will not “cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.” of the following jurisdictions:

 The portion of Guilford County within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO)  The portions of Guilford County within the Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (GMPO)  The portions of Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties within the High Point Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO)  The portions of Forsyth and Davidson Counties within the Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSMPO)

Based on this analysis, the 2040 MTPs for the Piedmont Triad Region (BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO, and WSMPO) are consistent with the intent of conformity requirement.

The USEPA designated Forsyth County for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate non-attainment area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was re-designated as maintenance for CO on November 7, 1994. A CO limited maintenance plan was approved on June 20, 2013 with an effective date of July 22, 2013. In accordance with the transportation conformity rule, approval of a limited maintenance plan removes the requirement to conduct a regional emissions analysis as part of the conformity determination. The requirement to demonstrate conformity per the other requirements in Table 1 (which is based on Table 1 of 40 CFR 93.109) still applies. The Federal Register notice for the CO limited maintenance plan is found in Appendix A.

The USEPA designated Davidson and Guilford Counties, in their entirety, as a non-attainment area for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard with an effective date of April 5, 2005. This area was re-designated from non-attainment to maintenance for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard effective on December 19, 2011.

The Triad Area MTPs have the following horizon years: 2021, 2030 and 2040. Each analysis year includes anticipated population, employment data, and roadway projects that are expected open. The MTPs are fiscally constrained meaning that funding sources for roadway projects are identified.

NCDAQ prepared base and future emissions rates for the MOVES2014 model. These rates were applied to VMT from the Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM). There are State Implementation Plan (SIP) motor vehicle motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) for the PM 2.5 standard.

Table 1 summarizes the conformity requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 and 93 and gives the status of

the MTPs in relation to each of these requirements. Table 2 contains results from the regional emissions analysis for the Triad Maintenance Area (Davidson, and Guilford Counties). In every horizon year for every pollutant in each geographic area, the emissions expected from the implementation of the MTP and TIP are less than the emissions budgets established in the SIP. Table 3 contains a cross-reference index for the report.

Table 1. Status of Conformity Requirements Criteria (√ indicates Burlington Greensboro Winston High Point the criterion is met) -Graham MPO -Salem MPO MPO MPO Less Than Emissions √ √ √ √ Budget(s) TCM Implementation N/A N/A N/A N/A Interagency √ √ √ √ Consultation Latest Emissions √ √ √ √ Model Latest Planning √ √ √ √ Assumptions Fiscal Constraint √ √ √ √

Table 2. Emissions Comparison Summaries

Guilford and Davidson County Emissions Comparison Summary

PM 2.5 (NOx): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040

GUILFORD MVEB (NOx) 6,309,650 6,309,650 6,309,650 GUILFORD Emission Model Results 2,167,370 1,170,330 858,806

DAVIDSON MVEB (NOx) 2,148,938 2,148,938 2,148,938 DAVIDSON Emission Model Results 932,797 418,735 246,068

PM 2.5 (PM 2.5): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2025 2035 GUILFORD MVEB (PM 2.5) 421,841 421,841 421,841 GUILFORD Emission Model Results 61,384 40,264 31,901

DAVIDSON MVEB (PM 2.5) 153,313 153,313 153,313 DAVIDSON Emission Model Results 22,611 13,714 10,004

Table 3. Cross-reference Index Conformity Determination Report for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan in the Triad Area Maintenance Area

Conformity Requirement – Federal Register Appendix A

Formal findings of conformity. to be added

Table of Contents. iii

The purpose of this report is to comply with the requirements of the CAAA, p. 3 MAP-21, and 40 CFR 51 and 93.

The former and current classification of the air shed and the pollutants for which p. 9 the air shed was classified as non-attainment/maintenance.

The date the region was designated non-attainment/maintenance under the PM p. 13 2.5 standard.

The emissions expected from implementation of the long-range plan are equal p. 13 to, or less than, the base year emissions generated

The adopted long-range plan is fiscally constrained (§93.108). p. 13

The latest planning assumptions were used in the conformity analysis p. 13 (§93.110). Appendix B

The latest emissions model was used in the conformity analysis (§93.111). p. 20

The list of federally funded T.C.M. activities included. (§93.113). NA

Conformity determined according to §93.105 and the adopted public p. 25 involvement procedures.

Dates of the Technical Coordinating Committee reviews of the conformity to be added determination and the recommendation.

SIP emissions budget test or baseline comparison demonstrates conformity of p. 22 the adopted long-range transportation plan.

Listing of Roadway and Transit projects in each analysis year. Appendix C p. 18, VMT & Speeds Summary Appendix F

Significant comments of reviewing agencies addressed by the MPO, or a Appendix B statement that no significant comments were received.

Regional Emissions Calculations. Appendix G

MOVES2014 Appendix E

Conformity Determination Report

2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plans; and 2016-2020 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP):  Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford County)  Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford County)  High Point Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties)  Winston-Salem Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (Forsyth and Davidson Counties)

1 Introduction The Clean Air Act requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set limits on how much of a particular pollutant can be in the air anywhere in the United States. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are the pollutant limits set by the USEPA; they define the allowable concentration of pollution in the air for six different pollutants – Carbon Monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Particulate Matter, Ozone, and Sulfur Dioxide.

The Clean Air Act specifies how areas within the country are designated as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” of an air quality standard, and provides USEPA the authority to define the boundaries of non-attainment areas. For areas designated as non-attainment for one or more NAAQS, the Clean Air Act defines a specific timetable to attain the standard and requires that non-attainment areas demonstrate reasonable and steady progress in reducing air pollution emissions until such time that an area can demonstrate attainment. Each state must develop and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses each pollutant for which it fails to meet the NAAQS. Individual State air quality agencies are responsible for defining the overall regional plan to reduce air pollution emissions to levels that will enable attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. This strategy is articulated through the SIP.

In North Carolina, the agency responsible for SIP development is the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). The delineation and implementation of strategies to control emissions from on-road mobile sources is a significant element of the state plan to improve air quality, thereby creating a direct link between transportation and air quality planning activities within a non- attainment area. The process of ensuring that a region’s transportation planning activities contribute to attainment of the NAAQS, or “conform” to the purposes of the SIP, is referred to as transportation conformity. In order to receive federal transportation funds within the non- attainment area, the area must demonstrate through a federally mandated conformity process that the transportation investments, strategies and programs, taken as a whole, contribute to the air quality goals defined in the state air quality plan.

In order to ensure the conformity requirements are met, Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act authorizes the USEPA Administrator to “promulgate criteria and procedures for demonstrating and assuring conformity in the case of transportation plans, programs, and projects.” This is accomplished through the Transportation Conformity Rule; developed by the USEPA to outline all federal requirements associated with transportation conformity. The Transportation Conformity Rule in conjunction with the Metropolitan Planning Regulations direct transportation plans and program development as well as the conformity process.

The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of July 6, 2012. This report demonstrates that the activities resulting from the implementation of the fiscally constrained MTPs and the TIPs will not “cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.” The following jurisdictions apply:

 The portion of Guilford County within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO)  The portion of Guilford County within the Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO)  The portions of Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties within the High Point Urban Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPMPO)  The portions of Forsyth and Davidson Counties within the Winston-Salem Metropolitan Planning Organization (WSMPO)

This conformity determination is based on a regional emissions analysis that uses the transportation network approved by the above-named Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) for the 2040 MTPs, VMT and Speed input data developed by PART in coordination with NCDOT, and emissions developed by the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). The Triad Maintenance Area for Guilford, Forsyth and Davidson Counties for the CO and PM 2.5 standard are shown as a map on Figure 1.

All Federally funded projects in areas designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas must come from a conforming metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP). Triad MPO maintenance areas are required by 23 CFR 134 and 40 CFR 51 and 93 to make a conformity determination on any adopted or amended fiscally constrained metropolitan transportation plan and related TIP. In addition, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), specifically, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) must make a conformity determination on four MPO Plans in the Triad region and the related TIPs for the maintenance areas.

Figure 1A. Triad PM 2.5 Maintenance Area

Figure 1 B. State of North Carolina CO Maintenance Areas

9 In order to assist the Triad Area in making a conformity determination on the adopted 2040 fiscally constrained MTPs, the following agencies shared leading roles composing substantial portions of this document: Table 4. Listing of Leading Role Agencies Agency Counties Burlington-Graham MPO Guilford (part) Greensboro MPO Guilford (part) High Point MPO Guilford (part) , Davidson (part) and Forsyth (part) Winston-Salem MPO Forsyth and Davidson (part)

This analysis is consistent with the set of amendments to 40 CFR Part 93. Based on the regional emissions emission budget test documented in this report, the following MTPs conform to the purpose of the North Carolina SIP:  Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP & 2016-2020 TIP Projects  Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP & 2016-2020 TIP Projects  High Point MPO 2040 MTP & 2016-2020 TIP Projects  Winston-Salem MPO 2040 MTP & 2016-2020 TIP Projects

This report documents the regional emissions budget test, interagency consultation process, public involvement process, and analysis methodology used to demonstrate transportation conformity for each MPO and the donut portion of each county outside the MPOs.

40 CFR Part 93 requires that a conforming transportation plan satisfy five conditions:  The transportation plan must be consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) in an area where the applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission contains a budget (40 CFR Part 93.118).  The transportation plan, TIP, or FHWA/FTA project not from a conforming plan must provide for the timely implementation of TCMs from the applicable implementation plan (40 CFR Part 93.113b).  The MPO must make the conformity determination according to the consultation procedures of 40 CFR Part 93.105 and the implementation plan revision required by 40 CFR Part 93.390 (40 CFR Part 416).  The conformity determination must be based on the latest emissions estimation model available (40 CFR Part 93.111).  The conformity determination must be based on the latest planning assumptions (40 CFR Part 93.110).

 The transportation Plan, TIP, or FHWA/FTA project must meet the interim emissions tests where applicable (40 CFR Part 93.119).

This report shows that the MPOs 2040 MTPs meets each condition. Each condition is discussed in the following sections of this report.

10 2 Air Quality Planning

The USEPA designated Forsyth County for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate non-attainment area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for CO on November 7, 1994. A CO limited maintenance plan was approved on June 20, 2013 with an effective date of July 22, 2013. In accordance with the transportation conformity rule, approval of a limited maintenance plan removes the requirement to conduct emissions analysis as a part of the conformity determination. The requirement to demonstrate conformity per the other requirements in Table 1 (which is based on Table 1 of 40 CFR 93.109) still applies. The Federal Register notice for the CO limited maintenance plan is found in Appendix A.

The USEPA designated Davidson and Guilford Counties, in their entirety, as a non-attainment area for the PM 2.5 Standard with an effective date of April 5, 2005. This area was re-designated from non-attainment to maintenance for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard effective on December 19, 2011.

The Federal Register notice containing the Triad Maintenance PM2.5 SIP MVEBs is provided in Appendix A.

2.1 Emissions Budget For the PM 2.5 and CO standard there are approved SIP MVEBs and comparisons will be made to the MVEBs to demonstrate conformity.

Section 4 of this report provides the regional emissions analysis and comparisons to the MVEBs where applicable.

Forsyth County is maintenance for the Carbon Monoxide (CO) standard. A MVEB was established for 2021 and emission limits based on the MVEB is indicated below:

Table 5: Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

PM 2.5 (NOx): The PM 2.5 Redesignation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040 GUILFORD MVEB (NOx) 6,309,650 6,309,650 6,309,650

DAVIDSON MVEB (NOx) 2,148,938 2,148,938 2,148,938

PM 2.5 (PM 2.5): The PM 2.5 Redesignation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040 GUILFORD MVEB (PM 2.5) 421,841 421,841 421,841

DAVIDSON MVEB (PM 2.5) 153,313 153,313 153,313

**The MVEB for 2021 will be used for the 2030 and 2040 comparison since 2021 is the last year that a MVEB is provided for VOC and NOx

11 3 Metropolitan Transportation Plans Federal law 40 CFR part 93.104(b)(3) requires a conformity determination on MTPs no less frequently than every four years. As required in 40 CFR 93.106, the horizon years for the MTPs are no more than ten years apart.

The BGMPO includes a small portion Guilford County. The GMPO includes the majority portion of Guilford County. The HPMPO includes portions of Guilford, Davidson, and Forsyth Counties. WSMPO includes Forsyth and a portion of Davidson County.

3.1 Consultation

The 2040 MTP is consistent with consultation requirements discussed in 40 CFR 93.105.

Consultation on the development of this conformity determination was accomplished through interagency consultation meetings held on 12/8/14, 1/26/15, 2/23/15, 3/23/15, 4/27/15, and 5/26/15. A summary of the topics discussed and a list of the attendees at each of these meetings is included in Appendix B.

3.2 Financial Constraint Assumptions The MTPs are fiscally constrained as discussed in 40 CFR 93.108. The GMPO, HPMPO, WSMPO and the BGMPO MTPs are fiscally constrained to the year 2040. All projects included in the 2016- 2020 TIPs are fiscally constrained, and funding sources have been identified for construction and operation. The estimates of available funds are based on historic funding availability and include federal, state, private, and local funding sources. Additional detail on fiscal constraint is included in each MPO MTP. It is assumed that the projects listed for each horizon year will be completed and providing service by the end of the indicated calendar year (December 31). These transportation networks are described in the respective 2040 MTPs. They are also described in greater detail in Appendix C.

3.3 Latest Planning Assumptions The 2040 MTPs were developed with the latest planning assumptions as discussed in 40 CFR 93.110. The Piedmont Travel Demand Model (PTRM) was developed by NCDOT, Triad MPOs, and PART for the urbanized portion of the Triad maintenance area. The MPOs provided housing, employment, and population projections, and a set of highway and transit projects consistent across jurisdictional boundaries was developed through regional MPO coordination. Additional detail on these planning assumptions is provided below.

Land use and demographic data were collected by regional planning agencies and staff members of BGMPO, GMPO, HPMPO and WSMPO. A regional methodology was agreed upon that included updating residential and employment data to the end of 2013, and preparing growth forecasts to 2040.

Residential data included population, dwelling units, households, average income and university- related group quarters population (dormitories, fraternities and sororities). Residential data was based on Block level 2010 U.S. Census data from Summary File 1.

Forecasts were prepared by local planning department staff with guidance from staff at the four MPOs. A regional methodology was applied to maintain consistency between residential and employment forecasts and adopted land use plans. Data and forecasts were submitted for public review by each MPO, and adopted for use in developing travel demand and air quality forecasts

12 by each MPOs Transportation Advisory Committee. Additional detail of arriving at these planning assumptions can be found in Appendix B for the Triad Transportation Conformity Consensus Plan.

The Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM) uses the basic four-step process (trip generation, trip distribution, mode choice and assignment). All four steps of the process are discussed in greater detail in the sections below.

The PTRM TransCAD model was developed by the PTRM Model Team, and adopted by the Executive Committee, and is housed at PART. The PTRM TransCAD model covers the contiguous boundaries of Guilford and Forsyth Counties (including the portions within the BG MPO) and a portion of Davidson County (including the portion within the HPMPO, and WSMPO)

There are no court orders or special agreements that apply to conformity (40 CFR 93.109).

3.4 Future Year Roadway Projects Roadway improvements used for conformity modeling were developed in the 2040 MTP process in each MPO. Outside of the MPO boundaries, TIP projects from the 2016-2020 TIP served as the future year roadway projects. For the 2040 MTPs, lists of needed projects were developed based on modeled congestion and identified local needs. Improvements were coded into the PTRM and analyzed. Intermediate analyses for the years 2021, 2030 and 2040 were performed to assist in prioritizing the 2040 roadway needs. The final 2021, 2030 and 2040 networks are fiscally constrained. Projects were added from MPO priority lists until estimated project costs equaled the expected funding available. The base network (2013) and the four future networks (2021, 2030, and 2040) used for the conformity determination are the same as the networks used for the 2040 MTPs. Throughout the process to develop the roadway networks, the MPOs and NCDOT identified any initial inconsistencies in project timing and characteristics (e.g. cross-section) for those projects crossing jurisdictional boundaries and reached consensus on consistent solutions.

Figure 2. Regional Significance The following criteria is used to identify major existing and future regional roadway systems that may produce significant impacts to air quality emissions with respect to the Triad region.

Regional Significance Criteria 1. The facility serves regional transportation needs (i.e. facilities that provide access to and from the region or that provide access to major destinations in the region); 2. The facility is functionally classified higher than a minor arterial (minor arterials may be regionally significant if their main purpose is to provide access to major facilities in the region); 3. The facility is a fixed guideway transit facility; and 4. The facility is included in the travel model for the region (In many cases collector streets are modeled that are not regionally significant).

To be regionally significant a facility should meet one or more of the criteria in this checklist. 40 CFR Part 93.101

Appendix C includes lists of the future year roadway projects in the Triad area as indicated below, including indications of which projects are regionally significant and which projects are exempt.

Table 6. Listing of Appendices of Triad MPOs MTP and TIP Roadway Project List Area Appendix C Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C1) 2016-2020 TIP (Appendix C2) High Point MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C3) 2016-2020 TIP (Appendix C4) Winston-Salem MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C5) 2016-2020 TIP (Appendix C6) Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C7) 2016-2020 TIP (Appendix C8)

The exempt projects listed in Appendix C, both highway and transit, will serve as the MTPs/TIPs for the region in the event of a conformity lapse. A conformity lapse is when an area develops a MTP that does not pass the conformity test or a conformity update deadline is missed. The TAC must adopt a MTP of exempt projects (40 CFR 93.126, 127 & 128) that will serve as the MTP/TIP for the area in the event of conformity lapse.

3.5 Transit Networks Each MPO developed transit projects for its MTP. The base year network was modeled from existing routes and fares for the transit systems in 2013. Future year networks were based on fiscally-constrained projected new or expanded services from regional transit plans, local bus system short range plans, corridor transit plans and other projected bus service expansion estimates, where available. The MPOs and NCDOT identified and rectified any initial inconsistencies in project characteristics or implementation years where transit projects crossed jurisdictional boundaries.

Table 7. Listing of Appendices of Triad MPOs Transit Project List Transit Project List Area Appendix C Greensboro MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C1)

High Point MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C3)

Winston-Salem MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C5)

Burlington-Graham MPO 2040 MTP (Appendix C7)

3.6 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Projects The NC Department of Transportation has established an allocation and review process for CMAQ projects. Each MPO and RPO in a non-attainment or maintenance area receives an allocation of CMAQ funds based on population and air quality status. In addition, a statewide

14 pool of CMAQ funds will be allocated to projects serving more than one non-attainment area on a competitive basis. MPO and RPO project priorities and project applications for statewide funding is reviewed on an annual basis. This conformity report includes a listing of funded CMAQ projects in the Triad Area in Appendix D, for those projects within the maintenance areas.

3.7 Travel Demand Model: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and speeds used in the emission estimation process are generated by the Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM). The PTRM is housed at PART.

The PTRM completely covers the Metropolitan Area Boundaries (MABs) for the WSMPO (Forsyth, Davidson), the HPMPO (Davidson, Guilford and Forsyth), the GMPO (Guilford) and the BGMPO (Alamance, Guilford and Orange). Alamance, Guilford and Forsyth counties are completely within the Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM) boundary.

Forecasted speeds and VMT generated by the PTRM are incorporated into the EPA MOVES2014 emissions model, which is used to generate emissions for the relevant counties and pollutants

3.8 Mode Split / Mode Choice: The PTRM forecasts travel for 12 major purposes including; home-based work (subdivided into three income groups), home-based school, home-based shopping, home-based other, non-home-based work, non-home-based other, home-based college/university, and airport passenger trip (subdivided into air travel purposes). In addition, the PTRM forecasts travel for three classes of commercial vehicles. Each of these major purposes and commercial vehicle classes are distributed for each potential origin and destination in the region, as defined by the regional network and zone system. After distribution of the trips, the PTRM nested logit model estimates the probability of selecting each of the seven travel modes for each of 12 major purposes (commercial vehicles are not subject to mode choice). Travel modes include: drive alone, shared ride 2, shared ride 3+, walk to transit, drive to transit, walk, and bike. School bus trips are estimated outside the mode choice model. The top level of the nested logit model structure contains major modes including passenger vehicle, transit, and non- motorized.

3.9 Method of Reporting VMT and Speed The PTRM was developed in 2002 and enhanced most recently in 2015 with 2013 ground counts. After the vehicle trips are assigned, the PTRM must be separated by the designated non-attainment/maintenance region to be analyzed independently.

For each designated non-attainment/maintenance area, the PTRM has the capability to provide daily VMT and Speed output for each fiscally constrained analysis year network corresponding to programmed TIP construction projects and post year construction projects. VMT and average speeds by functional classification derived directly from model link data are essential inputs required to the run the MOVES2014 emissions model.

The MOVES2014 model calculates emissions (See Appendix E). The VMT and Speed data summary are found in Appendix F.

15 4. Regional Emissions Analysis

In areas with an USEPA approved attainment demonstration or maintenance plan, an emissions budget comparison satisfies the emissions test requirement of 40 CFR Part 93.118. For pollutants for which an emissions budget has been submitted, the estimated emissions from the transportation plan must be less than or equal to the emissions budget values. Emissions were provided by NCDAQ.

Table 8 The Triad Area Transportation Conformity Analysis Matrix shows the counties to be analyzed, the PTRM coverage, the comparison years and the pollutants for which the REA will be done.

The Triad maintenance area is completely within the PTRM boundary (Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth).

4.0.1. Sub-area motor vehicle emission budgets All of Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties are maintenance areas under the PM 2.5 and CO standard and have motor vehicle motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) by county.

4.0.2 Emissions analysis source Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) and speeds for the emissions analysis were derived from the PTRM

Table 8. Triad Area Transportation Conformity Analysis Matrix Comparison Year Area Area emissions Emissions model budget analysis 2021 2030 2040 County status status source (modeled) (modeled) (modeled) 1 The PM2.5 Redesignation Nonattainment NOx NOx NOx to Attainment modeled Effective Direct Direct Direct Guilford all 12/19/11 PTRM PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5 1 The PM2.5 Redesignation Nonattainment NOx NOx NOx to Attainment modeled Effective Direct Direct Direct Davidson all 12/19/11 PTRM PM2.5 PM2.5 PM2.5

Footnotes for table: 1 The Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; North Carolina: Re-designation of the Greensboro-Winston –Salem-High Point 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to Attainment will be referred to in this document as the PM2.5 Redesignation Nonattainment to Attainment Effective 12/19/11.

16 Additional table notes and explanations: County:  CO: The Triad CO limited maintenance area consists of one whole county (Forsyth)  PM 2.5: The Triad PM 2.5 maintenance area consists of 2 counties (Guilford and Davidson)

4.0.3 Emission comparison years (CO) The USEPA designated Forsyth County for carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate non- attainment area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, this area was re- designated as maintenance for CO on November 7, 1994. A CO limited maintenance plan was approved on June 20, 2013 with an effective date of July 22, 2013. In accordance with the transportation conformity rule, approval of a limited maintenance plan removes the requirement to conduct a regional emissions analysis as part of the conformity determination. The requirement to demonstrate conformity per the other requirements in Table 1 (which is based on Table 1 of 40 CFR 93.109) still applies. The Federal Register notice for the CO limited maintenance plan is found in Appendix A.

4.0.4 Emission comparison years (PM 2.5)

Guilford and Davidson County has a PM 2.5 maintenance SIP. The SIP provides a 2015 and 2021 budget.  SIP Budget Years: 2015 and 2021 (Guilford and Davidson County)  Comparison Years for PM2.5 SIP: o 2021 MVEB will be compared to the analysis years of 2021, 2030 and 2040

4.1 Emissions Model MOVES2014 was used to calculate emissions. Motor vehicle emission controls considered in the MOVES2014 include the following:

Strategy Methodology/Approach I/M Program Accounted for in MOVES model Tier 2 vehicle’s Emission Standards Accounted for in MOVES model Low Sulfur Gasoline and Diesel fuels Accounted for in MOVES model Heavy Duty Vehicle Rules 2004 and 2007 Accounted for in MOVES model Low RVP Gasoline Accounted for in MOVES model On board vapor recovery Accounted for in MOVES model

Also, area specific information is used for such items as vehicle age distribution and vehicle type distribution rather than national default values, as documented below.

4.1.1 Development of Emissions Factors

The following MOVES2014 model-input parameters will be used in the conformity analysis.

CO Maintenance Area: Forsyth County PM2.5 Maintenance Area: Davidson and Guilford Counties

17 Parameter Details Data Source a. Emissions Model Version(s): MOVES2014 b. Emission Model Runs: County-level domain modeling in inventory mode; pollutant emissions reported in kilograms kg) c. Time Periods: Annually for NOx and Direct PM2.5 d. Pollutants Reported: NOx (for PM2.5) and Direct PM2.5 e. Emissions Budget Years: CO: not applicable CO limited maintenance Plan-regional emissions analysis not required PM 2.5: 2011 & 2021 f. Emissions Analysis Years: 2021, 2030, 2040 g. Vehicle Classes: 13 h. Temperature and Relative Humidity: Hourly average temperature and relative humidity calculated for each month. Meteorological data is from the GSO Triad Regional Airport. i. VMT Mix: Statewide mix based on 2013 data using the method in the August 2004 USEPA Guidance. j. Speeds: From PTRM k. Vehicle Age Distribution: Based on 2013 or latest available vehicle registration data provided by NCDOT. l. I/M Program: 2021, 2030, 2040: OBD-II for Davidson and Guilford Counties. m. Anti-tampering Applicability: Not included in MOVES n. RVP: Calendar Monthly

RVP

Jan, Dec 15 Feb, March, April, Oct, Nov 13.5 May, June, July, Aug, Sept 9.0

o. Strategies: See item #12 above p. I/M Compliance Factor Coverage (CFC): This input to MOVES accounts for the I/M compliance rate, waiver rate, and regulatory coverage adjustment for applicable vehicles. When calculated by MOVES guidance methods this value is 91.2% for passenger cars, 85.73% for passenger trucks, and 85.26% for light commercial trucks for both counties. q. Evaluation Month: 12 month annual emissions or any part There of (output can be disaggregated at the user’s discretion) r. VMT: PTRM s. Fuel Sulfur Content: MOVES considers all recent rulemakings (Tier 2, ultra low sulfur diesel, Tier 3 low sulfur gasoline, etc). The default data in MOVES can

18 be relied on here. Default database values are by month and fuel region and can be requested by the MPO.

t. Source type (vehicle type) population: For each county, vehicle population estimates will be developed for each future modeling year based on the latest available (2013 or later) vehicle registration data provided by NCDOT. This data includes the total number of registered vehicles in each county, divided into nine source type categories. The data will first be reorganized into thirteen source type categories (i.e. passenger cars, light commercial trucks, combination long-haul trucks, etc.) as required for MOVES2014. These source type population estimates will then be projected for each required modeling year, using the same base and future year-county-level human population data that were used in the PTRM model, according to the following formula:

Future year total vehicle population = Base year total vehicle population * (Future year human population) (Base year human population)

u. Source type (vehicle type) age distribution: The latest available (2013 or later) vehicle registration data provided by NCDOT, which also includes a breakdown of the number of vehicles by model year, will be used to create the required source type age distribution input file for each county. As per EPA guidance, the source type age distribution will not be projected for future years.

4.2 Transportation Control Measures The North Carolina State Implementation Plan lists no transportation control measures pertaining to the Triad.

4.3 Emissions Comparison Tests by Location and Pollutant

19 rule, approval of a limited maintenance plan removes the requirement to conduct a regional emissions analysis as part of the conformity determination. The requirement to demonstrate conformity per the other requirements in Table 1 (which is based on Table 1 of 40 CFR 93.109) still applies. The Federal Register notice for the CO limited maintenance plan is found in Appendix A.

The USEPA designated Davidson and Guilford Counties, in their entirety, as a non-attainment area for the PM 2.5 Standard with an effective date of April 5, 2005. This area was re-designated from non- attainment to maintenance for the 1997 PM 2.5 Standard effective on December 19, 2011.

The maintenance designations cover the following geographic areas:  Guilford County (PM 2.5)  Davidson County (PM2.5)  Forsyth County (CO)

Four organizations are responsible for conformity determinations; each must make a conformity determination for its respective area in order for all of the areas to be designated in conformity: . the Burlington-Graham MPO (BGMPO) within its portion of the metropolitan area boundary in Guilford County; . the Greensboro MPO (GUAMPO) within the metropolitan area boundary of Guilford County; . the High Point MPO (HPMPO) within its metropolitan area boundary in Guilford, Davidson and Forsyth Counties; . the Winston-Salem MPO (WSMPO) within its portion of the metropolitan area boundary in Forsyth and Davidson Counties; Table 9 summarizes the emissions test used and decision-making responsibility for conformity findings in each County.

Table 9. Emissions Test and Responsibility for Conformity Findings

Location Pollutant(s) Emissions Test Conformity Finding Responsibility

Guilford County Budget Greensboro MPO, High Point MPO & PM 2.5 Burlington Graham MPO

Davidson County PM 2.5 Budget Winston Salem MPO, High Point MPO

Forsyth County CO Not required-CO limited Winston Salem MPO & High Point MPO maintenance plan

The results of the emission comparisons are summarized by County in Tables 10 and 11. Detailed emissions analysis results by County are contained in Appendix G.

20 Table 10. Guilford County Emissions Comparison Summary

PM 2.5 (PM 2.5): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040 GUILFORD MVEB (PM 2.5) 421,841 421,841 421,841 GUILFORD Emission Model

Results 61,384 40,264 31,901

PM 2.5 (NOx): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040

GUILFORD MVEB (NOx) 6,309,650 6,309,650 6,309,650 GUILFORD Emission Model Results 2,167,370 1,170,330 858,806

Table 11. Davidson County Emissions Comparison Summary

PM 2.5 (NOx): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040 DAVIDSON MVEB (NOx) 2,148,938 2,148,938 2,148,938 DAVIDSON Emission Model Results 932,797 418,735 246,068

PM 2.5 (PM 2.5): The PM 2.5 Re-designation Effective 12/19/11 (kg/year) Area Comparison Year 2021 2030 2040 DAVIDSON MVEB (PM 2.5) 153,313 153,313 153,313 DAVIDSON Emission Model Results 22,611 13,714 10,004

21 5. Public Involvement and Interagency Consultation

The 2040 MTPs are consistent with consultation requirements discussed in 40 CFR 93.105. Interagency consultation was a cooperative effort on the part of the Burlington-Graham MPO, the Greensboro MPO, the High Point MPO, the Winston-Salem MPO, the Piedmont Triad Area RPO, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration. The process was administered by the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) on behalf of the partners and was organized according to the sections in the document titled Triad Region Transportation Conformity:

Consensus Plan, a document agreed to at the initial interagency consultation meeting on December 8, 2014 and updated periodically. Subsequent interagency consultation meetings were held on January 26, 2015, February 23, 2015, March 23, 2015, April 27, 2015, and May 26, 2015. A copy of the latest version of the Consensus Plan, written agency comments and agendas and summaries of the interagency consultation meetings are included in Appendix B.

Public review of this report was handled in accordance with each MPO, PART and RPO public participation policy for the MTPs. Copies of all public participation policies are included in Appendix H. Comments from the general public participation process and interagency review are incorporated into the final Conformity Determination Report. All written comments on the draft report from the general public and interagency review are included in Appendices I and J of the final report.

22 6. Conclusion Based on the analysis and consultation discussed above the following transportation plans and TIPs conform to the purpose of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan. In every horizon year for every pollutant in each geographic area, the emissions expected from the implementation of the metropolitan plans and TIPs are less than the emissions budgets established in the SIP.

Table 12: Summary of Conformity Status of Triad MTPs Burlington- Greensboro High Point Winston- Criteria (√ indicates the Graham MPO MPO MPO Salem MPO criterion is met) 2040 MTP 2040 MTP 2040 MTP 2040 MTP

Less Than Emissions √ √ √ √ Budget(s) or Baseline TCM Implementation Interagency √ √ √ √ Consultation Latest Emissions √ √ √ √ Model Latest Planning √ √ √ √ Assumptions Fiscal Constraint √ √ √ √

In the final Transportation Conformity Determination Report, please refer to the resolutions of conformity finding, approval, and/or endorsement by the metropolitan planning organizations of the Piedmont Triad region in Appendices’ K, L and M.

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

APPENDIX D: Public Comments

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Introduction to Public Comments

The Public Comments section will consist of comments regarding the Draft MTIP, as submitted to the MPO during advertised Public Comment Period from August 14, 2015 to September 14, 2015. The comments will be entered and grouped together by project categories and MPO responses will follow. Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Transportation Plans

Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization

Overview and Public Review Comments for MPO Documents

The MPO has developed three documents over the last year per federal requirements. The plans are multi-modal and include both short and long term improvements. The documents are for improvements in the Greensboro Urban Area, which includes the City of Greensboro, most of unincorporated Guilford County, and the Towns of Oak Ridge, Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, Stokesdale, and Summerfield. The documents must be approved by September 30th for the continued construction of existing and future projects. A public review period was held August 14th through September 14th and an Open House was held on August 18th. A brief description of each plan is below and the public comments have been attached for your review.

2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (formerly the LRTP) - The Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) is a federally required document and lays out transportation improvements and policies for the Greensboro Urban Area. The plan evaluates and identifies projects for roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes from 2016 through 2040. 2016-2025 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program- The 2016-2025 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) lists transportation investments within the Greensboro Urban Area scheduled for federal or state funding. The document includes the Highway Program, the Non-Highway Program (transit, rail, bicycle, and pedestrian, and aviation), and the Statewide Program (umbrella projects which may be used to make investments across the entire state as needed). Triad Air Quality Analysis- The Triad MPOs (Greensboro, Burlington-Graham, High Point, and Winston-Salem) are in counties of air quality concern. As a result the Triad MPOs must complete an analysis showing that the projects reflected in the 2040 MTP and 2016-2025 MTIP will not negatively impact air quality. The analysis is done in conjunction with NCDOT, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality, and Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART). The analysis and results are included in the Triad Air Quality Conformity Determination Report.

Greensboro Urban Area 2040 MTP and 2016-2025 MTIP Public Review Comment Summary August 14- September 14, 2015

Survey Responses

A summary of public comments received during the development of the MTP and MTIP are th provided below. The public comment period began on August 14 , lasting 30 days, through September 14th. Comments were received via website survey, during the public meeting, or by email. Over 30 citizens attended the Open House and a total of nine survey comments were received on the MTP and MTIP. The responses are summarized below.

1. How well do you agree with the recommendations in the Draft MTP?

2. Please rate each mode's importance on a scale of 1-6, with 1 being the most important?

Planning for the transportation future

LEAD PLANNING AGENCY: CITY OF GREENSBORO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 3136 GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27402-3136 ∙ 336 373-4368 ∙ fax 336 412-6171 www.guampo.org

3. Are there needs you consider important that were not addressed in the MTP or MTIP documents?

1. Although bike lanes have been created, people use them as parking lanes. This forces the bikers back out into the flow of traffic. 2. Yes, there needs to be traffic light installed at Old Lake Jeanette Rd & Church St at Canterbury School 3. No 4. Proper signage on Wendover Avenue where it intersects with I-40. The current lack of proper signage is a safety issue considering the large volume of traffic on Wendover Avenue. My family & I live in the Beechcroft development in southwest Greensboro. There are over 700 homes in the development and not a single foot of sidewalks. I realize Greensboro is playing catch-up on the sidewalks, but there is no hint of ever getting sidewalks in our development. 5. Great report

4. Are there any projects or programs proposed that you feel should not be included in the MTP or MTIP?

1. Lose the airport connector road- it would ruin my neighborhood, others like it, and would be a waste of $$ to only do what the existing I40/Business 40 does. I40/Business 40 is located roughly a mere mile away. No reason to spend that money and ruin people's neighborhoods for a road that will merely parallel an existing road. If the airports have freight needs to go back and forth, build small connectors from each airport to I40. PTI is already well suited to get freight traffic from the airport to I40, or could be improved easily with a road south of the airport. Why cut across beautiful farms and newly built neighborhoods? For that matter, Market street ALSO parallels 40 and could be integrated in some way. 2. No 3. The Stokesdale bypass and the Airport Connector are two projects that should not be included. The money could be better spent on eliminating railroad grade crossings, another safety issue. 4. No 5. Make egress in and out to loop from north a priority

5. Do you believe local and state governments should find ways to meet the transportation needs of the future, even if it requires new revenues from a mix of taxes or user fees?

1. Yes 2. Of course, how else is the public expected to improve public property? 3. Yes, within reason. 4. Yes 5. yes 6. Transportation infrastructure needs to be maintained. 7. Yes 8. Yes

6. Please share any other comments you may have.

1. Coming from a different part of the country, to call this area 'bicycle friendly' is a joke. Signage does nothing, shoulders do everything. 2. I applaud the bicycle and pedestrian plans. I wish the whole region was more walkable and bikeable. Being able to bike to the Farmers Market and see lush countryside would be nice, although I agree the first focus to 'catch up' should be and is the more central urban areas. The Triad has a lot of catching up to do. 3. There are several sign standards in place on Wendover Avenue near I-40. The project should not be that expensive, but it would definitely improve safety. 4. Great job 5. Look at intersection at Smith and Church downtown - expand to two lanes onto church going North and eliminate need to do u turn from Church onto Morrow blvd. ramp

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 2 of 11

Demographic Information

7. What is your zip code?

8. Gender

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 3 of 11

9. Please check the age group that applies to you:

10. What is your ethnicity?

White 75.0% Hispanic 0.0% African-American 25.0% Asia-Pacific Islander 0.0% Native American 0.0%

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 4 of 11

General Comments

A total of four general comments were received by email and are included below. A MPO response also follows each comment.

Comment 1:

From: Erika Lovett Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 1:41 PM To: Guampo Distribution Subject: MTIP

Good afternoon,

I’m looking at the MTIP Spring 2015 Update and I’m trying to figure out which roadway projects listed have NCDOT project numbers now and which ones are still considered City projects. Can you help me with this?

Thank you, Erika Lovett

MPO Response:

Hi Ms. Lovett I am glad you have taken the time to review our documents. The best way to find this answer is to refer to the 2040 MTP. It includes local, federal, and state projects. Once a project is shown in the MTIP it is either funded with federal or state dollars for some form of implementation. The implementation could include a feasibility study, planning of environmental document, right of way, or construction. So look here in the 2040 MTP to find your answer. Refer to Chapter 4 which includes a listing of all projects including those in the MTIP. If you have further questions please give me a call. Take Care!

Lydia M. McIntyre Transportation Planning Engineer Greensboro DOT/MPO

Comment 2:

From: Van Der Wiele, Cynthia Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:01 PM To: McIntyre, Lydia Cc: Militscher, Chris Subject: USEPA Comments for the Greensboro MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

Dear Ms. McIntyre:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Greensboro MPO’s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. USEPA has the following comments:

Chapter 1 Introduction and Vision USEPA supports the Key Goals of the 2040 Transportation Plan.

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 5 of 11

Chapter 2 Land Use and Transportation No comments.

Chapter 3 Safety and Security Elements USEPA supports measures to increase safety for vehicle drivers and particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. The FHWA website contains many resources for engineers and planners; see: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/#Safety Of particular interest is the Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Tools that can be used to assess and rectify roadway design and traffic engineering issues. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is paramount in order to be a viable transportation choice within the Greensboro MPO planning area. Safety education should extend to drivers of motor vehicles.

Chapter 4 Roadway The USEPA encourages the implementation of smart growth land use patterns and roadway design that supports all modes of transportation including public transportation, pedestrians, and bicyclists. “Right- sizing” existing roadways along with incorporating sidewalks, crosswalks, transit stops, bicycle lanes, bicycle- activated traffic lights and other infrastructure in new roadways provides significant quality of life benefits for citizens along with air quality conformity improvements and safer conditions for all users of streets and highways.

• FHWA provides substantial resources such as case studies, tools, webinars, etc. through their Livability Initiative website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/ • Smart Growth America [www.smartgrowthamerica.org] provides programs, workshops, research, and publications to aid communities in developing Complete Streets policies, evaluating Complete Streets projects, measuring the fiscal implications of development patterns, and designing safer streets for the public.

Chapter 5 Transit Element Providing better access to transit and additional transit options can have significant impacts on air quality and congestion mitigation. USEPA commends the Greensboro Transit Authority (GTA) partnership with area colleges and universities with the HEAT service. This is a win-win situation which reduces the need for on- campus parking, reduces the number of cars on the road in a particular location, and meets young adults’ desire to use transit rather than driving personal vehicles for getting around town.

The Transit Element chapter was vague in regard to expanding transit regionally. The chapter did not include a plan or strategies for expanding transit outward into suburban and rural areas within the Greensboro MPO area. USEPA realizes that low density land use patterns mean that expansion of public transportation into suburban areas is challenging. Rural areas, however, can greatly benefit from transit by providing access to employment opportunities and medical facilities.

Resources and tools available for transit planning include:

• The HUD-USDOT-USEPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities: http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/ • The National Rural Transit Assistance Program (part of the Federal Transit Administration): http://nationalrtap.org/ • The Small Urban and Rural Transit Center’s 2015 Rural Transit Fact Book: http://www.surtc.org/transitfactbook/

Chapter 6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Element USEPA supports the 2040 Transportation Plan’s philosophy that bicyclists and pedestrians have similar origins and destinations as other transportation system users and that it is imperative to create a seamless transportation system for all users to enjoy and use efficiently and safely. This can be accomplished primarily by incorporating bicycle and pedestrian facilities into existing and new roadways, which the 2040

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 6 of 11

Transportation Plan is committed to providing through its pledge to evaluate all resurfacing projects for new marking plans to accommodate bicyclists, and designing all new non-controlled access roadway projects to have either wide outside lanes or a marked bicycle lane (Page 6-4). These facilities provide the most benefit when they are part of a comprehensive master plan such as the Greensboro Urban Area (GUA) Bicycle, Pedestrian and Greenway Master Plan, integrated into the overall transportation system, and designed such that each project has logical termini so that they meet user expectations (i.e., a bicycle lane or sidewalk doesn’t suddenly end leaving a person without safe options to reach their destination or the next bicycle lane/sidewalk). The GUA Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan (BiPed Plan) was adopted in October 2006 (nearly 10 years ago). As a rapidly- growing metropolitan area, the GUA would benefit from updating both plans.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Sections (pages 6-2 and 6-2): a summary of pedestrian and bicyclist crash findings were included in the 2040 Transportation Plan; however, it is unclear how those findings/summary statistics will be translated into strategic, actionable roadway and/or traffic control design changes (such as modifying traffic signals to detect bicycles), that could reduce future crashes, injuries, and fatalities. For example, the Plan noted that 55% of pedestrian crashes occurred in daylight and that 82% of bicyclists involved in crashes were male; however, the root causes of these crashes is unclear.

USEPA notes that in late April 2015, the City of Greensboro DOT was involved in an FHWA Pedestrian Safety Assessment—Safer People, Safer Streets Initiative. The collaborative safety assessment of the heavily-used Aycock and Walker St. intersection was a highly beneficial opportunity for a variety of state and federal partners to share knowledge in developing solutions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

In addition to the AASHTO 2012 and NACTO 2011 design manuals, there are other excellent design manuals, references, and guidance documents, including:

• FHWA’s 2015 Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_p dg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf • Design Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_guidance/ • Accessibility Guidance: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/accessibility_guidance/ • See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/ for a complete listing of bicycle and pedestrian program publications

Greenway and multi-use trail improvements provide invaluable transportation opportunities for younger or novice bicyclists and pedestrians in addition to their recreational value.

Chapter 7 Freight No comments.

Chapter 8 Travel Management Strategies The 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan seeks to support travel demand management goals including roadway network monitoring and setting performance measures for roadway networks, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian. USEPA recognizes that determining how to measure the performance of bicycle and pedestrian policies and investments is an emerging skill and has proven particularly challenging. The 2040 Plan measured the total miles of bicycle lanes and sidewalks. Recently, the National Association of City Transportation Officials included performance measures as part of their Urban Street Design Guide (see: http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/design-controls/performance-measures/). USEPA encourages the Greensboro MPO to develop a set of output-based (such as connectivity, accessibility, LOS, and bicycle level of stress), and outcome-based metrics (e.g., economic development, public health, quality of life, and mode shift, etc.) to evaluate projects after they have been completed.

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 7 of 11

Chapter 9 Environmental Analysis Environmental impact screening is beneficial in identifying environmental resources and developing alternatives that can avoid or minimize these impacts. It should be noted that it is extremely unusual and rare for a project to be “stopped” due to impacts to natural resources. USEPA supports land use and transportation planning that follows the three tiered process of: 1. avoidance, 2. minimization of impacts, and 3. mitigation. Several tools are available to assist in identifying environmental data and natural resources features to be able to develop reasonable alternatives to impacting them. These include:

• The USEPA tool, NEPAssist: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx • The NCDENR Natural Heritage Program’s Data Explorer Program: https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/ The

The table on pages 9-17 and 9-18 provides a list of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. USEPA encourages the Greensboro MPO to work with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish & Wildlife Service to design measures to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife such as innovative wildlife crossings and other measures as development moves into formerly rural areas. Additionally, light pollution can have deleterious consequences for wildlife as well as diminish quality of life. The International Dark Sky Association [darksky.org] provides resources for designing outdoor lighting and lighting ordinances as well as public outreach materials to promote outdoor lighting that effectively illuminates roadways while protecting the natural nighttime environment. Regional or county-wide conservation plans are useful in providing a template for guiding land use and transportation planning.

USEPA encourages the Greensboro MPO to enhance their analytical capabilities to ensure that the long- range transportation plan and the TIP comply with Title VI. In June 2015, the USEPA released EJSCREEN, a data and mapping tool that provides environmental and demographic information at a high geographic resolution. This pre-decisional tool is useful for transportation planning purposes to consider EJ issues. This tool is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

In addition, FHWA published the Environmental Justice Reference Guide in April 2015 as a resource for transportation planning and the public participation process to aid in compliance with Executive Order 12898. See: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Greensboro Urban Area MPO’s draft long range transportation plan. We look forward to working with you on this and other Greensboro UA MPO initiatives.

Kind regards, Cynthia

Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D. USEPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office NC Field Office / NCDOT Inter-Agency Merger Team

MPO Response:

Cynthia Thanks for your close review and detailed response to the 2040 plan. I real appreciate all the resources you have shared and will put them in our toolbox for future analysis. You may also find more information on the bicycle and pedestrian chapter in the 2015 Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenway Master Plan on how crash and other data will be used to implement safety projects. The MPO also uses the data to assist in identifying possible problem areas which may be good projects for NCDOT’s Prioritization process.

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 8 of 11

Lydia M. McIntyre Transportation Planning Engineer Greensboro DOT/MPO

Comment 3: From: Jimmy and Joanne Morgan Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 9:29 PM To: McIntyre, Lydia Subject: 2040 Metro Transportation Plan Comments

Lydia, thanks for your courtesy and putting up with us. Here are our comments for the current plan. Take care and we hope your family is well. Enjoy your new addition.

Comments Regarding the 2040 GUAMPO Transportation Plan 09/13/2015

We thank the GUAMPO staff for continuing to inform the public of transportation planning for the Greensboro area.

Our objection to including I-4924, the airport connector, in future plans remains. The reasons remain the same. Without trying to be redundant, a summary of our objections follow.

Even 25 years away, it holds landowners hostage. Putting any new road on maps like I-4924 has Map Act consequences for landowners. Funneling heavy traffic and congestion into a non-congested area seems contrary to proper transportation planning. Adding more east-west lanes to existing roads according to the plan greatly reduces the need for the airport connector. Several VADs and NC Century Farms are within the proposed right of way and in the near vicinity of the airport connector as well.

An NCDOT official told us at its spring 2015 STIP public session that the airport connector was a road that was desired by developers. After being involved with area land use planning for years, this is what we were led to believe. What that told us is that developers want to use governments' road-building authority and eminent domain, taxpayer dollars, and citizens' land and homes to fund their speculative desires. If it works, governments, developers and businesses win. Whether it works or not, property owners lose.

Finally, shown on the 2040 projects map, 40-22, the Sandy Ridge Road Extension, should be placed on the 2040 Illustrative Project List and map to be consistent with I-4924 on the Illustrative list. It is reasonable to believe that this new road would be totally unnecessary if the fate of I-4924 is uncertain.

Respectfully: Jimmy and Joanne Morgan

MPO Response: Hi Mr. and Mrs. Morgan As always thanks for your comments on the 2040 MTP. The MPO will share your comments as customary with both the TCC and TAC. The staff will also take a closer look at the Sandy Ridge Road Extension and if it needs to be moved to the illustrative list and check the cost. (As we discussed during the Open House, the Airport Connector has been moved to the Illustrative list. This means the MPO cannot solicit state or federal funds for this project.) Take Care!

Lydia M. McIntyre Transportation Planning Engineer Greensboro DOT/MPO

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 9 of 11

Comment 4: From: Allen Andrew Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:38 AM To: Guampo Distribution Cc: McKinney, Craig Subject: Greensboro Urban Area Transportation Plan Input

Purpose:

1. Provide transportation for public and commercial current and projected needs for roads and BiPed projects.

2. Plan transportation for desired future development- ie downtown and airport areas

3, This needs to be accomplished considering safety, costs, productivity, efficiency and economic vitality.

Many of the large current major projects need to be completed ASAP including the Urban Loop; Bryan Blvd.-I 73 route to Madison (US 220), including the airplane overpass; Battleground Rd. to Madison (US 220); and Greensboro-High Point Road to central High Point.

A few of my thoughts are as follows. While the major roads get most of our attention some of the other projects are vital to our safety and bottleneck solutions. The intersection of Aycock St./Walker Ave. with heavy pedestrian use has had many accidents and is currently scheduled as a good safety plan. The major Battleground intersections are scheduled and will improve traffic flow. The Elm/Pisgah Church intersection is scheduled for improvement but more important intersection bottlenecks would be Elm/Cone Blvd. and Elm/Cornwallis.

The Greensboro City Council and DOT have almost abandoned downtown Greensboro. The Bicentennial (Downtown) Greenway was initiated before 2008 with bonds passed, Federal money, state money and private contributions made. Little progress has been made because City Council and DOT have blocked it in favor of their pet projects. This and other BiPed projects and connector routes need to be proactively put forward.

Note: Sections of the Downtown Greenway include Phase 2 (2016) and Phase 3 (2015); the remainder of Phase I will be bond funded in 2016 or 2017.

Spending on road improvements in and out of downtown Greensboro have not happened. Freeman Mill Road (US 220) has a good start into downtown. It needs to continue to and from Battleground with reconstruction of Edgeworth and Spring Streets.

The Battleground Corridor should begin with major downtown feeder routes expanded. It should be widened to four lanes in each direction, with turn lanes, from downtown to Westridge Road. It should be widened to three lanes in each direction from there to the Urban Loop. A four lane BATTLEGROUND FLYOVER should be built from south of Pembroke to north of Cornwallis. Then improvements could be made with the Battleground, Lawndale, Aycock, Pembroke, Green Valley and Cornwallis mess.

The Wendover Corridor is also very important. To the east it needs to be at least a four lane road and turning lanes to Burlington and Mebane. It needs to be expanded to at least three lanes in each

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 10 of 11

direction from Summit to Spring Garden Street. Then it needs to be widened to four lanes in each direction, with turn lanes, to the Urban Loop.

Elm Street is a major route to downtown without a proper road. It needs to be an improved roadway of four lanes plus turning lanes and improved intersections from Cone to Fisher Avenue.

Church Street needs to be widened to four lanes plus turn lanes from Cone Blvd. to Summit Avenue with easy access to the Cone Hospital area. (Funded from Wendover Ave to Cone Blvd in FY 2022)

Benjamin Parkway needs to be widened to 6-8 lanes from Wendover Avenue to the airport. This is another fast growing and important corridor. (Funded from Wendover Ave to Holden Rd in FY 2022)

Horsepen Creek Road improvements and widening should improve safety and flow in that area.for its current growth. (Bond funded with construction in FY 2016)

Cone Blvd. extension to the Urban Loop should help open up that area of the city. It needs not to cut up the White Street Landfill because this will be needed for future Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council has burdened the taxpayers with millions of dollers each year with un-needed expenses by caving in to special interests when our long term needs were already set up with a 1600 acre landfill. (Unfunded, but construction expected after the Urban Loop construction is completed)

The future needs of our community can only be met by long term plans such as these Greensboro Urban Area Transportation Plans.

H Allen Andrew, Financial Advisor

MPO Response:

Hi Mr. Andrew Thank you for your detailed review and comments on the 2040 MTP. The MPO appreciates your comments. Craig informed me that he did talk with and discussed many of the projects ongoing. The MPO does evaluate the needs of the entire roadway system for needed projects. Several factors are evaluated when identifying a project including feasibility of constructing it, priority need, and cost. The MPO will continue to evaluate needs including those in downtown. But the MPO is identifying projects in an environment where roadway funding dollars are tight at the local, state, and federal levels. But your comments will certainly be shared with the members of our Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and taken into consideration as staff continues to analyze future needs. Take Care!

Lydia M. McIntyre Transportation Planning Engineer Greensboro DOT/MPO

September 23, 2015 Public Review Comment Summary Page 11 of 11

2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

APPENDIX E: Adopting Resolution 2016-2025 MTIP ∙ Greensboro Urban Area

Introduction to Resolutions

The document includes final resolutions adopted by the TAC on September 23, 2015. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FINAL GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY 2016 - FY 2025

A motion was made by TAC Member Jamal Fox and seconded by TAC Member Cheryl McQueary for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted.

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has found the Metropolitan Planning Organization is conducting transportation planning in a continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) manner in accordance with 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. 1607; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has found that the Transportation Improvement Program conforms to the purpose of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in accordance with 40 CFR 51 & 93; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has found the Transportation Improvement Program to be in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI Assurance executed by each State under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has considered how the Transportation Improvement Program will affect the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in FHWA and FTA funded projects (Sec. 105(f), Pub. L. 97-424, 96 Stat. 2100, 49 CFR part 23); AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has considered how the Transportation Improvement Program will affect elderly and disabled persons, in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101- 336, 104 Stat. 327, as amended) and the U.S. DOT implementing regulations; AND

WHEREAS, the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program is a direct subset of the currently conforming Greensboro Urban Area 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Plan has a planning horizon year of 2040, and meets all the requirements for an adequate Transportation Plan; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has provided for a 30-day public comment period for the proposed Transportation Improvement Program; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has solicited public and private transportation provider comments; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Improvement Program, for years one through five, will serve as the project selection document for transportation projects within the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Area Boundary, and the NCDOT may move projects and phases of projects without additional programming or project selection approval by the MPO within that five-year period, providing that transportation conformity and financial constraint criteria are still met; AND

WHEREAS, the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program is MAP-21 compliant;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Greensboro Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee that the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2016 - FY 2025, dated September 23, 2015, be adopted for the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization on this, the 23rd day of September, 2015.

September 23, 2015 Resolution Adopting the 2016-2025 MTIP Page 1 of 2

RESOLUTION FINDING THE 2040 GREENSBORO URBAN AREA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND THE FY 2016-2025 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)

A motion was made by TAC Member Alan Branson___ and seconded by TAC Member Jeff Phillips for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon being put to a vote was duly adopted.

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency revoked the 1-hour ozone standard for Guilford County; AND

WHEREAS, the Greensboro Urban Area MPO, effective April 15, 2009, is no longer required to demonstrate conformity for the 1-hour ozone standard; AND

WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) redesignated Davidson, and Guilford Counties as maintenance areas for PM2.5 on December 19, 2011; AND

WHEREAS, the conformity analysis of the Greensboro Urban Area 2040 MTP is based on the most recent estimates of population, employment, travel and congestion; AND

WHEREAS, that conformity determination used the latest emissions model approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency; AND

WHEREAS, there are no transportation control measures listed in North Carolina’s State Implementation Plan; AND

WHEREAS, that conformity determination was made according to the established interagency consultation procedures for North Carolina; AND

WHEREAS, the programs and projects included in the Greensboro Urban Area 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2016 - 2025 are financially constrained in accordance with State and Federal law; AND

WHEREAS, the programs and projects included in the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for FY 2016 - 2025 are a direct subset of the conforming Greensboro Urban Area 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update; AND

WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has provided for a public comment period for the proposed Conformity Finding based on the Public Participation Plan adopted February 26, 2014; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Greensboro Urban Area Transportation Advisory Committee finds that the 2040 MTP and FY 2016-2025 MTIP conforms to the purposes of the SIP in accordance with the Clean Air Act as Amended (CAAA) and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act on this, the 23rd day of September, 2015.

September 23, 2015 Resolution Finding MTP and MTIP in Conformity Page 1 of 2