triangle area rural planning organization rtac meeting …aug 18, 2011 · rtac meeting agenda...

Chatham County Lee County Moore County Orange County Triangle Area Rural Transportation Planning Organization

P O Box 12276 (4307 Emperor Blvd) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 Voice (919) 558-9397 Fax (919) 549-9390

T R I A N G L E J C O U N C I L O F G O V E R N M E N T S

Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization

RTAC Meeting Agenda AUGUST 18, 2011

at the Central Carolina Community College Chatham Campus, Multipurpose Room 764 West Street Pittsboro, NC 27312

1. Lunch, Welcome, Introductions, and Other Remarks Randy Voller, RTAC Chair 2. Purpose and Agenda for Today’s Meeting Matt Day, TJCOG Shared RTCC/RTAC Agenda 3. Presentation and Discussion: PRISM Research Triangle John Hodges-Copple, TJCOG 4. NCDOT and Legislative Updates Sarah Lee, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Updates Rob Stone, NCDOT Division 8; John Hunsinger, NCDOT Division 7 5. Official Conclusion of Shared Agenda and Summary of Today’s RTCC Meeting Melissa Guilbeau, RTCC Chair RTAC Agenda 6. April and June Meeting Summaries Matt Day, TJCOG 7. Business Items: a. Endorsement of Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan b. Letter of Support for PRISM Research Triangle Project c. Ranking/Scoring System for SPOT 2.0 Projects d. Identification of Potential CMAQ Projects 8. Informational Items: a. Lee County Functional Classification Maps b. R-3830 Project Update c. NCARPO Quarterly Meeting and Workshop with Community Transit Agencies d. TAC membership update e. TARPO Annual Performance Report f. Annual RPO Evaluations and Survey 9. Other Business and Adjournment Randy Voller, RTAC Chair Next Meeting: October 20 at Lee County Government Center in Sanford The Central Carolina Community College Pittsboro Campus is located in Pittsboro near the corner of US 64 Business (West Street) and NC 87, and can be accessed from either road. The Multipurpose Room is located in Building #2. A map is available here. The phone number for the meeting facility is (919) 542-6495.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=764+west+st,+pittsboro,+nc&hl=en&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=29.025693,86.220703&t=h&z=16







Agenda Item 3: PRISM Research Triangle Presentation Background: Mr. John Hodges-Copple of the Triangle J Council of Governments will provide an overview of the PRISM Research Triangle project and answer any questions about the project. Action Requested: This item is for information only.







Agenda Item 4: NCDOT and Legislative Updates Background: Ms. Sarah Lee will provide an update on planning and administrative activities in the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, including an update on active CTPs. Mr. Rob Stone of NCDOT Division 8 and Mr. John Hunsinger of NCDOT Division 7 will provide updates on NCDOT construction projects. There are no known legislative items to discuss at this time. Action Requested: This item is for information only.







Agenda Item 6: Approval of April 21, 2011 Meeting Summary and June 16, 2011 Meeting Summary Background: The last meeting of the TARPO RTAC was held on June 16, 2011. At the time of that meeting, minutes were not yet available from the April 21 meeting. The April 21 meeting summary is still not available for distribution at this time, but will be provided in person at the August 18 meeting. The minutes of the June 16, 2011 TARPO RTAC meeting are attached for review. Action Requested: Approval of April 21, 2011, and June 16, 2011, TARPO RTAC meeting minutes.

TARPO RTAC June 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes 1

Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) June 16, 2011 Meeting Minutes RTAC Members Present: David McNeill, Town of Southern Pines Randolph Voller, Town of Pittsboro Charlie Parks, Lee County David Burns, NC Board of Transportation Donald Andrews, Town of Broadway (alternate Lee County municipal representative) RTCC Members Present: Stuart Bass, Town of Pittsboro Jack Meadows, Town of Siler City Karen Lincoln, Orange County Jeremy Rust, Moore County Kathy Blake, Town of Southern Pines Melissa Guilbeau, Chatham County Bob Bridwell, Lee County, City of Sanford, and Town of Broadway Sarah Lee, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Matt Day, Triangle J Council of Governments Others Present: Nancy Roy Fiorillo, Village of Pinehurst Molly Goodman, Village of Pinehurst Pat Ann McMurray, Town of Aberdeen Mila Vega, Orange County Ellen Norris, Triangle J Council of Governments Mr. Voller called the meeting to order at 12:20 pm. A quorum was present. The first portion of this meeting was a joint session between the RTCC, which was still in session from its meeting earlier in the day, and the RTAC. Mr. Voller invited Ms. Lee to give a presentation on the NCDOT 2040 Statewide Transportation Plan. The presentation slides were provided as a handout. During Ms. Lee's presentation, Mr. Voller asked if she had any information about the efficacy of previous plans. For example, Mr. Voller had previously asked the DCHC MPO about how close its 2010 plan (from around 1990) came to matching the on-the-ground reality today. Mr. Voller said that, for example, the DCHC plans were not able to foresee the impact of Southpoint Mall. Ms. Lee replied that she did not have this type of information available, either at the metropolitan or statewide scales, but would look into it. Following the presentation, Ms. Lee opened the floor for questions and comments. Mr. Voller asked how the state would be able to foresee transportation needs 29 years into the future. Ms. Lee replied that part of the process of developing the plan would be trying to determine how to do that, and the NCDOT was seeking input from local officials and the public early in the process to ensure that they address all these important issues with the plan. But specific information about those methods is not available yet. Mr. Voller said that issues such as fuel availability and electric cars and associated concerns (need for charging stations, stress on the electrical grid, etc.) are important to consider. Additionally, there is a need to consider who will be traveling in the future, and what will be the need for travel – how much impact will telecommuting and broadband access have on the transportation system? What will be the range of electric vehicles, and how will that affect travel patterns, especially in rural areas? For example, should NCDOT be involved in rural broadband activities as a way to address a transportation


concern? There is also a need to look at intermodal freight and connections to North Carolina's ports – there is great potential for this region to be an intermodal freight center if the access to the ports is improved, both for ships and landside access. An additional consideration is the potential for manufacturing to move back to the US if the cost of oil raises shipping costs, leading to a more localized manufacturing/production pattern. Mr. Parks noted that it is hard to comment on the new plan without knowing how well the previous plan worked – how well did that plan work? What was determined to need changing? Is there more specific information available? Ms. Lee noted that the statewide plan is not a statewide CTP. It is more of a policy-level plan. Mr. Voller noted that we all know of cases where things change, new developments come in, and the “line” is not held on plans. For example, it probably was not anyone's intention for Captial Boulevard in North Raleigh to turn out the way it did. So he would like more direction on how firm vs. flexible these plans are and/or should be. Mr. Bridwell noted that corridor preservation is an important issue to address. While he tries to maintain the integrity of planned transportation corridors shown as lines on the CTP map when developers come in, he has been told that the only way to absolutely ensure their integrity is to purchase the right-of-way. This can be a major issue. Mr. Voller reiterated Mr. Bridwell's comment, noting that the Pittsboro CTP has been developed in close consultation with developers in the area, but that is still not an iron-clad assurance for corridor preservation. Ms. Fiorillo noted that congestion can be something that drives people to use other modes of travel other than cars, such as carpool, HOV, and park and ride, and in that way a certain amount of congestion can be a good thing. This may be more relevant in urban areas. Mr. Voller noted that cooperation between jurisdictions is very important, moreso in North Carolina than in some other states that may have larger county governments (such as San Diego County, which is larger than the seven Triangle counties combined). Mr. Parks noted that the provision of transit service requires a dense concentration of jobs, and that this should be a consideration in the statewide plan. When he lived in Northern Virginia, commuter trains made the most sense, but that may not make the most sense here – there are many different modes that can be considered. Mr. Voller closed the discussion on the presentation and invited Ms. Lee to provide the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch update. Ms. Lee provided a handout with information on the status of each CTP within the RPO. The Orange County CTP was presented to the county commissioners in May. NCDOT continues to develop the recommendations for each mode, pulling in the county bicycle plan. The Pittsboro CTP had a committee meeting and a public meeting in May. The draft alternatives were just presented to the county commissioners. They are working through the adoption process, and plan to come to the RPO for endorsement at the August meeting. On the Chatham County CTP, the committee is working on the vision and goals statement and schedule. The Chatham CTP will integrate the county's bicycle plan, and will also fold in the highway recommendations in the Pittsboro CTP. The Moore County CTP is still in its pre-CTP stage, and Frances Bisby is working on the public involvement plan and subcommittees, and plan to begin the charrette process in the fall. Mr. Bridwell noted that he was willing to provide assistance if necessary to complete the documentation for the Lee County CTP. Mr. Voller asked Ms. Lee if she knew of any legislative matters that would impact the RPO. Ms. Lee responded that she was not aware of any issues that would affect transportation or the RPOs. Mr. Day handed out the NCDOT Division updates that had been provided by Divisions 7 and 8. There were no Division representatives present at the meeting. Mr. Voller asked when the US 421 bypass would be completed in Sanford. Mr. Bridwell replied that constuction on the


southern end was scheduled to begin next year, and the northern end would begin soon after that. Mr. Voller stated that he would like to be able to have a ribbon-cutting or ceremonial procession when that project is completed. Mr. Voller asked about the toll road project, in conjunction with the US 1 project shown on the Chatham County project list. There was a brief discussion about the toll road and how it would provide more direct access between Lee and Moore Counties and the RTP/RDU Airport area, and eventually to I-85. There was no more discussion on the NCDOT Division updates. Ms. Guilbeau provided a brief recap of the RTCC meeting, stating that the RTCC had voted to recommend approval of all items in the agenda, with the note that the RTCC had recommended changes to the descriptions of several of the items in the FY 2012 Planning Work Program, but had not recommended changes to the dollar amounts. She then asked for a motion to adjourn the RTCC meeting. Ms. Lincoln made a motion to adjourn the RTCC meeting. Mr. Meadows seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. The RTCC meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:55 pm. The RTAC meeting continued. Mr. Day noted that Agenda Item 6, the approval of the April 21 meeting summary, would need to be tabled until the next meeting. That meeting occurred before Mr. Day started work, and he is waiting on Mr. Hodges-Copple, who has been very busy lately, to complete the summary. It will be available for the next meeting, in August. Mr. Day described the proposed amendment to the FY 2010-2011 Planning Work Program. This proposed amendment was included in the meeting packet as Item 7a, and included a cover letter and table explaining the recommended changes. Mr. McNeill made a motion to adopt the FY 2010-11 Planning Work Program amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Parks. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Day introduced the proposed FY 2011-2012 Planning Work Program (PWP), included in the agenda packet as Item 7b. He stated that it is relatively similar to last year's PWP and many of the tasks will carry over from last year. He said that the proposed PWP would increase the funding allocated to section II-B (support of CTPs) and section III-B (support of the SPOT and TIP process). He also discussed the “special project” in item III-D-3, which would be for support of the PRISM Research Triangle Project. He explained that the US DOT, HUD, and EPA have a grant program for doing regional sustainability planning, and that the Triangle region is planning to apply. Last year, TARPO provided a letter of support for this grant proposal, indicating that they would commit up to $20,000 in in-kind support (TARPO staff time) over the proposed three-year planning period, but the Triangle did not receive the grant last year. This year, the region will be re-applying, and will be seeking a similar letter of support and commitment of in-kind resources from TARPO, which would be used in activities related to coordination between the RPO's infrastructure planning and the PRISM project's infrastructure planning. The end result of PRISM would be a regional sustainable infrastructure plan. Mr. Day explained that he is not seeking a letter of support or commitment to the PRISM project today – Mr. Hodges-Copple will be at the August TAC meeting and would seek a letter of support at that time. If the TAC were to decide in August that it did not want to be involved in the PRISM project, the PWP could be amended at that time. Mr. McNeill asked who is typically responsible for conducting special studies, and how those are identified or chosen. Mr. Day replied that the special studies are typically conducted by TARPO staff, but he is not aware of how they have been selected in the past. He noted that the special study conducted in FY 2010-11 was for a pedestrian plan in the Town of Cameron. Mr. Parks asked what would be the benefit of conducting the PRISM plan, beyond the work the RPO is already doing. Mr. Day replied that the intent of the PRISM project was to examine in detail the connection between infrastructure planning and environmental sustainability, as well as to focus on the connections between infrastructure planning, housing and land use planning, and environmental planning. He also said that while there was a partnership between HUD, DOT, and EPA on this grant program, HUD was the lead agency and the connection to housing and land use planning would need


to be an important component. Ms. Fiorello asked about the federal funding for this project. Mr. Day replied that while nobody knows for sure how much funding the region would receive, he knew that the Asheville region had received one of these grants last year, and he believed they received around $1 million dollars from the federal government. Mr. Voller stated that he is generally in favor of exercises that get the different players together at the same table, but agreed with Mr. Parks and Mr. McNeill that it would be important to show how this would provide a benefit to the RPO. He asked where the funding would be going, and what areas it would be spent on. Mr. Day replied that one of the rules attached to the funding is that it must apply to the entire region. He was not sure exactly how the region was being defined for the project, but did know that it included some counties outside of the Triangle J COG region. TJCOG would be the lead grant recipient and would manage the project. He explained that the line item on the PWP would allow the RPO to commit in-kind support to the project, since the federal agencies are looking for leveraged local resources and partnerships as part of the evaluation process. Mr. Voller stated that when he works on affordable housing projects he is very aware of the fact that energy efficiency, access to transportation, and access to jobs are also very important factors in the success of housing policies, and he supports that concept. However, he does not necessarily support the idea of a project where he cannot see a discernable benefit to the RPO, and asked what impact that would have on Mr. Day's staff time and availability to support the RPO's other projects. Mr. Parks stated that it is also important to know and understand the strings that are attached to the money if we do receive it. Mr. Day replied that these questions were the primary reason why TJCOG was not seeking a letter of support for the project until the August meeting. In the meantime, however, it is necessary to adopt a PWP today. There are two potential approaches: adopt a PWP that includes this line item and amend the PWP in August if the TAC chooses not to support PRISM, or adopt a PWP that does not include the line item and amend the PWP in August if the TAC chooses to support PRISM. In either case, the TAC would not be committing to the project until it signs the letter of support in August – the TAC is always free to make amendments to the PWP. Mr. Voller indicated that if there is no commitment of funding yet by including this line item in the PWP, then he would recommend leaving the item in. Mr. Bridwell stated that one of the reasons for seeking the RPO's support on this project is to show the local support for the transportation component of the project. He also pointed out that this line item is a relatively small share of the overall RPO budget. Mr. Day stated that this line item would represent 4% of the RPO's budget. Mr. Parks and Mr. McNeill both indicated that they believed they could leave this item in the PWP for now, with the intent of having their questions answered before they would approve a letter of support in August. Mr. Parks made a motion to adopt the FY 2011-12 Planning Work Program, with the provision that Mr. Hodges-Copple would attend the August meeting to answer questions about the PRISM project. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Mr. Day pointed out that the RTCC had recommended several text amendments to the line item and deliverable descriptions in the PWP, and walked through each of the recommended changes. These included minor text changes on items II-B-8, II-B-9, II-B-10, and II-B-12. Mr. Parks indicated that he would amend his motion to include these changes. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously.


Mr. Voller asked that Mr. Hodges-Copple be prepared to answer the question what the benefit would be, and what strings would be attached to the project. Mr. Day introduced Item 7c, the 2012-2016 Five Year Planning Program and Calendar. He stated that it is similar to the five-year calendar adopted the previous year, but shifts some of the dates, especially on CTP-related activities that have been slower to proceed than was anticipated last year. Mr. Voller asked whether it would be possible to see maps or reports documenting information learned from the 2010 Census. Mr. Day replied that some activities related to that were already included in the FY 2011-12 PWP. Mr. Voller asked that Mr. Day present some of that information to the TAC at a future meeting. Ms. Lee asked whether the five-year calendar included the PRISM project. Mr. Day stated that he thought he had added it, but upon inspection it had not been added. He said that the PRISM project would need to be added to the five-year calendar since it is a three-year-long project. Mr. Voller asked whether this information would be made available to member governments. Mr. Day replied that this information is available from his office at any time. He also said he would post information on the internet once he figured out how the TARPO website works. Mr. Parks made a motion to adopt the 2012-2016 Five Year Planning Program and Calendar, with the amendment to include the PRISM project. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Day introduced Item 7d, the identification of new projects for consideration in the SPOT 2.0 process, and instructed the members that the list included in their agenda packets shows all projects that NCDOT has funded in the draft TIP as well as all projects that NCDOT already has in its project request database (projects that had been previously requested). He then passed around two handouts: one containing maps of the highway projects on the list, and one containing a list of bicycle and pedestrian projects that are in the NCDOT database (previously submitted). He stated that the RTCC had gone through these lists that morning to ensure that they are correct. Mr. Bridwell indicated that Mr. Andrews had additional comments on a project on the list that he would like to make. Mr. Andrews discussed projects R-3830 and U-3602 and expressed a desire to recombine these projects, to ensure that the last half-mile of this project (U-3602), which appears to be included in R-3830 but is not actually included, receives funding. This project used to be one project and was split into two by NCDOT without the Town of Broadway's knowledge. The project descriptions list different endpoints (Buckhorn Ave versus Harrington Ave), but these are in fact the same road. The project description for R-3830 implies that it includes the section within Broadway, but in fact it does not. The town was told four years ago that its section would be completed within two years, but that has not happened. The town would like to get the U-3602 section tied back into the R-3830 project, which has been funded, if possible. Mr. Day stated that the goal of today's discussion was to develop a list of “new” projects in addition to those that had been submitted previously and were already in the NCDOT project database. He explained the proposed SPOT schedule, including a discussion at the August meeting of how the TAC would like to handle the scoring process, and the actual scoring process that will occur at the October meeting. He stated that the RPO is limited to submitting up to 15 new highway projects, up to 10 new bicycle projects, and up to 10 new pedestrian projects. He then discussed the recommended additional projects discussed in the RTCC meeting:

• In Orange County, bicycle lanes on Old Greensboro Road and Dairyland Road (2 highway projects) • In Southern Pines, bicycle lanes on Broad Street, Midland Road, and Morganton Road and wide outside lanes on

another section of Midland Road (4 bicycle projects)


• In Siler City, sidewalks on North 2nd Avenue, and bicycle lanes on 2nd Avenue, Raleigh Street, Alston Bridge Road, and MLK Boulevard (1 pedestrian project and 4 bicycle projects)

• In Sanford, a complete streets project on Horner Boulevard (1 highway project) Mr. Voller asked how many openings would be left in our allotment of projects if all the RTCC-recommended projects were included. Mr. Day replied that this is a little bit unclear, due to the rules about bicycle projects being classified as highway projects if they will cost more than $1 million. At the RTCC meeting, there was discussion about whether some of the Southern Pines bicycle lane projects might cost more than $1 million or not, although we believe they would be less than $1 million. Ms. Blake said that she had talked with Mr. Stone following the RTCC meeting and it may be the case that some of the Southern Pines projects may not need to be listed (they might potentially be tacked on to other projects). Mr. Day suggested that the Southern Pines projects should be submitted as bicycle projects since the cost estimates we have available suggest that they would cost less than $1 million. That would result in three highway projects, eight bicycle projects, and one pedestrian project. Mr. Voller asked if projects could be joined together provided that they were continuous. Mr. Day indicated that there were not firm rules, but length should be a consideration. Mr. Voller asked about a bridge on NC 902/87 in Pittsboro where there are concerns about truck traffic. A town council member had asked that this be added to the list if it is not already on there. Mr. Day stated that this bridge is included in project R-4754, which is on the list. Mr. Voller asked about bicycle lanes on US 15-501 heading north out of Pittsboro. His town council supports bicycle lanes in that corridor, and it is consistent with the new Chatham County bicycle plan. Ms. Guilbeau indicated that this had been discussed at the RTCC meeting, and that there was an existing project in the list to widen that section of US 15-501. She asked whether bicycle lanes could be added to that project. Mr. Day stated that he would recommend working with the SPOT office to change the description of that highway project to include the bicycle lanes, rather than submitting that as a new bicycle project. Mr. Voller stated that pedestrian improvements at US 15-501 at Powell Place/Lowes are another priority. There are people living on the west side of 15-501 who would like to walk to the shopping centers on the east side, but there are no pedestrian crossing accommodations at the intersection. Mr. Day indicated that this could be added to the pedestrian project request list. Ms. Guilbeau indicated that this project was already included in the existing bicycle and pedestrian project list and would not need to be added. Mr. Voller stated that he would still like to make note of the need for that crossing project, even if it does not need to be added to the list. Mr. Voller discussed the possibility of re-allocating the funding from R-5301, a traffic signal that was funded in the draft TIP but which is not needed, to another project along US 15-501 in Pittsboro. He would like to re-allocate the funding to apply toward the widening and sidewalk project in this corridor. He said he would rather see that funding remain in Pittsboro if possible, and directed Mr. Day to look into the matter further. Mr. McNeill discussed project W-5302, which received funding in the draft TIP. This is a safety project that NCDOT is planning to begin in July 2011, and will require the removal of the crepe myrtles from the median of US 1 in Southern


Pines. A previous NC Board of Transportation member was very instrumental in getting those plantings installed in the 1990s. Mr. McNeill has spoken with NCDOT representatives and they have told him that this removal is necessary, but he does not believe this would be a good idea. There are more than 200 crepe myrtles that would be removed. He asked Mr. Burns to consider altering the project to include a zig-zag cable barrier that could potentially save the crepe myrtles, similar to that used on the section of US 1 near Vass and Cameron. As planned, the project would install guardrails along this section of US 1. Mr. Voller asked Mr. McNeill whether he would like the TAC to take action with regard to the project. Mr. Burns stated that it would not hurt for the RPO to endorse Mr. McNeill's request. Mr. McNeill stated that he would like to see a motion to ask NCDOT to amend project W-5302 so that the crepe myrtles would not need to be removed. Mr. Voller stated that he does not see a problem with asking NCDOT to reconsider, assuming there are other ways to preserve the safety and integrity of the road. Mr. McNeill made a motion that the RPO ask NCDOT to amend project W-5302 so that the crepe myrtles would not need to be removed. Mr. Parks seconded the motion. There was no additional discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Voller directed Mr. Day to communicate the RTAC's decision to NCDOT for their consideration. Mr. Parks made a motion to approve the list of new projects for consideration in the SPOT 2.0 process, as discussed. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. Mr. Voller asked how to incorporate his comment with regard to project R-5301 into the list. Mr. Burns suggested that the TAC should request flexibility with regard to the use of those funds. Mr. Andrews asked Mr. Day how they should deal with the project in Broadway that they would like to recombine. Mr. Day replied that since both R-3830 and U-3602 are on the list, there is no need to add them as new projects. If the town would like to request that the projects be recombined, it may be possible to request that, but that would also have an impact on the STIP (since R-3830 is funded and U-3602 is not), and there could be the potential that this would knock both projects out of the STIP by recombining them. Mr. Andrews stated that his main concern is that the funded project stops short of where the actual need for turning lanes exists within the Town of Broadway's downtown area, and he would like to make sure that section of the project gets funded. Mr. Bridwell stated that his gut reaction is that we do not need to recombine these projects at this time. Mr. Voller stated that the motion on the floor incorporated the RTCC's recommended list and his request for flexibility on R-5301, and asked if there were any other amendments that members wished to make. He asked Ms. Guilbeau if she wished to incorporate any bicycle improvements from the Chatham County bicycle plan. Ms. Guilbeau indicated that her commissioners and transportation advisory board had not expressed an interest in adding any additional bicycle projects at this time. Mr. Voller asked if it would be possible to incorporate any of the elements of the bicycle plan that are in Pittsboro or Siler City, since those are the jurisdictions he represents on the TAC. Ms. Guilbeau stated that Siler City had already incorporated several bicycle projects from the plan and placed them on the list.


Mr. Day stated that while it would be possible to add bicycle projects to the list, there were currently only two vacant slots for bicycle projects. If more than two additional projects are added, then the TAC will need to decide which ten projects it would like to submit to NCDOT. Mr. Voller stated that he would like to incorporate the two projects that his town council had discussed, one on Sanford Road and one on Hillsborough Street. Ms. Guilbeau stated that she would provide Mr. Day with information on these two projects. Mr. Voller called for a vote on the motion on the floor, with the additional amendments in Pittsboro as discussed. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Voller directed Mr. Day and Mr. McNeill to coordinate on the issue with project W-5302, and indicated that he would be willing to sign a letter of support if necessary. Mr. Voller introduced Item 7e, adoption of the FY 2011-12 RTAC meeting calendar, and asked if anyone had comments on the proposed calendar. Mr. Day noted that the location of the August 18 meeting should say “Central Carolina Community College,” not “Chatham County Community College” as shown. Mr. Voller noted that two years ago, NCDOT Secretary Gene Conti was a guest at the RTAC meeting held in Pittsboro. He stated that he would attempt to get Secretary Conti or another special guest to attend the Pittsboro meeting. Mr. McNeill made a motion to approve the FY 2011-12 RTAC Meeting Calendar. Mr. Parks seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Voller introduced Items 7f and 8a, regarding election of the RTAC chair and vice-chair and appointment of members to the RTAC. Mr. Day noted that only the members in Moore and Chatham Counties would be up for reappointment this year. He also noted that it is up to the individual areas to decide how they would like to select the municipal representative for each county. Mr. Voller noted that since Chatham County only has three municipalities, they typically get together and make a decision on who will be the representative. Mr. McNeill noted that he would check into the appointment process in Moore County. Ms. Fiorello and Ms. McMurray indicated that they were also not sure what the appointment process was in Moore County. Mr. Voller noted that while any municipality is welcome to send representatives to the RTAC, each county only gets one voting municipal member. He also noted that Mr. Melton is appointed by the Moore County Board of Commissioners and Ms. Kost is appointed by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners, and those boards will also need to make appointments. Mr. Voller asked if everyone would agree to reappoint Mr. Melton as vice-chair. Mr. McNeill made a motion to reappoint Mr. Voller as chair and Mr. Melton as vice-chair. Mr. Parks seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Voller thanked the committee for re-electing him. Mr. Voller asked if Mr. Day had anything to add with regard to Item 8b, the membership and alternate lists.


Mr. Day replied that he was just providing this list as information and trying to confirm that it was correct. He was aware that he had the wrong name listed for Orange County, and that the correct member was Earl McKee. He also pointed out that as localities are going through the reappointment process, they are welcome to appoint alternates in addition to the appointed members. If they do so, they just need to document that decision, so the alternates can be noted on the official membership list. Mr. Voller asked the members to send in any ideas they have for discussion topics at future meetings. He also noted that Ms. Kost had commented following the previous TARPO RTAC meeting on how collegial the group was. Hearing no other comments, he asked for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parks made a motion to adjourn. Mr. McNeill seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. The RTAC meeting was adjourned at 2:00 pm.







Agenda Item 7a: Endorsement of Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan Background: The Town of Pittsboro, Chatham County, and North Carolina Department of Transportation have worked collaboratively to develop a Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for Pittsboro. This CTP covers only the highway travel mode—other modes of travel will be studied through the Chatham County CTP process, which is underway. The CTP will be officially adopted by the Town of Pittsboro, Chatham County, and the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Due to scheduling difficulties, TARPO is being asked to conditionally endorse this CTP, with the condition that if any changes are made as a result of the local adoption process then the RPO will have an opportunity to review and endorse the revised maps as well. The recommended Pittsboro CTP maps are attached. There are two sheets—an adoption sheet and a highway sheet. Action Requested: Endorsement of the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan

Plan date: July 8, 2011

Sheet 1 of 5

l

k

k

k

k

k

k

Dry C

reek

Haw

Rive

r

Haw River

Pokeberry Creek

Rocky R

iver

RobesonCreek

Robeson

Creek

Turkey Cre

ek

Harlands

Creek

(Hol lands

Creek)

Brooks Cre ek

(Branch C re ek)

Durham-Chapel Hill-CarrboroMetropolitan Planning Organization

�$902

�$87

�$902

tu64

tu15

�$87 tu64BYP

tu64

tu64BUS

tu64BUS

�$87

tu501

tu501

tu15

0 1 20.5Miles

Adopted by:

NCDOTDate:

Town of PittsboroDate:

Triangle Area RPODate:

Transportation Planning BranchDate:

Endorsed by:

Recommended by:

µ

Highway Map

Public Transportation and Rail Map

Bicycle Map

Pedestrian Map

Sheet 4

Sheet 5

Pittsboro

Sheet 3

Sheet 2

Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet

NOTES:

Refer to CTP document for more details

North Carolina

Chatham County

ComprehensiveTransportation Plan

DRAFT

Base map date:August, 2007

k Schools

l Airports

Roads

Rivers and Streams

Water Bodies

Parks and Game Lands

Municipal Boundary

Planning Area Boundary

Chatham CountyDate:

Sheets 3, 4, and 5 not yet developed.

l

k

k

k

k

k

k

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!(

!(

!.

!.

!(

!.

!.

Dry C

reek

Haw R

iver

Haw River

Pokeberry Creek

Rocky R

iver

RobesonCreek

Robeson

Creek

Turkey C

reek

Harlands

Creek

(Hollands

Creek)

Brooks Cre ek

(Branch C re ek)

Durham-Chapel Hill-CarrboroMetropolitan Planning Organization

Alston Chapel Rd (SR 2159)

Moncure Pittsboro R

d (SR

101 2)

Hanks Chapel Rd (SR 1943)

Old G

raha

m R

d (S

R 151

6 )

Ale

x C

ock

man

Rd

(SR

216

3)

Old G

raham

Rd (S

R 15

20 )

Charlie Brooks Rd

(SR 1969)

Russell Chapel Ch Rd (SR 1520)

Pitt

sbo r

o G

olds

ton

Rd

(SR

101

0)

Ado

lph

Tayl

or R

d (S

R 21

61)

Chath

am C

hurch

Rd (S

R 1953)

Gum

Sp

rings Church R

d (SR 1943)

Silk Hope Gum Springs Rd

(SR 1346 )

Thompson St

Bill Thoma

s

Rd (SR

19

52)

Pitt

sbor

o Fi

re To

wer

Rd

(SR

170

2)

Old Goldston Rd(SR 2160)Industrial Park Dr

Hanks Loop Rd(SR 1945)

X Campbell Rd (SR

1518)

New

Far E

a st

Charlie Brooks Ext

Proposed US 15-501 Bypass

Industrial Park Ext

New North-South

Connector

Eubanks Connector

Lorax ExtIndustrial-US15

Connector Eub

ank s

Ex t

X Campbell Ext

New

Boulevard

1

Bill

Tho

mas

E

xt

�$902

�$87

�$902

tu64

tu15

�$87

tu64BYP

tu64

tu64BUS

tu64BUS

�$87

tu501

tu501

tu15

NOTE: Final location of 15-501Bypass will be determined byfuture environmental study.

Interchange Improvement

Interchange Improvement

0 1 20.5Miles

Sheet 2 of 5

Base map date:August, 2007 µ

Plan date: July 8, 2011

Refer to CTP document for more details

Highway Map

PittsboroComprehensive

Transportation Plan

DR

AF

T

DR

AF

T

Existing

Needs Improvement

Recommended

Freeways

Existing

Needs Improvement

Recommended

Expressways

Existing

Needs Improvement

Recommended

Boulevards

Existing

Needs Improvement

Recommended

Other Major Thoroughfares

Existing

Needs Improvement

Recommended

Minor Thoroughfares

!.

!.

!(

!(

Existing Grade Separation

Proposed Grade Separation

Existing Interchange

Proposed Interchange

RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

FOR THE TOWN OF PITTSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

WHEREAS, the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) is the duly recognized transportation planning policy board for the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO); and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation Planning Branch has completed the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan in cooperation with the Town of Pittsboro, Chatham County, and Triangle Area RPO; and WHEREAS, the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan is consistent with the local land use plans, the Triangle Area RPO transportation needs, and the statewide transportation plan; and WHEREAS, it is recognized that the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan will replace the existing Pittsboro Thoroughfare Plan; and WHEREAS, if any changes are made to the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan as presented prior to adoption by the local boards, the Triangle Area RPO shall review and endorse these changes prior to adoption by the Board of Transportation; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Triangle Area RPO TAC hereby endorses the Pittsboro Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which is pursuant to General Statutes 136-66.2. A motion was made by _____________________ and seconded by _____________________ for the endorsement of the resolution, and, upon being put to a vote, was duly adopted, on this, the _____ day of _______________, _______. ______________________ __________________________ Randolph Voller, Chairman Matthew Day, Secretary Triangle Area RPO TAC Triangle Area RPO







Agenda Item 7b: Letter of Support for PRISM Research Triangle Project Background: As discussed at the June 16 RTAC meeting, the Triangle J Council of Governments is developing a proposal for the current round of funding being made available through the USDOT-EPA-HUD Sustainable Communities partnership. If Triangle J COG is successful in receiving a funding award through this program it will be used to develop a comprehensive sustainability plan for the region, with a key focus on economic development throughout the greater Triangle region. One of the requirements to receive this federal funding is that a percentage must be leveraged from local sources. TJCOG has asked TARPO to consider providing in-kind support to this project. As discussed in June, a line item on this year’s TARPO Planning Work Program will allow for this in-kind support should the RTAC choose to participate. A draft letter of support is attached for the RTAC’s consideration. Please note that Mr. John Hodges-Copple will be speaking in more detail about this project during today’s lunch presentation. Action Requested: Approval of letter of support for the PRISM Research Triangle project

TARPO PRISM Research Triangle Agenda Item

August 18, 2011 meeting

Action requested: Letter of in-kind commitment to participate in the PRISM Research Triangle project if it is awarded federal funding.

What the action does: Enables TARPO planning and GIS staff to participate in PRISM Research Triangle activities related to RPO member transportation issues and to credit the time spent by TARPO staff as “in-kind” match for federal grant funding. Any RPO member community staff or board member time spent can likewise be credited as “in-kind” match.

Benefit to the RPO and its member communities: The RPO and all its member communities would realize several benefits from staff participation, including:

• 3 years worth of bonus points on selected competitive federal grant solicitations for eligible projects in participating counties and towns,

• RPO staff training in CommunityVIZ software, which can be used to help RPO communities do parcel-level forecasting and planning for a range of applications,

• Participation in a new Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the region, designed to align with the Research Triangle Regional Partnership’s The Shape of Things to Come initiative.

Background: TARPO provided an identical “commitment letter” for last year’s application; this action would be a re-affirmation of that action. This year’s application will be very similar to last years, but involves an expansion to all the RPO counties and inclusion of at least two new activities, designed to strengthen ties to economic development and build planning capacity in smaller communities and rural areas of the region:

• Working with the Department of Commerce on a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy that includes all the counties in Region J, including the 4 RPO counties; and

• Acquiring CommunityVIZ software and training staff in its use, so that RPO communities can use this tool to develop growth forecasts and plans for a variety of development and infrastructure applications.

Note that the commitment would not involve any direct outlays of funds; the participation would be incorporated in the annual Planning Work Program (PWP). The commitment would be spread over 36 months that span 4 fiscal years (roughly January 2012 through December 2014). The commitment would only apply if a federal grant is awarded.

Further Information: John Hodges-Copple, Planning Director Triangle J COG

919-558-9320 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


4307 Emperor Blvd., Suite 110, Durham, NC 27703 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 12276, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 558-9397 Fax: (919) 549-9390 www.tarpo.org

Chatham County Lee County Moore County Orange County

August 18, 2011 Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street SW, Room 10180 Washington, DC 20410 Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to demonstrate the commitment of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO) to support the preparation of a regional sustainable development plan for the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina. As the organization responsible for coordinating planning and rural transportation investments in Chatham, Lee, Moore, and Orange Counties, the Triangle Area RPO is a key forum to bring together elected officials, technical staff, and stakeholders to address sustainable development issues. To ensure that the interests of the counties and municipalities that make up the Triangle Area RPO planning area are well-represented in the project, and to provide timely and accurate information about development and infrastructure within our communities, the Triangle Area RPO can fulfill an in-kind leveraged resource commitment of $20,000 over the 36-month duration of the project, consisting of RPO planning and GIS staff and technical committee support and participation. Support and participation is envisioned in each of the activity areas described in the grant application. Note that this commitment is contingent on the PRISM Research Triangle proposal being awarded a grant through the FY2011 Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program. Sincerely, Randolph Voller Mayor, Town of Pittsboro Chair, Triangle Area RPO Rural Transportation Advisory Committee







Agenda Item 7c: Ranking/Scoring System for SPOT 2.0 Projects Background: This year, the NCDOT SPOT Office is using a different approach with regard to local prioritization of projects. In the past, TARPO simply ranked its top 25 projects in order. This year, each MPO and RPO is allowed to allocate a total of 1300 points toward projects in whatever way they choose. There are a few rules regarding allocation of points: (1) no project may receive more than 100 points; (2) the RPO is permitted to assign points to projects outside its jurisdiction, but must work with the “receiving” MPO/RPO to ensure coordination; (3) no project may receive less than 4 points. TARPO currently has 54 highway projects eligible for scoring in October. The following pages show a few different schemes for how the points could potentially be assigned, ranging from simple to complex. Action Requested: Recommendation of one or several scoring schemes for TARPO staff to work with in preparing for the October RTAC meeting

Possible Scoring Schemes:

Top 25 Ranking (like in P1.0) #1 Project – 100 points #2 Project – 96 points #3 Project – 92 points

… #23 Project – 12 points #24 Project – 8 points #25 Project – 4 points Total = 1300 points Top 13 Ranking #1 Project – 100 points #2 Project – 100 points

… #12 Project – 100 points #13 Project – 100 points Total = 1300 points Similar to Top 25, but All 54 Projects Receive at Least 4 #1 Project – 100 points #2 Project – 96 points #3 Project – 92 points … #15 Project – 44 points #16 Project – 40 points #17 Project – 32 points #18 Project – 4 points #19 Project – 4 points … #53 Project – 4 points #54 Project – 4 points Total = 1300 points

Similar to Top 13, but All 54 Projects Receive at Least 4 #1 Project – 100 points #2 Project – 100 points … #10 Project – 100 points #11 Project – 100 points #12 Project – 32 points #13 Project – 4 points #14 Project – 4 points … #53 Project – 4 points #54 Project – 4 points Total = 1300 points Top 25, Grouped #1 to 5 Project – 100 points #6 to 10 Project – 75 points #11 to 15 Project – 50 points #16 to 20 Project – 25 points #21 to 25 Project – 10 points Total = 1300 points For more complex ideas, refer to presentation







Agenda Item 7d: Identification of Potential CMAQ Projects Background: As part of this fall’s SPOT process, TARPO is being asked to develop applications for projects to receive CMAQ funding. CMAQ funding is available in areas that are designated as “non-attainment” areas for air quality. In the TARPO region, this includes Orange County and the northeast corner of Chatham County. CMAQ can be used to fund projects that will improve air quality, and cannot be used for highway capacity projects. The CMAQ application process is separate from the SPOT process, but is being done on a similar schedule. Completed CMAQ project applications must be submitted to NCDOT by October 31. Please note that CMAQ is not a grant program – it is a reimbursement program. Also note that CMAQ requires a 20% local funding match. Because of the short turnaround time, local project sponsors should identify potential new CMAQ projects as soon as possible. The RTAC will need to vote on the prioritization of any identified projects at its October meeting. Action Requested: Identification of potential new CMAQ projects to move forward with in developing project applications

7/22/2011 1

GGEENNEERRAALL PPRROOJJEECCTT IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

11 SSEELLEECCTT CCMMAAQQ PPRROOJJEECCTT TTYYPPEE

Choose the appropriate project type as follows: Statewide – Projects administered by NCDOT that are larger scale, larger cost improvements such as

traffic signal system upgrades and replacement that typically require coordination between the local and NCDOT. Should be submitted by NCDOT or by MPO/RPO in coordination with NCDOT.

Regional – Locally-administered projects spanning more than one air quality region that cannot be considered local projects. Air quality regions are Catawba, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Metrolina, Rocky Mount, Triad and Triangle.

Subregional – Locally-administered projects within eligible counties awarded at the MPO/RPO level.

22 SSEELLEECCTT MMPPOO//RRPPOO((SS))

For regional and subregional projects, select the appropriate MPO(s) and/or RPO(s) and attach the required resolution of support. Not required for statewide projects.

33 PPRROOJJEECCTT SSPPOONNSSOORR IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

Provide appropriate contact information within the sponsoring agency. This person will coordinate directly with NCDOT Local Programs Management Office during the municipal agreement development process and throughout project implementation.

44 PPRROOJJEECCTT IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

Provide succinct title and brief description of project. Include project details, proposed improvements, purpose, need, how it will provide service, who are the primary stakeholders & where it will operate/serve. Attach a sketch design plan of the proposed project which shows the general location of this project, if applicable.

PPRROOJJEECCTT CCOOSSTTSS && DDEELLIIVVEERRYY SSCCHHEEDDUULLEE

55 AAPPPPLLIICCAABBLLEE PPRROOJJEECCTT PPHHAASSEESS,, FFUUNNDDIINNGG && YYEEAARRSS

Enter requested project funding, split out by CMAQ, Local and Total amounts. Round total cost to the nearest $1000. Indicate the desired Federal Fiscal Year(s) for funding. Cost estimates should reflect anticipated inflation compounded annually at 5% from the current calendar year. Note that FFY run from October 1st of the prior year through September 30th of the next year. For example, FFY 2016 runs from October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. Allowable project costs are described as follows:

Planning, Engineering & Design – Costs to complete conceptual plans, planning or environmental studies, preliminary design, final design, and all other related design work necessary to advance a project to physical construction. Examples include preparation of surveys, environmental documents, plans, specifications, and estimates.

Right of Way – Costs to acquire required right of way and relocate utilities. In addition, includes costs for work associated with acquisition of property interests needed for the project, such as preparation of right-of-way plats, appraisals for parcel acquisitions, review of appraisals, preparation for and trial of condemnation cases, and furnishing of relocation advisory assistance.

7/22/2011 2

Construction – Costs to construct project, including costs for supervision and inspection of construction activities; additional staking functions considered necessary for effective control of the construction operations; testing materials incorporated into construction; checking shop drawings; and measurements needed for the preparation of pay estimates.

Transit Operation – Costs of providing new transportation services, including labor, fuel, administrative costs, and maintenance.

Transit Implementation – Costs associated with transit improvements not related to operation. Examples include purchase of new or replacement transit vehicles, construction of new transit facilities, diesel engine retrofits and other equipment purchases and transit fare subsidies.

Non-transit Implementation – Costs associated with non-construction, non-transit improvements. Examples include vehicle purchases, travel demand management activities, public education and outreach, eligible marketing, etc.

66 ANTICIPATED PROJECT MILESTONE DATES

Milestone Dates are those dates that are set for the completion of major project deliverables and project completion. Project Sponsor is expected to adhere to the agreed-upon milestone schedule. Changes to milestone dates are permitted, but any changes that result in a longer time frame for project completion must be agreed to in writing by all parties and documented in the CMAQ Project File. Milestone Dates must coordinate with funding schedule in Section 5. This information will be used by NCDOT Local Program Management Office to develop local agreements for awarded projects.

77 LIST THE SOURCE(S) OF MATCHING FUNDS:

Provide the source for the required matching funding. In most cases, CMAQ projects require a local cash match of at least 20%. Local match funding cannot be derived from in-kind services.

88 TTRRAANNSSIITT SSTTAARRTT--UUPP IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

Required for new transit start-up projects only. Provide brief explanation of how funding for transit start-up project will be secured to continue the program after year three.

PPRROOJJEECCTT EELLIIGGIIBBIILLIITTYY

99 SSEELLEECCTT NNCC NNOONNAATTTTAAIINNMMEENNTT//MMAAIINNTTEENNAANNCCEE CCOOUUNNTTYY((IIEESS))

Select one or more air quality nonattainment or maintenance counties where the proposed project will be implemented.

1100 SSEELLEECCTT CCMMAAQQ--EELLIIGGIIBBLLEE IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTT TTYYPPEE ((cchheecckk aallll tthhaatt aappppllyy))

Select one or more applicable CMAQ improvement type.

1111 IIFF TTRRAANNSSPPOORRTTAATTIIOONN CCOONNTTRROOLL MMEETTHHOODD,, CCHHEECCKK TTHHEE AALLLLOOWWAABBLLEE TTYYPPEE((SS))

If Transportation Control Method was selected in Section 10, select the allowable type(s).

1122 IIFF TTRRAANNSSIITT IIMMPPRROOVVEEMMEENNTT,, SSPPEECCIIFFYY HHOOWW SSEERRVVIICCEE WWIILLLL BBEE IIMMPPRROOVVEEDD

If Transit Improvement was selected in Section 10, specify how transit service will be improved through implementation of proposed project.

1133 EEMMIISSSSIIOONNSS RREEDDUUCCTTIIOONN CCRRIITTEERRIIAA

Quantitative analysis is required, unless proposal is for public education, marketing or other outreach efforts. All emissions should be reported on a daily basis.

7/22/2011 3

1144 MMIISSCCEELLLLAANNEEOOUUSS

Include answers as they pertain to particular CMAQ proposal.

1155 SUPPORTING INFORMATION CHECKLIST

MPO/RPO resolution of support required for all regional & subregional proposals. Include other supporting documentation in application PDF.

1166 MPO/RPO PRIORITY INFORMATION

Subregional CMAQ proposals require prioritization by the associated MPO/RPO. MPO/RPOs may select evaluation criteria as they see fit, but criteria should include anticipated air quality emissions benefits, cost of construction or implementation and/or priorities of the MPO/RPO. Enter the priority number resulting from location prioritization process. Not required for Statewide CMAQ or Subregional CMAQ proposals.

1177 SUBMIT APPLICATION

Application form and all required attachments are to be saved in a single PDF document to be uploaded in NCDOT Partner Connect. Partner Connect will be open to accept CMAQ applications from October 1, 2011 to October 31, 2011.

PPAARRTTNNEERR CCOONNNNEECCTT EENNTTRRYY In order to most efficiently capture North Carolina’s CMAQ Program in the NCDOT Prioritization & STIP Development Processes, all CMAQ proposals require entry in NCDOT Partner Connect. All MPO/RPOs and NCDOT Highway/Modal Division offices should have the ability to access Partner Connect. A completed entry will consist of the following summary information entered directly into Partner Connect and a completed CMAQ application uploaded into Partner Connect.

Local ID – Enter a local identifier for the project, if desired. CMAQ Project Type – CMAQ proposals may be Statewide CMAQ, Regional CMAQ or Subregional CMAQ.

Enter the CMAQ Project Type specified in Section 1 of the CMAQ application.

Mode – CMAQ proposals should be classified by predominate mode. Enter the appropriate mode for the CMAQ proposal: Highway, Bicycle & Pedestrian, Transit or Rail. Implementation proposals that are not mode specific should be entered as Highway (examples of these include TDM, ozone awareness, emission testing/improvements, etc.).

Goal – CMAQ proposals should address one of two NCDOT goals - Mobility or Infrastructure Health.

Infrastructure Health is applicable only for replacement transit vehicle proposals; all other proposals should be Mobility. Enter the applicable NCDOT goal. Please see additional details on how NCDOT goals are defined here. Enter the applicable NCDOT goal.

Tier – NCDOT Tier categorizes a route based on use and function. There are three tiers: Statewide, Regional and Subregional. Please click here for more information regarding NCDOT’s Tier classification system. Enter the predominate NCDOT Tier for the CMAQ proposal.

Improvement Type – Enter the appropriate type of improvement that is being recommended with the CMAQ proposal. Improvement Types applicable for CMAQ proposals are as follows:

Corridor Management (Goal – Mobility) – an improvement to manage access or improve the operations along an existing corridor, such as ramp metering or access management improvements.

Signal System (Goal – Mobility) – an improvement to create or upgrade a citywide signal system or a signal system along a specific corridor, such as a closed-loop signal system.

http://www.ncdot.org/download/performance/project_classifications.pdf

http://www.ncdot.org/download/performance/project_classifications.pdf

7/22/2011 4

Intersection (Goal – Mobility) – an improvement at a specific intersection, including construction of left-turn lanes or roundabouts.

Traveler Services (Goal – Mobility) – improvements which provide motorists additional information

about their trip or assist motorists during their trip, such as regional multi-modal traveler information systems and incident management programs.

Bicycle (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that exclusively provide enhanced bicycle service, i.e.

bicycle lanes.

Pedestrian (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that exclusively provide enhanced pedestrian service, i.e. sidewalks.

Bicycle and Pedestrian (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that provide enhanced bicycle and

pedestrian service.

Facility/Station (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that provide new rail or transit facilities (e.g., lines, stations, terminals, transfer facilities) associated with new or enhanced rail or transit service.

New Vehicle (Goal – Mobility) – purchase of vehicles to support new transit operation or purchase of vehicles to support enhanced transit service.

Technology (Goal – Mobility) – any technology-based improvement.

Fixed Guideway (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that provide fixed guideways associated with new or enhanced mass transit service.

Routine Capital (Goal – Mobility) – operating assistance for new or expanded transit services

Replacement Vehicle (Goal – Infrastructure/Health) – purchase of vehicles to replace existing

vehicles in the transit fleet.

Track (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that provide new rail lines associated with new or enhanced mass transit service.

Track and Station (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that provide new rail lines and station associated with new or enhanced mass transit service.

Air Quality (Goal – Mobility) – improvements that cannot be categorized as a previously listed improvement type.

County – Select county in which the proposal is located. If the proposal is located in more than one county, the second (and third, if applicable) county is shown under the “Second County” column (and “Third County” column, if applicable).

Division – Select number of the NCDOT Division in which the proposal is located. If the project is located in more than one Division, the second (and third, if applicable) Division is shown under the "Second Division" column (and “Third Division” column, if applicable).

First MPO/RPO, Second MPO/RPO, Third MPO/RPO – Select name of the MPO or RPO in which the proposal is located. If the project is located in more than one MPO or RPO, the second (and third, if applicable) MPO or RPO name is shown under the "Second MPO/RPO" column (and “Third MPO/RPO” column, if applicable).

Title – Enter brief title of proposal that is included in Section 4 of the CMAQ application.

7/22/2011 5

Examples: NCSU Park and Ride Lot Triangle Transit Service to Holly Springs

Description – Enter brief explanation of the type of work being proposed that is included in Section 4 of the CMAQ application. Be brief but include any necessary information to distinguish the proposal.

Examples: Construct a new one-acre park and ride lot on NC State Centennial campus; Provide funding to expand express bus service from Holly Springs to downtown Raleigh via Apex and Cary,

including operating assistance and the purchase of new hybrid buses.

Costs – Enter the total funding for each phase of the proposal, as specified in Section 5 of the CMAQ

application. MPO/RPO Priority – Enter the priority number assigned by the MPO/RPO to the proposal, as specified

in Section 16 of the CMAQ application.







Agenda Item 8a: Lee County Functional Classification Maps Background: Every ten years, following the delineation of urbanized area boundaries by the Census Bureau, the NCDOT must develop updated maps to reflect the “functional classification” of its roadways. These classifications are primarily used for data-keeping and funding purposes at the state and federal levels. These maps were most recently updated in 2004 and 2005 statewide. Attached are updated functional classification maps for Lee County. These maps simply change the designation of the completed portions of the US 421 bypass from “future” to “existing”, which is necessary for maintenance funding purposes and accurate data-keeping. Action Requested: The RTAC does not need to take any action on this item. The maps are provided for information only.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A. CONTI, JR. GOVERNOR SECRETARY

June 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

TO: Terry Arellano, PE Transportation Planning ATT: Rockne Bryant

FROM: A. L. Avant Assistant Branch Manager-Programming

SUBJECT: Functional Classification Update Resubmittal US 421 Sanford Bypass Triangle Area RPO Lee County

PROPOSED CHANGES:

1. Change the functional classification designation of the US 421 Sanford Bypass from Future Freeway/Expressway to Freeway/Expressway. The termini are US 1-15-501/NC87 (Jefferson Davis Hwy) and the CSX Railroad, a distance of 0.9 mile. This section is shown on the Sanford (Urban Cluster) Sheet 1 Map.

2. Change the functional classification designation of the US 421 Sanford Bypass from Future Principal Arterial to Principal Arterial. The termini are the CSX Railroad and NC 42 (Broadway Rd.), a distance of 4.8 miles. This section is shown on the Lee County Map.

These updates do not address any classification transitions that occur at the census year 2000 smoothed boundary. The above classification updates are related to the partial completion of STIP Project R-2417. REASON FOR CHANGE:

Facility open to traffic and Division has accepted responsibility for maintenance. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. ALA/kwf

US 1-

15-50

1/NC

87

Hawk

ins Av

e

Jeffe

rson D

avis

Hwy

Broadway Rd

CSX R

R

1002

US-421

1415

1509

US-1

1133

1416

NC-78

1515

1122

1521

1152

1117

1001

NC-42

1510

15141131

1239

156015

58

1107

1211

1237

1405

NC-87

1527

1519 1523

1406

1520

1508

1136

1524

1100

1108

1009

1580

1516

1119

1593

1223

1213

1561

1240

1480

Functional Classification UpdateUS 421 Sanford Bypass

From US 1 to NC 42 in Lee County

0 1 20.5 Miles

Sanford

US 421 (Sanford Bypass)

1. Change designation from Future Freeway/Expressway to Freeway/Expressway (0.9 mi)

2. Change designation from Future Principal Arterial to Principal Arterial (4.8 mi)

EXISTINGMAP

SR 1480

SR 1560

SR 1415

SR 1515

SR 1519

SR 1107

SR 1117

SR 1009

SR 1100

SR 1406

£¤US1

£¤US421

")NC42

£¤US1

Hawk

ins Av

enue

SR 10

02

SR 15

09

SR 1537

µ

SCALE0 0.25 0.50.125

Miles

LEGENDINTERSTATEFUTURE INTERSTATEFREEWAY/EXPRESSWAYFUTURE FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAYOTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALFUTURE OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALMINOR ARTERIALFUTURE MINOR ARTERIALMAJOR COLLECTORFUTURE MAJOR COLLECTORMINOR COLLECTORFUTURE MINOR COLLECTOREXISTING URBAN AREASMOOTHED AREA

TRIANGLE AREA RPOCITY OF SANFORD

LEE COUNTYNORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED BYNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCHIN COOPERATION WITH THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

PROPOSEDMAP

SR 1480

SR 1560

SR 1415

SR 1515

SR 1519

SR 1107

SR 1117

SR 1009

SR 1100

SR 1406

£¤US1

£¤US421

")NC42

£¤US1

Hawk

ins Av

enue

SR 10

02

SR 15

09

SR 1537

Change from Future Principal Arterialto Principal Arterial, 4.8 miles

Change from Future Freeway/Expressway to Freeway/Expressway, 0.9 mile

µ

SCALE

TRIANGLE AREA RPO APPROVAL DATE / MAP DATE:________________________________________

FHWA APPROVAL:________________________________________

0 0.25 0.50.125Miles

LEGENDINTERSTATEFUTURE INTERSTATEFREEWAY/EXPRESSWAYFUTURE FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAYOTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALFUTURE OTHER PRINCIPAL ARTERIALMINOR ARTERIALFUTURE MINOR ARTERIALMAJOR COLLECTORFUTURE MAJOR COLLECTORMINOR COLLECTORFUTURE MINOR COLLECTOREXISTING URBAN AREASMOOTHED AREA

TRIANGLE AREA RPOCITY OF SANFORD

LEE COUNTYNORTH CAROLINA

PREPARED BYNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCHIN COOPERATION WITH THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION







Agenda Item 8b: R-3830 Project Update Background: On August 10, 2011, there was an initial scoping meeting for NCDOT project R-3830, the widening of NC 42 and Broadway Road in Lee County. Mr. Day will provide an update on the information that was learned at the scoping meeting, particularly regarding the concerns raised by the Town of Broadway at the June 16 RTAC meeting. Action Requested: This item is for information only.







Agenda Item 8c: NCARPO Quarterly Meeting and Workshop with Community Transit Agencies Background: The NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch and Public Transportation Division held an event on July 27 and 28 for the RPOs and community transit agencies to get together and learn about each other, and brainstorm potential ways to work together. The North Carolina Association of RPOs held its quarterly meeting immediately following the transit workshop, on July 28 and 29. Mr. Day will provide a brief overview of these events and any information gathered there. Action Requested: This item is for information only.







Agenda Item 8d: TAC Membership Update Background: RTAC appointments for seats in Moore and Chatham Counties expired on June 30, 2011. Attached is an updated RTAC membership list showing new appointments in these counties. Action Requested: This item is for information only.

TARPO RTAC Membership List – August 2011

Sally Kost Chatham County Term Expires: June 30, 2013

Jimmy Melton Moore County Term Expires: June 30, 2013 Craig Kennedy, designated alternate

Earl McKee Orange County Term Expires: June 30, 2012

Charlie Parks Lee County Term Expires: June 30, 2012

Joan Thurman Moore County Municipalities Term Expires: June 30, 2013 George Erickson, designated alternate

Cornelia Olive Lee County Municipalities Term Expires: June 30, 2012

Randy Voller Chatham County Municipalities Term Expires: June 30, 2013

David Burns NC Board of Transportation, Division 8

TARPO RTCC Membership List – August 2011

Frank Clifton – Orange County Mila Vega, designated alternate Karen Lincoln, alternate

Charlie Horne – Chatham County Melissa Guilbeau, designated alternate

Bill Terry – Town of Pittsboro Stuart Bass, designated alternate

Joel Brower – Town of Siler City Jack Meadows, designated alternate

John Crumpton – Lee County Bob Bridwell, designated alternate

Hal Hegwer – City of Sanford Bob Bridwell, designated alternate

Robert Stevens – Town of Broadway Bob Bridwell, designated alternate

Cary McSwain – Moore County Jeremy Rust, designated alternate Debra Ensminger, alternate

Bill Zell – Town of Aberdeen Kathy Liles, designated alternate

Reagan Parsons – Town of Southern Pines Kathy Blake, designated alternate

Andrew Wilkison – Village of Pinehurst Andrea Correll, designated alternate

Scott Walston – NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Sarah Lee, designated alternate

Tim Johnson – NCDOT Division 8 Alison Whitesell, designated alternate Rob Stone, designated alternate

Mike Mills – NCDOT Division 7 John Hunsinger, designated alternate

Kirby Bowers – Triangle J Council of Governments Matt Day, designated alternate John Hodges-Copple, alternate







Agenda Item 8e: TARPO Annual Performance Report Background: Attached is a copy of TARPO’s Annual Performance Report for the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year. NCDOT requires each RPO to develop an annual report highlighting the major work tasks, challenges, and lessons learned during the previous fiscal year. Action Requested: This item is for information only.

Triangle Area RPO Annual Performance Report – FY 2010-11 1

Annual Performance Report July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011


Overview

The lead planning agency, the Triangle J Council of Governments, has utilized its staff, technology, and resources to participate in a wide variety of planning efforts, facilitate local participation in the transportation decision-making process, and support local officials with information, mapping, and transportation expertise.

Products and Deliverables

II-A Surveillance of Inventory Data

TARPO staff maintained key GIS data sets for the TARPO area, including parcels, street centerlines, city limits, zoning, crash locations, traffic volumes, transportation plans, aerial photography, and transit routes; maintained a catalog of available GIS files. TARPO is working toward a goal of maintaining a full set of relevant data for the entire region.

TARPO staff developed maps of selected data to support planning activities, including maps for the Moore County “Pre-CTP” process, maps for the Cameron Pedestrian Plan, and updated maps of street centerlines, crash data, and transit routes.

In support of the Chatham County CTP, TARPO staff worked with Chatham County, Pittsboro, and Siler City staff to identify multifamily, mobile home, and group quarter residences and ensure this information was correctly reflected in 2010 traffic analysis zone data. TARPO staff also discussed potential data needs regarding parking and bicycle/pedestrian facilities with local staff in Chatham County.

In support of the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), TARPO staff developed GIS shapefiles for traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in Lee and Moore Counties.

II-B Long-range Transportation Plan

TARPO staff provided support to current CTP processes in Orange County, Pittsboro, and Chatham County, and to the “pre-CTP” process in Moore County. This included presentations to committees, attendance at committee/board meetings and public workshops, and the development of supporting maps and data.

In support of local bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts, TARPO staff participated in the steering committee for the Aberdeen Pedestrian Plan, participated in the “Healthy Kids/Healthy Communities” task force in Moore County, and developed a resolution in support of Sanford’s application for an NCDOT bicycle planning grant.

In support of local transit planning efforts, TARPO staff participated on the steering committee for the Chatham County Community Transit Service Plan (CTSP).

TARPO staff worked with the Town of Pittsboro to develop an application for CMAQ funding of a sidewalk project on East Street in Pittsboro.


III-A Planning Work Program

TARPO staff performed the necessary duties to administer the annual planning work program, including the development of quarterly invoices, progress reports, deliverables, and amendments to the FY 2010-11 work program, and the development of the FY 2011-12 work program.

III-B Transportation Improvement Program

In support of the NCDOT Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) Prioritization 2.0 process, TARPO staff performed multiple tasks, including the provision of additional project data to the SPOT staff, identification of new projects to add to the P2.0 list, development of shapefiles for P2.0 projects, and coordination with local, Division, and SPOT staff on projects where there were questions.

TARPO staff served on NCDOT’s Prioritization 2.0 and Mobility Fund Prioritization Committee, and also attended multiple training sessions held by SPOT staff on the P2.0 process and the Partner Connect project data tool.

TARPO staff developed comprehensive lists and maps of funded and unfunded projects to help local governments in identifying potential new projects to add to the prioritization list.

III-C Civil Rights Compliance (Title VI) and Other Regulatory Requirements

To support analysis of environmental justice concerns and planning for the elderly and disabled, TARPO staff used Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data to develop maps showing concentrations of low-income, no-vehicle, limited-English, and elderly populations in the TARPO region.

TARPO staff participated in and supported several public involvement workshops related to the development of CTPs, including two in Pittsboro (in January and May) and one in Moore County (in May).

TARPO staff responded to requests for information from the media and the public when requested.

TARPO staff maintained the website www.tarpo.org as a resource for information about TARPO, including meeting agendas and minutes and other documents and products. This year, staff migrated the site from state hosting to a private hosting provider to allow greater flexibility in site development.

III-D Incidental Planning and Project Development

TARPO staff supported project development through involvement in Merger Meetings on project R-2812 and review of documents on project U-2803 and several bridge replacement projects.

TARPO staff conducted a special study to develop a pedestrian plan for the Town of Cameron, including meetings with the Town Board, a ‘walkabout’ and public input session with citizens, technical analysis, and the development of maps and a report documenting the plan recommendations.

TARPO staff were actively involved in the North Carolina Association of Rural Planning Organizations (NCARPO), attending several quarterly meetings and serving as the legislative reporter. TARPO staff coordinated with staff at other RPOs, including working with the Rocky


River RPO on low/moderate income mapping, and working with the Eastern Carolina RPO and Upper Coastal Plain RPO on a grant related to street centerline mapping.

TARPO staff also provided assistance to NCDOT at the statewide level through the delivery of statewide GIS shapefiles on traffic analysis zones for the statewide travel demand model, and review and comments on the Statewide 2040 Transportation Plan, Unified Public Involvement Policy, and Complete Streets Plan.

III-E Administration and Services

TARPO staff provided direct support to the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC), Rural Transportation Coordinating Committee (RTCC), including the preparation of meeting agendas and minutes for six planned bi-monthly meetings (the December meetings were cancelled due to poor weather). Staff also worked with Lee, Chatham, and Moore counties to appoint TAC members.

TARPO staff conducted a search for a new transportation planner to replace Paul Black, who left Triangle J Council of Governments, including transition planning, job posting and interviews. Additional on-boarding and transition activities occurred once Matt Day was hired to fill the position.

Challenges

Staffing and Transition. Paul Black left Triangle J COG in February 2011, leaving the RPO planner position open for several months until Matt Day began work in May 2011. In the interim, Triangle J Regional Planning Director John Hodges-Copple ensured that necessary functions (such as the April TCC/TAC meetings) continued, but there was a significant amount of catch-up work (both in terms of administration and project support) that fell on Mr. Day once he started work. Additionally, in June, September Barnes, the website support staff member for Triangle J, announced that she would be leaving at the beginning of July, requiring coordination on the hand-off of website maintenance duties to Mr. Day.

SPOT and Project Prioritization. The SPOT Prioritization 2.0 (P2.0) process has required considerable effort from TARPO staff and local government staff, both to understand the complexities of the process and to develop the necessary data. Hopefully in future years, as the SPOT process matures, this will become less of an issue.

Comprehensive Transportation Plans. While TARPO appreciates the fact that there are CTPs completed, ongoing, or soon to begin in all four counties, there has been a pattern of schedule slippage on several. There is also continued concern that a CTP study report has not yet been completed for Lee County, which adopted its CTP back in 2008. TARPO will work with NCDOT to ensure that these concerns are addressed moving forward.

Lessons Learned

Coordination among local governments, NCDOT Division offices, the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch (and other central office branches/divisions), local transit providers, neighboring MPOs and RPOs, and TARPO staff is and will remain a critical factor in the success of the RPO.

Transition planning is critical in ensuring the continuing activity of the RPO during periods when there is not an RPO planner on staff.







Agenda Item 8f: Annual RPO Evaluations and Survey Background: Each year, the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch conducts an evaluation of each RPO, examining issues such as the timeliness and quality of work products. As part of this evaluation, TARPO’s local government partners are invited to participate in a voluntary survey. A paper copy of the survey is attached, and can be forwarded to Sarah Lee at the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch. An online version of the survey will also be available from September 15 to October 15, and will be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RPOSurveyFY10-11. A reminder message about the survey will be sent out in mid-September, when the online survey becomes available. Your participation in this is entirely voluntary. Action Requested: This item is for information only.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RPOSurveyFY10-11

RPO Performance Evaluation Survey In the continuing effort to improve the services provided to the citizens of North Carolina by the Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), we are asking for your input. The RPOs are mandated by the General Assembly with four core duties: • Developing, in cooperation with NCDOT, long range local and regional multi-modal

transportation plans. • Providing a forum for public participation in the transportation planning process. • Providing transportation related information to local governments and other

interested organizations and persons. • Developing and prioritizing suggestions for transportation projects the organization

believes should be included in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

This survey is designed to gauge the effectiveness of your Rural Planning Organization (RPO) dealing with the transportation planning and public involvement efforts during the past fiscal year (July 2010 – June 2011). The survey should be completed by all the RPO members and stakeholders including: TCC and TAC members, town and county officials, RPO Planner and Executive Director or Manager of the Lead Planning Agency, NCDOT Division representative, the TPB Group Supervisor and TPB RPO Coordinator.

1. Please provide your contact information in case we would like to do a follow-up interview (Optional): _________________________

2. Name of RPO: ________________________

3. I represent (check all that apply):

RTAC RTCC LPA NCDOT Other_______________________

4. How familiar are you with the role of RPOs in the transportation planning process?

Not at all familiar Somewhat familiar Very familiar

5. How often during the PAST YEAR (July 2010 – June 2011) have you received some form of

communication with the RPO? (E.g.: e-mails, phone calls, news letters, etc.) Limited (1 - 2 times)

Several (3 – 5 times) Frequently (6 + times)

6. During the PAST YEAR (July 2010 – June 2011), did you use any products or data generated by your RPO? (E.g.: information, reports, data sets, etc.)

No Yes, Occasionally Yes, Frequently If yes, please list any products or data sets you have found particularly useful:

Basic Information:

Thinking about the PAST YEAR (July 2010 – June 2011), how would you rate your RPO’s performance on each of the following: Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Good

7. The participation of the RPO in cooperative development of long range local and regional

multimodal transportation plans (E.g.: local coordinated plans, transit plans, bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, corridor plans, CTPs, etc) is:

8. The forum that the RPO provides for public

participation in the transportation planning process is:

9. The information provided by the RPO to local

governments and other interested organizations and persons is:

10. The RPO’s prioritization for transportation projects

the organization believes should be included in the State's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is:

11. The usefulness of the transportation planning

assistance for the area by the RPO is:

12. The relevance of the information presented by the RPO to my organization about projects and planning is:

13. The information provided by the RPO concerning

the status of transportation projects is:

14. The information provided by the RPO concerning legislative policy related to

transportation planning is:

15. The RPO’s engagement of its members in Identifying local concerns related to transportation is:

16. Please provide any other comments or suggestions on how your RPO can be more valuable?

Thank you for taking the Survey!

Please return the completed survey to your RPO Planner. You can also mail this survey in the postage paid envelope to: Elina Zlotchenko 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1544 Or complete it online at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RPOSurveyFY10-11 Survey Duration: September 15th – October 15th.

RPO Performance Evaluation:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RPOSurveyFY10-11

triangle area rural planning organization rtac meeting …aug 18, 2011 · rtac meeting agenda...

Documents