TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2007-2013 Regional Transportation Priority List
DATE: September 12, 2005
Adoption of the attached resolution would provide the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with comments on the Draft 2007-2013 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Regional Transportation Project Priority List.
On March 21, 2004, the Council held a public forum to receive public comment on the development of the Town’s 2007-2013 Transportation Priority List. The Council adopted a priority list on April 5, 2004 (Attachment 1) and forwarded the List to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee for their use in developing the Draft 2007-2013 Regional Priority List. (Attachment 2)
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area includes portions of three different Highway Divisions, which are used by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to allocate transportation funding. We have included the composite Regional List that shows projects from all jurisdictions within the Urban Area. We also have provided the Division 7 Priority List which includes projects from jurisdictions within Orange County. We have not provided the Council with the Division 5 (Durham County) or Division 8 (Chatham County) list, or the lists which include projects by category. These categories include roadway, public transit and enhancement (bicycle/pedestrian) projects.
The final Regional Priority List will be used to develop the 2007-2013 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. The Priority List will also be submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation for their use in preparing a draft 2007-2013 State Transportation Improvement Program.
The Transportation Improvement Program is required by federal transportation regulations to include projects that are anticipated to use federal and State transportation funds. Federal rules require that development of the Transportation Improvement Program be a cooperative process between the State Department of Transportation and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Federal rules require that each Metropolitan Planning Organization adopt a Transportation Improvement Program that includes projects to be undertaken within the Organization’s Urban Area boundaries. The State Transportation Improvement Program should include all transportation projects within the State, including those in individual Metropolitan Urban Areas.
The Federal rules mandate that the Metropolitan and State Transportation Programs include exactly the same projects, budgets and project schedules. Attachment 3 illustrates the process the Metropolitan Area and the State follow in developing the final Transportation Improvement Program. At this point the Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing to adopt a Regional Priority List. The List will be used in negotiations with the North Carolina Department of Transportation to prepare draft Metropolitan and State Transportation Improvement Programs.
The Transportation Improvement Program includes projected funding from several sources. The federal transportation program provides North Carolina with funds through two principal programs, the Interstate Program and the Surface Transportation Program. The Interstate Program can only fund projects along the federally designated Interstate system. The Surface Transportation Program is made up of different funding programs.
The bulk of the funds can be spent on various types of transportation projects, including roadways, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects. A portion (10%) of the Surface Transportation Program is allocated for the Enhancements Program, which can be used for non-roadway projects. The same portion (10%) of the Surface Transportation Program is allocated to safety projects. We note that the State has allocated approximately $3 million statewide from the Surface Transportation Program for bicycle and pedestrian projects and has imposed an individual project cap of $300,000.
Also included in the Transportation Improvement Program are projects using federal transit funds and Congestion Management Air Quality funds.
The draft 2007-2013 Regional Priority List includes only projects that have been partially funded or are being proposed for new funding. Chapel Hill has several projects fully or partially funded in the adopted 2006-2012 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.
Table 1: Currently Programmed Projects, 2006-2012
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
|
Project |
Project Schedule |
|
South Columbia-bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Fordham Boulevard to Manning Drive |
Right of Way, FY2006 Construction, FY2008 |
|
Erwin Road/US 15-501 Intersection |
Construction, FY2006 |
|
Weaver Dairy Road-roadway improvements, NC 86 to Erwin Road. |
Right of Way, FY2007 Construction, FY2009 |
|
Signal System Upgrade |
Construction FY2009 |
|
Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road Bikelanes, |
Construction, FY2009 |
|
Estes Drive- bicycle and pedestrian improvements, NC 86 to N. Greensboro St. |
Post Years |
|
Homestead Road-roadway improvements, NC 86 to High School Road |
Post Years Post Years |
Table 2 compares the priority ranking of Chapel Hill transportation projects in the Town’s Priority List and the draft 2007-2013 Division 7 Regional Priority List. The Regional Priority List was developed using a method approved by the Transportation Advisory Committee. This method assigns points to projects in 12 different categories. Projects with the same number of points have been given the same priority ranking. The result is that there are multiple projects with the same priority rank.
We have used the Division 7 Regional Priority List to make this comparison. The relative rankings of Chapel Hill projects in the composite Regional List could be different.
|
Adopted 2007-2013 Chapel Hill Priority List (Attachment 1) |
Priority in Draft 2007-2013 Regional Priority List (attachment 2) |
Notes |
|
1) Transit Capital |
#16 |
Transit capital includes vehicle replacement and facility construction. |
|
2) Upgrade Signal System |
#39 |
Proposed for funding in FY2009 in MTIP |
|
3) Airport Road Corridor |
#28 |
|
|
4) Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road |
#12 |
|
|
5) Seawell School Road |
#3 |
|
|
6) Homestead Road |
#20 |
|
|
7) Estes Drive, NC 86 to Curtis |
#3 |
|
|
8) Estes Drive Extension |
#11 |
|
|
9) Community Center to Willow |
#3 |
|
|
10) Franklin Street/Bolin Creek Greenway Acess. |
#3 |
|
|
11) Estes Drive: Curtis Road to Franklin Street. |
#16 |
|
|
12) Bolin Creek Greenway |
#28 |
|
|
13) Barbee Chapel Road |
Unranked |
|
|
14) Southern Railroad Greenway |
#28 |
|
|
15) Pope Road-Ephesus Church Road |
#28 |
|
|
16) Pine Mountain Road |
Unranked |
|
|
17) Mount Carmel Church Road |
Unranked |
|
|
18) Country Club Road |
#12 |
|
|
19) Fordham Boulevard, Manning to Carmichael |
#20 |
|
|
20) Bolin Creek/Little Creek Greenway |
Unranked |
|
|
21) Old Mason Farm/Finley Golf Course Road |
#40 |
|
|
22) Erwin Road |
#40 |
|
|
23) Fordham Boulevard Corridor |
#20 |
|
|
24) NC 54 Corridor. |
#20 |
|
KEY ISSUES
Ranking Criteria: The application of the ranking criteria in the 2007-2013 Priority List is not consistent with the application of the criteria in past priority lists. For example, the air quality category was not applied to any projects due to lack of quantifiable data. The regional staff also applied points to highway and some bicycle and pedestrian projects for improving safety but not public transit projects. Points given for economic development also were inconsistently applied.
In past years, the Transportation Advisory Committee adopted ranking criteria that gave emphasis to projects that increased alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects. The application of the ranking criteria for the 2007-2013 List does not assign additional points to such projects.
We believe that the process for assigning the ranking criteria should be revised prior to the development of the next Regional Priority List in 2009.
Consistency with Local Priority Ranking: Under the Regional ranking criteria the Chapel Hill projects in the Priority List appear in an order significantly different than that approved by the Town Council.
For example, Chapel Hill’s #1 priority project, public transit capital, ranked #16 and the Town’s #2 priority, Signal System Upgrade, was ranked #39. We propose that the Transportation Advisory Committee revise the 2007-2013 Priority List to more accurately reflect the priorities of local jurisdictions and emphasize projects that promote alternative modes of transportation.
We also are concerned that Chapel Hill projects receiving the same number of points are not ranked in order consistent with the adopted Chapel Hill List. Chapel Hill priority #20, (Bolin Creek/Little Creek Greenway), is listed before several Chapel Hill projects with higher rankings in the Chapel Hill List, even though all these projects received the same number of points.
We propose that the Transportation Advisory Committee revise the Regional Priority List to rank those projects with the same number of points consistently with local priority lists.
Transportation Board: (Attachment 4) The Transportation Board recommended the following comments to the Council:
Staff Comment:
We agree that the Regional Priority List should better reflect the Chapel Hill Priority List. We also agree the application of the ranking criteria should be revised.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: (Attachment 5) The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board recommended the following comments:
· The Estes Drive project is incorrectly described on page 86 of the Draft Regional Priority List. It should read “Add sidewalk, Curtis Road to Franklin Street and pedestrian signal at Chapel Hill Library Drive”.
· Regarding the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard project described on page 91 of the Draft Regional Priority List, the words “bicycle improvements” need to be added to the description to accurately reflect the Chapel Hill Priority List. Please also inform the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization staff that the Town has received a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Mobility Study of NC 86/Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (Historic Airport Road). The study was prepared by UNC Highway Safety Research Center and its existence may enhance the project ranking.
Staff Comment:
We will work with Urban Area staff to make the corrections to the project descriptions identified by the Board. The Urban Area staff has reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Bicycle Safety and Mobility Study of NC 86/Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (Historic Airport Road). The preparation of this Study is not considered in the allocation of project priority points.
Planning Board: (Attachment 6): The Planning Board recommended that:
· Chapel Hill projects with the same number of points should be listed consistently with the Chapel Hill Priority List
· Western Estes Drive improvements be moved to a higher priority than eastern Estes Drive improvements.
· Any project related to the development of the Horace Williams property be deferred.
Staff Comment:
We agree that Chapel Hill projects with similar points should be listed consistently with the adopted Chapel Hill List. The adopted Chapel Hill Priority List includes Estes Drive, NC 86 to Curtis Road as #7 priority and Estes Drive Extension, NC 86 to Greensboro Street as #8.
We are not aware of any projects in the Chapel Hill Priority List that are related to the development of the Horace Williams property.
The Transportation Advisory Committee is scheduled to approve the Regional Priority List in October 2005 and forward a copy to the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The State is scheduled to release a draft State Transportation Improvement Program in early 2006. At that time the Urban Area will prepare a draft Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program which will be used in negotiations with the State. A final draft Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program is expected to be developed in June 2006 and the Transportation Advisory Committee is expected to adopt a final 2007-2013 Program in August 2006.
Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council approve Resolution A, which would provide the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with comments and recommendations on the Draft 2007-2013 Regional Priority List. We offer the following comments and recommendations for the Council’s consideration:
· The 2007-2013 Regional Priority List be revised to give greater consideration to projects that promote alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects.
· The project ranking criteria be revised prior to use in the development of the 2009 Regional Priority List to more accurately reflect local and regional transportation goals and priorities.
· Whenever projects from the same jurisdiction receive the same number of points the projects should be listed consistent with the order of the local priority list.
1. 2007-2013 Chapel Hill Priority List (p. 9).
2. Draft 2007-2013 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Regional Priority List (p. 11).
3. Transportation Improvement Program Development Process (p. 88).
4. Transportation Board Recommendation(p. 89).
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation (p. 90).
6. Planning Board Recommendation (p. 91).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT 2007-2013 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST (2005-09-12/R-15)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has prepared a draft 2007-2013 Regional Transportation Priority List; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has opened a public comment period on the Draft Priority List;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following comments be submitted to the Transportation Advisory Committee on the Draft 2007-2013 Regional Priority List.
· The 2007-2013 Regional Priority List be revised to give greater consideration to projects that promote alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects.
· The project ranking criteria be revised prior to use in the development of the 2009 Regional Priority List to more accurately reflect local and regional transportation goals and priorities.
· Whenever projects from the same jurisdiction receive the same number of points the projects should be listed consistent with the order of the local priority list.
This the 12th day of September, 2005.