AGENDA #2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Forum: Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan for 2002-2003
DATE: October 21, 2002
This Public Forum has been scheduled to receive public input on the development of a proposed Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan for 2002-2003. This memorandum provides an update on the status of the Town’s sidewalk construction program and offers a preliminary recommendation of sidewalk projects for fiscal year 2002-2003.
We recommend that the Council refer all comments received at tonight’s forum to the Manager for a follow-up report to the Council at its November 11 meeting, with a final recommendation for construction of sidewalk and bicycle facilities.
On September 9, 2002, the Town Council called a public forum on the sidewalk and bicycle facilities construction plan for 2002-2003 for October 21, 2002. The Town Council is scheduled to consider action on the sidewalk and bicycle facilities construction plan for 2002-2003 on November 11.
Using the Town’s construction crew, we completed construction of the following sidewalk projects during the 2001-2002 fiscal year:
Ø Emily Street/Partin Street (1,185 feet), north side, from Piney Mountain Road to Partin Street/entire west side length of Partin Street.
Ø Bolinwood Drive (500 feet), north side, from Hillsborough Street to the greenway.
Ø Scarlette Drive, west side, from Legion Road townhomes to intersection of Old Durham Road.
The construction crew also completed miscellaneous repair and replacement of sidewalk and curb and gutter Town-wide.
The following project was completed by contract during the 2001-2002 fiscal year:
Ø Ransom Street, between Cameron Avenue and McCauley Street.
The following projects are in progress:
Culbreth Road (in front of Culbreth Middle School)
The project is under construction and is expected to be completed this fall. The project is being constructed by contract forces.
Final sidewalk design plans are being reviewed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The project is planned to be constructed by contract forces.
Easements will need to be acquired in order to have enough right-of-way to build the sidewalk in this location. We are in the process of talking with property owners about the easement acquisition process. If all property owners in the project area do not grant or sell the necessary easements, the Town may have to exercise its power of eminent domain to obtain the necessary right-of-way for the project. Construction will be completed by Town construction crews.
We estimate approximately $60,000 will be available from residual Capital Improvements Program funds for new sidewalk and bicycle facilities projects in 2002-03. Over the last few years, new sidewalks and bicycle facilities have been funded from the 1996 sidewalks bond and from the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Last year, the Council allocated $100,000 of remaining 1996 bond funds and $150,000 in CIP funds for sidewalk projects. Because of the budget situation, however, this year no new CIP funds were allocated for new sidewalks.
The proposed allocation for 2002-03 of $60,000 is our estimate of funds that will remain after the current projects are completed. This sum may increase or decrease somewhat, depending on the final costs of projects underway. We will provide a more refined budget estimate to the Council at the November 11 meeting.
In a separate memorandum before the Council tonight, we note that additional funds may be available for capital improvement projects and other uses this year. That memorandum includes a recommendation for consideration of allocating those funds at the November 11 Council meeting.
It is also possible that as much as $100,000 in Direct Allocation funds will be available for sidewalks for the region as a whole beginning in October 2002. If the Town Council chooses to apply for a portion of these regional funds, a 20 percent local match would be required. This would provide the opportunity to leverage available funds for additional improvements. We recommend that the Council pursue Direct Allocation funds when available.
SIDEWALK ASSESSMENTS
Another funding option for sidewalks is the assessment process outlined in the North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 160A, Article 10. Under this article, property owners may file a petition seeking the installation of a sidewalk and the assessment of a portion of the costs of the sidewalk to the abutting properties. If such a petition is signed by the requisite number of owners representing the requisite front footage, the Town can elect to construct the sidewalk and charge the stated portion of the costs to the benefited properties. Provisions can be included for the payment of the assessments over a number of years. In addition, the Town Charter provides a procedure under which the Town can, under certain circumstances, install a sidewalk without a petition and assess the cost thereof against abutting properties. This process has not been used in at least the past 20 years.
It has been the Council’s practice to authorize sidewalk projects that are constructed by both contractors and our in-house crew, thus achieving cost savings, while at the same time proceeding with larger projects that are more effectively completed by a private contractor. Under State Law, the Town may build projects with its own work force as long as the entire cost of the project does not exceed $175,000, and the cost of labor alone does not exceed $75,000.
The sidewalk ranking system, endorsed by the Council in September 2001, is a two-step system. The first step involves quantitatively ranking the sidewalk project list based on a series of factors (see Attachments 1 and 2). This ranking system is intended to be used as a “general guide” for identifying potential sidewalk projects. The second step is to work from this list and consider other factors, such as right-of-way, construction feasibility, and immediacy of need, to determine a list of new sidewalk projects for each fiscal year. By considering these other factors, projects other than those at the top of the ranking list could be chosen for funding and construction.
Typically, we focus on projects that generally appear as higher priority projects in the sidewalk ranking system. However, we also take into account the following feasibility criteria to evaluate sidewalk projects:
· Significant safety issues;
· Recognition of fiscal restraints;
· Reasonableness of costs compared to benefit attained;
· Efficient coordination of resources when other construction projects are underway;
· Consideration of prior commitments;
· Contributions of funds from an outside source to help defray costs;
· Distribution of funding throughout the Town; and
· Most efficient balance of use of Town forces and outside contractors.
Council Goal
On April 8, 2002, the Town Council adopted a series of goals for the year. One of the goals states: “Improve the process for setting priorities for funding sidewalk and bicycle system improvement projects by taking into account connectivity, links to bus stops, probability of increasing bicycle commuting, benefit to downtown improvement objectives, and benefit of collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions.”
We believe that an effective way of implementing this goal would be to add these considerations to the Sidewalk Ranking System chart (see Attachment 1), along with other criteria that are used in evaluating projects. We recommend the Town Council amend the ranking system to reflect these additions.
PRELIMINARY PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
Previously Suggested Projects
The Town Manager’s memorandum to the Council on November 12, 2001, noted a series of projects that we recommended be considered for funding in the 2002-03 fiscal year. These were projects that we considered to be high priority projects, some of which were recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Transportation Board in the fall of 2001. The projects are:
Ø Gaps on East Rosemary Street;
Ø Legion Road #1 (south side, Scarlette Drive to Martin Luther King Jr. Street);
Ø Legion Road #2 (south side, Clover Drive to Ephesus Church Road);
Ø Estes Drive #2 (south side, Franklin Street to Willow) and connection to bike path on Community Center property;
Ø Airport Road (east side, Timber Hollow Court to Homestead Road); and
Ø Fordham Boulevard #2 (west side, Ephesus Church Road to Elliott Road).
New Projects
Attachment 3 contains sidewalk requests received from citizens during the last year. Two new citizen-requested projects, Culbreth Road (adjacent to the project currently under construction on Culbreth Road) and Seawell School Road #3, are among four projects at the top of the sidewalk priority list (see Attachment 2). We recommend that these two projects also be considered this year for funding.
South Graham Street Project
We recommend pursuing Community Development Block Grant funding for construction of the South Graham Street sidewalk project. We have determined that the area meets the requirements for funding under this program.
Airport Road Project
If Direct Allocation funds are available for sidewalk project this fiscal year, we believe that the Airport Road sidewalk project, or a portion thereof, would be an appropriate project for this funding because of it completes a major gap in the sidewalk system and has Town-wide benefits. We estimate the total project cost to be in excess of $200,000.
Flexibility
In years past, the Council has annually approved a fixed list of projects for construction. We recommend revising the process to approve a broader list of high priority projects to be built as funding is available and other conditions permit. This recommendation is consistent with recommendations from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Transportation Board. We note that the process for developing sidewalk projects is unique to each project. Some projects are relatively straightforward and can be built quickly and efficiently. Other projects may require right-of-way or easement acquisition, coordination with NCDOT, coordination with property owners, or other time-consuming efforts. Having a broader list of approved projects would provide the flexibility to ensure that Town construction crews are continuously engaged, and that Town funds are used in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
High Priority Projects
According the sidewalk priority list (Attachment 2), the following eleven projects are the highest priority projects (projects with an overall ranking of 1-3):
Ø Airport Road (east side), Timber Hollow Court to Homestead Drive (1,850 ft).
Ø Legion Road #2 (south side), Clover Road to Ephesus Church Road (600 ft).
Ø Culbreth Road (south side), between Cobble Ridge Drive and Rossburn Way (500 ft).
Ø Seawell School Road #3 (east side), Savannah Terrace to High School Road (500 ft).
Ø Fordham Boulevard #2 (west side), Ephesus Church Road to Elliott Road (1,090 ft).
Ø McCauley Street (south side), Brookside Drive to Pittsboro Street (1,667 feet).
Ø South Graham Street (east side), Cameron Avenue to Franklin Street (575 feet).
Ø University Drive (north side), Pittsboro Street to Ransom Street (445 ft).
Ø Ephesus Church Road #1 (south side), Eden Drive to 15-501 Bypass (3,000 ft).
Ø Estes Road Extension #3 (south side), Seawell School Road to Airport Road (4,100 ft).
Ø Legion Road #1 (south side), Scarlette Road to Martin Luther King Jr. Street (800 ft).
Bicycle Facility Projects
The Transportation Board recommended that the Estes Drive #2 project, from Franklin Street to Willow Drive, should include a connection to the bike path on the Community Center property. The Board recommends that this connection include a 10 foot multi-use, path rather than a sidewalk. We also note that bicycles are permitted to ride on sidewalks outside of the downtown, as well as on the roads.
After tonight’s public forum, we will consider citizen and advisory board comments and return to Council with a final recommendation on November 11. As part of this recommendation, we will recommend priorities within the list of eleven projects for this fiscal year.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve the eleven projects (consisting of projects ranked 1-3) at the top of the sidewalk priority list for funding, as funding is available. The Board also recommended that the Town pursue Direct Allocation funding for the Airport Road project. See Attachment 4 for a summary of the Board’s action.
·Transportation Board Recommendation: The
Transportation Board voted unanimously to recommend that the Council approve
the eleven projects (consisting of projects ranked 1-3) at the top of the
sidewalk priority list for funding, as funding is available. The Board also suggested
adding two new projects to the sidewalk priority list. See Attachment 5 for a
summary of the Board’s action.
·Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: That
the Council approve the eleven projects at the top of the sidewalk priority
list for funding, as funding is available. We also recommend developing
anticipated priorities within the list of eleven projects for spending
available funding for the November 11 meeting. We also recommend that the
Council revise the sidewalk ranking system to incorporate the Council’s goal
related to sidewalk and bicycle facility improvements.
1. Sidewalk Ranking System, endorsed by Town Council Sept. 10, 2001 (p. 7).
2. Sidewalk Priority List (p. 8).
3. Correspondence (p.10).
4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action (p.17).
5. Transportation Board Summary of Action (p. 18).
Sidewalk Ranking System
(endorsed by Town Council September 10, 2001)
|
|
FACTOR |
RANKING |
SCORE |
|
Safety Characteristics (5 pts) |
Street Classification |
Arterial |
5 |
|
|
Collector |
3 |
|
|
|
Local |
1 |
|
|
Pedestrian Generators (15 pts) |
Proximity to Schools (elementary or secondary) |
Within ¼ mile |
5 |
|
Within ½ mile |
3 |
||
|
Transit Service |
Transit stop within ¼ mile |
5 |
|
|
|
Transit stop within ½ mile |
3 |
|
|
Other Pedestrian Generators |
Within ¼ mile of UNC, parks, shopping |
5 |
|
|
|
Within ½ mile of UNC, parks, shopping |
3 |
|
|
|
No significant generator within 1 mile |
0 |
|
|
Other Factors (16 pts)
|
Existing Facilities (project side) |
Worn path |
5 |
|
No facility – roadway only option |
3 |
||
|
Existing sidewalk |
0 |
||
|
Existing Facilities (opposite side) |
Worn path |
5 |
|
|
No facility – roadway only option |
3 |
||
|
Existing sidewalk |
0 |
||
|
Gap or Missing Link (if both, score only for Gap) |
Gap (600 ft or less between sidewalks) |
5 |
|
|
Missing Link (10% or more of section between two pedestrian generators) |
3 |
||
|
Citizen Requests |
Request has been made to Town |
1 |
The Bicycle and Pedestrian and the Transportation Advisory Boards recommend that the Sidewalk Ranking System be used as a general guide for identifying a group of new sidewalks in Chapel Hill. Working from this group of sidewalks generated by the ranking system, the boards will consider ROW, construction feasibility, and necessity as factors in determining a fixed list of new sidewalks for each fiscal year.