macon county comprehensive t lan - ncdot

MACON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Steering Committee Meeting #8 January 16, 2020, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM SCC Groves Center, 44 Siler Farm Rd., Franklin NC

Agenda 1:00 PM Welcome and Review 1:10 PM Prioritizing Funding for Transportation Projects 1:40 PM Highway Deficiencies and Draft Recommendations

2:20 PM Draft Bicycle Recommendations 2:40 PM Wrap-Up and Next Steps 2:50 PM Adjourn

MACON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Steering Committee Meeting #8 Summary January 16, 2020, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Southwestern Community College Groves Center, Franklin

Attendees: Name Representing Present

Joe Allen Macon County Planning Dept. ☒ Kim Angel Macon County Transit ☒ Mitchell Bishop NCDOT Division 14 ☒ Warren Cabe Macon County Emergency Management ☒ Jennifer Garrett Macon County Health Dept. ☒ Todd Gibbs Macon County Schools ☒ Tommy Gilbert Macon County Transit ☐ Pete Haithcock Macon County Airport Authority ☒ Tommy Jenkins Macon County Economic Development Commission ☐ Ben Laseter Mainspring Deputy Director ☐ Cory McCall Outdoor 76 ☐ Jack Morgan Macon County Planning Director ☒ Justin Setser Franklin Town Planner ☒ Kathy Tinsley Macon County Planning Board ☐ Michael Mathis Highlands Town Planner ☒ Rose Bauguess Southwestern Commission ☒ Roger Castillo NCDOT Transportation Planning Division ☒ James Upchurch NCDOT Transportation Planning Division ☒ Steve Williams NCDOT Division 14 ☒ Troy Wilson NCDOT Division 14 ☒

Total attendees: 15

PAGE | 2

Summary of Agenda Items

Prioritization Overview Rose Bauguess presented an overview of NCDOT’s Prioritization process, whereby projects identified in the CTP are prioritized for potential funding and implementation. This is an ongoing process, which results in an updated State Transportation Improvement Program every two-to-three years.

Highway Deficiencies and Recommendations Roger Castillo presented a summary of potential highway projects to include as recommendations in the CTP. The Steering Committee provided extensive feedback on each of them.

Summary of Action Items

The following action items were identified during the meeting:

• Provide comments on Goals and Objectives • Provide comments on Bicycle Destinations

Next Steps

The next Steering Committee meeting will be held Thursday, February 20, 2020, from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM at the Southwestern Community College Groves Center Conference Room on Siler Farm Road. Tentative agenda items for the next meeting include:

• Draft Transit Recommendations • Draft Bicycle Recommendations • Draft Pedestrian Recommendations

01/16/2020

1

MACON COUNTY

COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Steering Committee Meeting #8JANUARY 16, 2020

1:00 PM Welcome and Review

1:10 PM Prioritizing Funding for Transportation Projects

1:30PM Highway Deficiencies and

Draft Recommendations

2:00 PM Draft Bicycle Recommendations

2:30 PM Wrap‐Up and Next Steps

2:40 PM Adjourn

Agenda – Meeting #8

Review

Meeting #2 – May 2, 2019• Stakeholder Representation Matrix• Vision Statement• Draft Public Input Survey

Meeting #3 – May 30, 2019• Survey Distribution and Marketing Plan• Facility Types and CTP Study Roads

• Macon County Commuting Patterns

Meeting #4 – June 26, 2019• Future Growth Rate Methodology• Review Base‐Year Highway Maps

Meeting #1 – March 26, 2019• Intro to CTP• Roles and Responsibilities• From Planning to Implementation• Visioning Exercise

Meeting #5 – August 27, 2019• Public Survey Results• Bicycle and Pedestrian Crash Data• Bicycle and Pedestrian Existing Plans• Macon County Demographics Quiz

Meeting #6 – October 3, 2019• Finalize Vision Statement• Macon County Transit Overview• Population and Employment Projections

Meeting #7 – November 7, 2019• Develop Goals and Objectives• Approve Future Traffic Volumes• Approve Future Road Capacities

Meeting #8 – January 16, 2020• Prioritization Overview• Highway Recommendations

Prioritization 102

Long‐Range Planning

Identify needs ‐CTP

Prioritization

Scoring and Ranking

Funding and Scheduling

STIP

Project Development

Data collection, select alternative,environmental document, final design

ROW and Construction

Acquire property, relocate utilities, construct project

Maintenance and Operations

Ongoing

Previous PerceptionWhat do you guys think about funding the widening of I‐40? There’s a lot of congestion out there.

I’ll agree to the I‐40 project, but in return let’s also fund the new road near my property at the beach.

Session 2: So you’ve heard about prioritization

Transportation ReformPublic wanted politics removed from decision‐making


1 2

3 4

5 6

01/16/2020

2

2013 Strategic Transportation Investments Law

“The Department shall develop and utilize a process for selection of transportation projects that is based on professional standards in order to most efficiently use limited resources to benefit all citizens of the State.

The strategic prioritization process should be a systematic, data‐

driven process that includes a combination of quantitative data,

qualitative input, and multimodal characteristics, and should

include local input.

The Department shall develop a process for standardizing or

approving local methodology used in Metropolitan Planning

Organization and Rural Transportation Planning Organization

prioritization.“ ‐ S.L. 2012‐84

Prioritization Process is now in Law


Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) Law –The Why

Growing state

Modernize funding formula and remove politics

Better connect people, products, and places

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

2000

2035

Population in Millions


How Prioritization and STIP Correlate

P4.0 Process

10 Year STIP resulting from

P3.0

P5.0 Process

10 Year STIP resulting from

P4.0

10 Year STIP resulting from P5.0

Prioritization Funding Categories

$

Statewide Mobility

$

Division Needs

A

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

B C

E F G

D

Divided based on % of State Population

$

RegionalImpact

Divided based onEqual Share

Statewide Mobility

Draft 2020‐2029 STIP

regions &divisions


40% of Funds 30% of Funds 30% of Funds

Statewide Mobility

Regional Impact

Division Needs

Focus Address Local Needs• Selection based on 50% Data & 50% Local Input

• Funding based on equal share for each Division (14)

Focus Address Significant Congestion and Bottlenecks

• Selection based on 100% Data

• Projects Programmed prior to Local Input Ranking

Focus Improve Connectivity within Regions

• Selection based on 70% Data & 30% Local Input

• Funding based on population within Region (7)

Strategic Transportation Investments

7 8

9 10

11 12

01/16/2020

3

Funding Categories – Southwestern RPO

Statewide Mobility• Interstates and major US

routes across the state

• SWRPO competes with all of North Carolina’s 100 counties for Statewide funds.

• 100% quantitative data, with no local input points.

Regional Impact • Regional connectivity on smaller US

Highways and NC routes.

• US 23, US 441, US 64, NC 106

• Seven funding regions in the state; SWRPO is part of Region G, which includes the 17 western counties in NCDOT Divisions 13 and 14.

• 70% quantitative score and 30% local input.

• The 30% local input is divided equally between the SWRPO (15%) and NCDOT Division 14 (15%).

Division Needs • Secondary roads and non-

highway modes (aviation, bicycle/pedestrian, public transit, and rail)

• The SWRPO’s six counties compete with the 10 western counties within NCDOT Division 14 for these funds.

• 50% quantitative data and 50% local input.

• The 50% local input is divided equally between the SWRPO (25%) and NCDOT Division 14 (25%).

STI Law Highway Scoring OverviewMode Statewide Mobility

OverallWeights

100% Quantitative Data

QuantitativeCriteria

• Benefit‐Cost• Congestion• Economic Comp.• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width

Regional Impact

70% Quantitative Data /30% Local Input

• Benefit‐cost• Congestion• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width• Accessibility and connectivity to employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations

Division Needs

50% Quantitative Data /50% Local Input

• Benefit‐cost• Congestion.• Safety• Freight• Multimodal• Pavement Condition• Lane Width• Shoulder Width• Accessibility and connectivity to employment centers, tourist destinations, or military installations


NCDOT Quantitative

Score

Local NCDOT Division

Points

LOCAL PLANNINGORGANIZATION POINTS

Total Project $core

Published Methodology for applying Local Input Points

Scoring Process

Statewide Mobility

Regional Impact

Division Needs

• Local input points assigned

• Total scores calculated• Projects programmed

• Projects programmed based on quant. score

• Local input points assigned

• Total scores calculated• Projects programmed

Projects Submitted• Data reviewed• Quantitative scores calculated

Scoring Process

Prioritization Workgroup

§ 136-189.11. Transportation Investment Strategy Formula.

(h) Improvement of Prioritization Process. – The Department shall

endeavor to continually improve the methodology and criteria used to

score highway and non-highway projects pursuant to this Article,

including the use of normalization techniques, and methods to

strengthen the data collection process. The Department is directed to

continue the use of a workgroup process to develop improvements to

the prioritization process.

P6.0 Highway Scoring Changes

Congestion = 20%

Benefit‐Cost = 20%

Safety = 10%

Freight = 10%

Accessibility/Connectivity = 10%

Congestion = 15%

Benefit‐Cost = 15%

Safety = 10%

Freight = 5%

Accessibility/Connectivity = 5%

Regional Impact Division Needs

MOBILITY SCORING

Congestion = 5%

Safety = 25%

Freight = 10%

Lane Width = 10%

Shoulder Width = 10%

Pavement Condition = 10%

Safety = 20%

Freight = 5%

Lane Width = 5%

Shoulder Width = 10%

Pavement Condition = 10%

Regional Impact Division Needs

MODERNIZATION SCORING

13 14

15 16

17 18

01/16/2020

4

Region and Division Competition

Route / Facility NameFrom / Cross

StreetCost to NCDOT

MPO(s) / RPO(s)

County(s)

DIVISION NEEDS

Quantitative Score

(Out of 50)

Division 14 Points

(25%)

SWRPO Draft

Points

LOSRPO Draft

Points

FBRMPO Draft

Points

ISRPO Draft

Points

TOTAL SCORE

(87.5 max)Cumulative Money

Grove Street Sidewalks

Barnwell Street $ 723,040 French Broad River MPO Henderson 38.62 50 100 76.12 723,040$

US 74 (Great Smokey Mountains Expressway)

US 441 Gateway Interchange $ 21,000,000 Southwestern

RPO Jackson 32.08 50 100 69.58 21,000,000$

US 276SR 1134 (Crymes Cove Rd), Raccoon Rd

$ 2,700,000 French Broad River MPO Haywood 31.30 50 100 68.80 23,700,000$

US 276 (Russ Avenue)

US 23-74 (Great Smoky Mountain Expressway)

$ 13,600,000 French Broad River MPO Haywood 30.94 50 100 68.44 37,300,000$

E. Main St/US 441 Bus, SR 1510 (Old Cat Creek Rd), 1st St.

NC 28 (Highlands Rd) $ 176,000 Southwestern

RPO Macon 28.89 50 100 66.39 37,476,000$

US 19, US 74, US 129 US 64 $ 15,300,000 Southwestern RPO Cherokee 28.74 50 100 66.24 52,776,000$

US 23, US 441SR 1649 (Prentiss Bridge Road) $ 59,200,000 Southwestern

RPO Macon 28.38 50 100 65.88 111,976,000$

US 276 (Jonathan Creek)

US 19 $ 20,700,000 Land-of-Sky RPO, French Broad River MPO

Haywood 27.69 50 78 23 65.44 132,676,000$

US 178SR 1156 (Main Street) in Rosman $ 14,083,000 Land-of-Sky RPO Transylvania 27.92 50 100 65.42 146,759,000$

US 74SR 1393 (Wakefield Rd) $ 93,000,000 Southwestern

RPOCherokee,

Macon 27.85 50 100 65.35 239,759,000$

Potentially 9 projects funded in Division 14, 4 within SWRPO

P5.0 EXAMPLE OF DIVISION NEEDS FUNDING – DIVISION 14 Prioritization 6.0 Schedule

Here’s Roger!

Highway Deficiencies and Recommendations

Bicycle Recommendations

Next Steps

Meeting #9: Thursday, February 20?

19 20

21 22

23 24

01/16/2020

1

Meeting #8

Roger CastilloJanuary 16, 2020

Key things to consider for highway recommendation

Macon County CTP

2

• Meeting the community’s vision• Addressing the transportation

deficiency• Minimizing impacts to the natural and

human environment

Examples of Key Identified Needs

Macon County CTP

3

• Legislative Intent;• Congestion;• Safety;• Facility Deficiencies;• Access;• System Linkage;• Mobility;• Emergency Evacuation.• Environmental Protection;• Growth/Economic Development; and• National Defense/Security.

Typical SectionsMacon County CTP

Macon County CTP

5

Contacts• NCDOT Transportation Planning Division (TPD)

– Roger Castillo, [email protected], (919) 707-0942 (Project Engineer)

• Southwestern Rural Planning Organization (RPO)– Rose Bauguess, [email protected], (828) 586-1962 x

213• NCDOT Division 14 Planning Engineer

– Steve Williams, [email protected], (828) 631-1170

6

1 2

3 4

5 6

# Segment From To Category # of Markers Summary of Comments Previous CTP Purpose/Need Recommendation

1 US 64 Clay County West old Murphy Road Modernization 11

‐8 of the comments indicated the need of a climbing lane due to trucks and slower traffic‐1 stated a 4 lane to continue‐1 discussed maintanance

YesRegional mobility and travel time reliability. Freight movement.

Would not be waranted a 4 lane. Modernization with climbing lanes. Warrant a 4 ft paved shoulder

2 US 64 Highlands City Limits Jackson Modernization 2 ‐2 comments: Road needs upgrade Yes Connector to Cashiers. Safety

Bringing road up to standards. Need shoulders. Lane width. Possible need for climbing lane (may not be feasible).

3 US 23 Sanderstown Road Jackson Modernization 8 ‐8 comments: Dangerous road especially around Gold City Lane Yes Mobility from Asheville to AtlantaDivided 4 lane limited left turn movement.

4 US 441 (Georgia Road) Georgia Hickory Knoll Road Modernization 15

‐5 comments stated water runoff problems on this road and hydroplaning‐3 comments stated intersection issues‐7 empty markers

Yes

Numerous driveway cuts, unsignalized left turns, and density of traffic signals. Crashes along this road. Mobility from Asheville to Atlanta.

continute from current projects. Getting ahead of development

5 NC 106 Georgia US 64 Modernization 6 ‐6 comments stated to upgrade or modernize the road YesTruck Traffic and connectivity. One of the few ways to access highlands. System Linkage

Widen Lane and shoulder to standards. Climbing Lanes

6 NC 28 US 441 BUS (Main Street) Sugarfork Road Congestion 17

‐5 comments: Signal Timing/Confusing signs/layout‐4 comments: Truck Traffic/better signals for truck turnaround‐2 comments: Sight obstruction‐3 comments: Widen‐4 comments: other

Yes Congestion; over capacity.

Previous CTP had a boulevard between Main St and US 23. For the part between US 23 and Sugarfor: 12ft lanes and paved shoulders

7 Clarks Chapel Road Clarks Chapel Road Wells Grove Road Intersection 8

‐3 comments: Traffic Congestion During School Times/requires 2 deputies‐2 comments: Hard to see incoming traffic‐3 comments: Other

No

8 Main Street Main Street US 23/441 Intersection 13

‐4 comments: This intersection is poorly designed‐5comments: Dangerous merge area/access‐2 comments: Crash‐1 comment: Congestion‐1 comment: Sight Distance

No

Safety. Regional Mobility. Signal issues. Travel time reliability. No Pedestrian Access. Poor Sight Distance. Crashes

9 Prentiss Bridge Road US 441 (Georgia Road) Clarks Chapel Road Modernization 3‐2 comments: Need to be widened‐1 comment: River Pollution

No 8 ft lanes. Links to schoolsWiden Lane and shoulder to standards

10RiversideHickory KnollClarks Chapel

US 441 (Georgia Road) Prentiss Bridge Road Modernization 6

‐1 comment: Intersection problem at Prentiss‐1 comment: Narrow Lanes‐1 comment: Crash problem‐3 empty markers

No 8ft lanes. Links to schoolsWiden Lane and shoulder to standards

11 Roller Mill Road US 64 US 441 (Georgia Road) Modernization 4‐3 comments: Limited Sight Distance/Dangerous Cruves‐1 comment: widen with bike/ped imporvements

NoSight distance issues. Narrow Lanes. Often used as a shortcut.

Widen Lane and shoulder to standards

12Old Murphy Road/Palmer

Wayah Road W Main Street Modernization 3‐2 comments: Traffic too fast‐1 comment: Narrow between Wilkie St and Main St

PartialParallel to US 64. Near Capacity. Narrow Lanes

intersection improvements. Lane Width, paved shoulders, turn lanes where warranted.

13 Iotla Church Road NC 28 Burningtown Road Modernization 1 ‐1 comment: Traffic with elementary school YesAccess to airport and schools. Mobility and reliability


14 Buck Creek Road US 64 US 64 Modernization 0 ‐ YesTravel time reliability and mobility. Alternate route from the gorge.


DRAFT Roadway Recommendations

Ú

o

Ú

o

Ú

o

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

å

n

n

n

ÚH

ÚHCashiers Rd

(US-64)

Murphy Rd

(US-64)

Georgia R

d

Cat

Creek Rd

(SR-1513)

Sanderstown Rd(SR-1335)

Lower

Burningtown R

d

(SR-1372)

Old Murphy Rd(SR-1442)

Cla

rks

Cha

pel R

d(S

R-1

653)

Burningtown Rd(SR-1372)Rabbit

Creek Rd(SR-1513)

SouthSkeenah Rd

(SR-1128)

Ned H

ill Rd

(SR-1345)

Dillard Rd

BuckC

reek Rd

(SR-1538)

Walh

alla

Rd(N

C-28

)

Wayah Rd

(SR-1310)

Junaluska Rd

(SR-1401)

Walnut

Creek Rd

(SR-1533)

Highlands Rd

West Old

Murphy Rd

(SR-1448)

Hickory

K noll Rd

( SR-1653)

Ellijay R

d

(SR-1001)

Hicks R

d

(SR-1545)

Leatherman

Gap Rd

(SR-1341)

"$28

"$28

Wayah Rd

(SR-1310)

C L A YC L A YC O U N T YC O U N T Y

G R A H A MG R A H A MC O U N T YC O U N T Y

J A C K S O NJ A C K S O NC O U N T YC O U N T Y

S W A I NS W A I NC O U N T YC O U N T Y

NantahalaLake

Cu

llasa ja River

Little Tennes see RiverNanta

hala

Byway

( Sce

nic)

Waterfall Byway (Scenic)

"$28

"$28"$116

"$107

"$107

"$106

"$28

"$143

"$107

£¤441

£¤441

£¤74

£¤19

£¤129

£¤64

£¤19

£¤64

£¤19

£¤64

£¤64

£¤64FranklinFranklin

SylvaSylva

WebsterWebster

ForestForestHillsHills

DillsboroDillsboro

HighlandsHighlands

MACON COUNTY

Plan Date: January 15, 2020WORKING COPY

Base map date: March 18, 2019

0 2 4 6 81Miles

Sheet 1 of 1

´Full report at:https://tinyurl.com/MaconCTP

DRAFTRECOMMENDATIONS

Comprehensive Transportation Plan

This product contains mapping data for informational and planning purposes only, and is subject to change. Users shouldreview or consult the primary data sources to ascertain the usability of the information.

Legal Disclaimer

Not Feasible

Recommendation

19

54

3

2

14

13

12

11

10

7

8

6

Intersections!(

FranklinFranklin

£¤441

£¤441

£¤441

£¤64

£¤441_̀B U S

441

_̀B U S

441

_̀B U S

441

_̀B U S

441

£¤23

£¤64

£¤23

_̀B U S

23

£¤64

£¤64_²64

£¤23

£¤23

£¤64

£¤23

"$28

"$28

"$28

"$28

"$28

"$28

Depo

t St

(SR

1729

)

North B

laine

Bran

ch R

d

(SR 11

43)

Belle

view

Rd(S

R 16

53)

Roller Mill Rd

(SR 1154)

Lake Emory R

d

(SR 1325)

Mas

hbur

n Br

anch

Rd

(SR

167

0)

nette

Rd

(SR 14

40)

Louisa Chapel Rd

(SR 1148)

Angel Cove Rd

(SR 1666)

Depot St

(SR 1323)

Siler Rd(SR 1660)

Riv

ervi

ew S

t(S

R 1

462)

Rd

(SR

116

8)

Palm

er R

d(S

R 1669

)

Palmer Dr

(SR 1417)

Womack St(SR 1158)

Jones Ridge Rd

(SR 1150)

Mas

hbur

n W

hite

Rd

(SR

1153

)

Wells Grove Rd(SR 1667)

Wile

y Br

own

Rd

(SR

166

2)

Iotla S t(SR

1489)

Old Murphy Rd

(SR 1442)

New Hope Rd

(SR 1318)

Riverview St

(SR 1323)

Te(S

Pressley Rd(SR 1471)

W Palmer St

(SR 1442)

Dowdle Mountain Rd

(SR 1659)

La (S

Jim M

ann R

d

(SR 11

51)

Wayah St(SR 1667)

Rog

ers

Rd(S

R 15

60)

Windy Gap Rd

(SR 1321)

Baird Cove R

d

(SR 1319)

John

Just

ice R

d(S

R 15

09)

Ray Cove Rd

(SR 1315)

Lakeside Dr

(SR 1324)

Golf View Dr(SR 1157)

Laurel L

(SR

Valle

y Vi

ew R

d(S

R 1

169)

Sloan St

(SR 1512)

Jaco

bs B

ranc

h Rd

(SR

1382

)

Dry

man

Rd

(SR

115

6)

Long Rd(SR 1663)

No

Trimont Lake Rd

(SR 1384)

Thom

as R

d

(SR 15

14)

Fulton Rd(SR 1668)

Holly H(SR 157

Trim

ont B

ranc

h Rd

(SR

1316

)

Allman D

r(SR

1687)

Ferguson Rd

(SR 1507)

Dobson Rd

(SR 1149)

Hunnicutt Rd

(SR 1664)

Pressley Circle Rd

(SR 1425)

Patton Rd

(SR 1148)

Gibson Cove Rd(SR 1313)

Medlin Rd(SR 1658)

Wallace Branch R

d

(SR 1314)

Saun

ders

Rd

(SR

1516

)

C R

Cab

e R

d(S

R 1

661)

Wide

Hor

izon

Dr

(SR

1652

)

Brys

on C

ity R

d

Harrison Ave

Cartoogechaye

Cr ee k

Cullasaja River

MACON COUNTY

Plan Date: January 15, 2020WORKING COPY

Base map date: March 18, 2019

0 10.5Miles

Sheet 4 of 4

´Full report at:https://tinyurl.com/MaconCTP

These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federalenvironmental regulations, to determine final locations anddesigns, and to be funded for implementation. Local zoningor subdivision ordinances may require the dedication ofright of way based on the concepts shown on the ComprehensiveTransportation Plan and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10.

Legal Disclaimer

Proposals that address identified needs through 2045

DRAFTRECOMMENDATIONS

Not Feasible

Recommendation

Comprehensive Transportation Plan

12

11

7

8

10

6

Intersections!(

macon county comprehensive t lan - ncdot

Documents