Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 041614Approved 11/19/14 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD 3 APRIL 16, 2014 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate 7 Representative; Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; 8 Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Gary Saunders, CFE Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township 9 Representative 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Wollum, Eno Township Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate - Vacant; Cheeks Township Representative- Vacant; Economic Development Commission -Vacant; Planning Board Representative —Vacant; STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Chuck Edwards, NCDOT; Ed Lewis, NCDOT; Elizabeth Gregory, Orange County Assistant Fire Marshall; Matthew Day, TARPO; AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2014 Alex Castro: Line 266 should read, "This has great implications for the County ". The February 19, 2014 OUTBoard Minutes were approved with correction by consensus. AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Paul Guthrie: I have tried to let the committee have a free hand in how we conduct business. We have made it difficult to let the presenter finish the presentation. If you have a burning question, get an authorization from me to interrupt. We will always have a question /answer time after the presentation. AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA a. Board discussion with NCDOT to include the following topics: i. Issues with some bike and pedestrian projects within the county (i.e. the quality of the two -foot widening on Dairyland, prioritizing the widening of Old NC 86 at Calvander, and the destruction of road surfaces during the gas line construction on Mt. Sinai and other connecting roads, and opportunities for improved coordination with, or oversight of state contractors during project construction). ii. The status of any state discussions /projects related to the feasibility of using existing triangle region railway infrastructure for commuter rail purposes as part of a multi -modal transportation system. iii. Issues related to private street conversions for acceptance into the state maintained system. Approved 11/19/14 iv. Available resources for minor improvements at problem sites /intersections within the county. v. Pedestrian safety concerns on (new) Hwy 86/1 -40 bridge overpass. vi. Other topics as raised by the Board. OUTBoard Action: Receive information and participate in discussion. b. Review of selected private road and access standards from the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 7.8 Access and Roadways. OUTBoard Action: Review selected standards and recommend to the BOCC that planning staff review /revise and develop amendments. Abigaile Pittman had Jeff Charles describe photos. Jeff Charles: I am the bicycling advocate for the Board and I am also on the Chapel Hill Bike Ped Board and I've been appointed to the new TARPO bike planning that is coming up. Dairyland is a key bicycling route in the county. I would like to give credit to the fine job done on NC 10 and that was our expectation as to what would happen on Dairyland. I went to the intersection of Union Grove Road and Dairyland and drove up to Maple View Ice Cream Store. Most of these photos are on the right side of the road going toward Maple View. (Displayed photos). Chuck Edwards: The issues with the PSNC gas lines going in. Public Service gas has a large comprehensive project to put in new gas lines and they are affecting a lot of state maintained roads. The instrument used is an encroachment agreement that spells who is responsible for what. This is to be expected with the extent of the work they are doing. Prior to a final inspection, we will look at areas like this and if there is damage that warrants repair, we should require them to do that. Back to Dairyland Road, it was included on our secondary road construction program presented to the BOCC. This was a time we were moving secondary road construction funds from their primary purpose of paving unpaved roads to going toward paved road improvements because we have effectively paved out the available unpaved county roads in the county. Our project was to widen the pavement on the road two feet and resurface. The existing pavement is variable. This is a low tech project. It is not intended to be specifically a bike ped type of project, just a safety improvement. Because of that variability and the way the pavement is marked, the width does vary. We are looking at doing Lebanon Road in the Mebane area and a portion of New Sharon Church Road. All remaining unpaved roads were reprioritized by a competing statewide basis for $12 million dollars total. Jeff Charles: In the past, we have talked about Old 86, the Calvander section, as part of a bigger improvement of taking Old 86 all the way to Hillsborough. Is there a way to partition it? Chuck Edwards: For the past few years, I was relying on the secondary paved improvements to deal with some of these routes. A road like Old 86 is typically not going to be paved in a single year anyway. Jeff Charles: Our hope was that if the Hogan Farm area would donate the right -of -way, it would reduce the cost. Chuck Edwards: Yes. Jeff Charles: How do you do that? Chuck Edwards: There are ways to do that and there may already be dedicated right -of -way. Abigaile Pittman: We recently had an Orange County Expo and the planning department had to man a table for four hours. We had of our bike map and I only got one comment consistently. They picked up the bike map and said this is a hot issue for me because when I try to drive through the county roads, the bikers don't have anywhere to ride. Approved 11/19/14 Chuck Edwards: That reflects in the list. Abigaile Pittman: The next topic on the agenda is a discussion of the status of any state discussions /projects related to the feasibility of using existing triangle region railway infrastructure for commuter rail purposes as part of a multi - modal transportation system. Ms. Pittman showed the Board a copy of the 2008 commuter rail capacity study done by HNTB. Chuck Edwards: I tried to get information about this topic before tonight's meeting and failed. Paul Guthrie: I was on the task force that looked at the Hillsborough Rail Station. There was a lot of conceptual planning about the railroad right -of -way. Is anyone paying attention to the fact that we have a 300 -foot right -of -way through the county that could be used for transportational purposes? Ed Lewis: I had an opportunity to attend the TSS (Traffic Separation Study) workshop. Paul Guthrie: At some level, this project is not going to move because you ask but for a lot of other reasons. As this position comes out, this could be a good time for an opportunity that this could become the key ingredient in beginning an integrated transportation system in this county. Alex Castro: The Research Triangle Foundation which is doing a revamping of the RTP, in their presentation, they have two commuter rail stations, one which will provide shuttles to RDU airport. Abigaile Pittman: The next topic of discussion is issues related to private street conversions for acceptance into the state maintained system. Typical issues are people in subdivisions with private streets and the burden of maintaining that over years, and then they decide they want the state to take over maintenance of the state. Chuck Edwards: The process starts when the developer has to make a decision as to whether he wants to pursue state maintained or privately maintained roads. The bottom line is if they choose state maintained, it has to be designed by our standards. DOT is involved in the beginning. Once we sign off, the developer will take it, develop it and sell homes. Once he meets a certain threshold of a certain house count per mile he can petition the road for state maintenance. There are times when usually the homeowners want to pursue state maintenance for a private road. The issues are the private roads have a private right -of -way so it is not eligible for that alone. So there has to be a conversion. The typical issue that we deal with is school stops. School buses won't go down a private road. There are moderate subdivisions that are built to the design and construction standards of a state maintained road, it is a matter of replating the private to public but we have learned that can create issues with the county as to whether that developer was trying to circumvent the subdivision regulations. Abigaile Pittman: There is problem if the road has been constructed to our Class B standards and they have to overcome issues such as the placement of utilities, road widening, ditching, and encroachments. It is almost impossible to overcome and sometimes the maintenance cost on those roads becomes a huge burden on the property owners. Chuck Edwards: The Class B road, we sometimes refer to those as a glorified driveway and it is not be feasible to bring them up to our standards. Abigaile Pittman: Another topic for discussion is if there are available resources for minor improvements at problem sites /intersections within the county. I have been in discussion with Orange County School Districts regarding several sites. There are issues with intersections to their driveways, where they need minor improvements to help the flow of traffic. We have a list of improvements, what do I do with that list and are there any available funds? Chuck Edwards: There is a group within our traffic engineering branch called Municipal School and Transit Assistance (MSTA) and their purpose is to help school systems solve existing problems and avoid future ones. Funding is fairly low at this point but there are ways to get funding and you need to ask. Ted Triebel: One that comes immediately to mind is the Cameron Park Elementary and St. Mary's Road; has that been looked at? Approved 11/19/14 Chuck Edwards: It has been looked at. Recommendations have been made for internal improvements. We will be glad to revisit that. Jeff Charles: The Chapel Hill Bike Ped Board received a letter from a gentleman that lived of Whitfield and he walks into Chapel Hill area and his concern was the new 86 and 140 Bridge for pedestrians. We weren't sure if it was in the Town or County. Chuck Edwards: We received the same information. Our traffic folks are looking at that. An obvious thing was the bridge was not designed for pedestrian walking. Paul Guthrie: Are you giving attention to the deterioration of the old Kerr Scott Bridges? Chuck Edwards: Absolutely. Paul Guthrie: Some things tend to get overlooked. How are you approaching that issue? Chuck Edwards: One well- funded program we have is for the replacement of public bridges. Paul Guthrie: I'll give you one example, Old Greensboro Road and Phil's Creek Bridge. There is more and more heavy truck traffic using that road, 18 wheelers and every time they go down that hill they knock another hole in the pavement. I assume you are doing regular inspection of these older bridges. Chuck Edwards: I wish I had brought my list, I will get back with Abigaile with more information. Jeff Charles: NCDOT worked on one bridge on Arthur Minnis near Borland. There is another old bridge by that one that was actually in worse shape. Do you know if that one is prioritized? Chuck Edwards: Yes. They are handled by a design contractor. Jeff Charles: That will hit the cycling community hard. Chuck Edwards: We do reach out to others on these projects to provide public information. Abigaile Pittman: In the Buckhorn Economic Development District, there is old bridge on the south perimeter. We wouldn't want it replaced as it is because the development in the area will be industrial. When you look at these issues with related land use changes involved, do you consider upgrading the bridge to accommodate industrial traffic? Chuck Edwards: Under this program, we are trying to get the best bang for the buck. At some point, if there is a need to change that, that particular bridge may not fit this program but another program. Paul Guthrie: If there are no other topics, we can move on. Chuck Edwards: Abigaile is giving out information about resurfacing roads. Abigaile Pittman: Reviewed information. Elizabeth Gregory will tell us about some of the problems encountered with emergency service vehicles on these 12 -foot private road standards. Elizabeth Gregory: The main problem is the width because fire trucks are large and the ambulances also. People do not realize the county has no hydrants so the fire truck cannot hook up to a hydrant. They have to shuttle water which means trucks go to water sources and fill the truck that is on the scene of the fire. The main problem is the trucks have to turn around, so if they can't pass each other. Our standard when we get into a subdivision is 20 feet but we try to work with DOT with their standard of 18 feet. When you get down to 12 feet as in the Class B roadway, they will need to send a smaller fire truck which holds less water. It is an access problem. Fire trucks are very expensive. If there are roads they cannot get down; they need to wait for another fire truck to get additional hose. Approved 11/19/14 Jeff Charles: What is the limit of length because of the pressure issue? Elizabeth Gregory: You can go as far as you want. We have learned who helps us the most with this issue is the insurance company. They tell them it is important to have a driveway large enough to get a fire truck down. Also, there are problems with ambulances as a safety for both the patient and the workers. The biggest complaint we hear from fire departments is access. Abigaile Pittman: What are some typical widths of the fire trucks and ambulances? Elizabeth Gregory: The ambulances are 12 foot. Fire trucks are usually that size but a latter truck is wider. Abigaile Pittman: What is the width of the ladder truck? Elizabeth Gregory: I am not sure. Abigaile Pittman: We have a related issue that you may be able to comment on. There are types of subdivisions that are exempt from the county's subdivision regulations. The staff would like you to discuss doing away with the Class B roads and only allow Class A and to develop a requirement that newly created lots have access to a compiling road. Jeff Charles: This is all new construction. Abigaile Pittman: To allow reasonable and affordable options for small subdivisions, staff suggests consideration of a revision that may allow three lots to share a driveway as long as they are designed so the emergency service vehicles can turn around and it is not longer than a certain determined number of feet. There would have to be discussion as to what that number is. Elizabeth Gregory: A lot of it has to do with if it is a 20 -foot wide road, or if it has a hydrant and it should be 26 feet wide. What we ask for is a 96 -foot radius because a fire truck does not run like a car. The money for fire trucks and ambulances comes from the tax payer. Jeff Charles: How do you approach the condition of the surface for turning around? Elizabeth Gregory: If you hit bumps in the road in an ambulance and it costs $250,000. That makes a difference. Jeff Charles: Over the coming years, there will be more of the Tobacco Trail situations where you need emergency services, not a fire truck. Maybe we should add a fourth item of concern to staff's list about emergency access to trail systems. I am recommending you think about that. Paul Guthrie: I was comparing the Fire Code in Appendix D with the local ordinance and why is there a disconnect when the Fire Code requires a much greater capability than this. Abigaile Pittman: We connect with the NCDOT standards for the Class A roadways. Paul Guthrie: As Ms. Gregory mentioned regarding turn around, there is no way a fire truck could make use of that turn around. Abigaile Pittman: I think it would tough to change the Class A since NCDOT has this adopted 18 -foot standard. Ted Triebel: I think the action you are asking for tonight is for us to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners that it is time for review these standards. Abigaile Pittman: We are not asking you to decide what those standards are but to tell the BOCC what you think the issues are they need to have staff review them and bring back more detail. Approved 11/19/14 280 Ted Triebel: This problem has existed for decades in this county. My question is whether there would be any 281 documentation as to have this proven to be a problem in 5 out of 100, etc. Is this a problem or not? 282 283 Elizabeth Gregory: As far as documentation, I believe the fire departments, when they do their incident reports to 284 the state or fire marshal they document if they had an access issue. We have not pulled the actual statistics. If we 285 can't access one person, one house, it is a huge issue. We can research that information. 286 287 Ted Triebel: Anytime we make a big change, there needs to be a data to back it up. 288 289 Paul Guthrie: As I understand the recommendation, you are asking this Board to tell the BOCC to have staff to take 290 a look at this issue. 291 292 Abigaile Pittman: We are saying if you agree with staffs recommendations, then recommend to the BOCC that they 293 have the staff continue to research it. 294 295 MOTION made by Jeff Charles to accept recommendations for the staff with the addition of the emergency access 296 for trail systems. Seconded by Alex Castro. 297 VOTE: Unanimous 298 299 Ted Triebel: I live right by Little River Park which is a joint Durham /Orange County Park. We can look at those type 300 parks to say, this is what we accept as risks and this is what we think we shouldn't accept. 301 302 303 AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES 304 a. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan 305 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates 306 307 Abigaile Pittman: Last night, the BOCC adopted the Safe Routes to School Action Plan. The next step is we will be 308 establishing a committee for implementation activities and they will be planning staff from Orange County, from the 309 Town of Hillsborough, someone from the School Board, the original steering committee and one or two members 310 from the OUTBoard. 311 312 313 AGENDA ITEM VI: BOARD COMMENTS 314 OUTBoard Action: Receive comments and participate in discussion. 315 a. Chair initiated a comment session regarding Board members' thoughts on the 316 following potential topics: 317 i. Critical transportation issues for Orange County, now and into the future. 318 ii. The role of the OUTBoard in the examining of the difficulties in transportation 319 planning brought about by the programmatic fragmentation of current 320 transportation planning and funding. 321 iii. Improved OUTBoard engagement of Orange County residents' transportation 322 concerns. 323 iv. Improving OUTBoard advisory service to the Board of County Commissioners. 324 v. Agenda development. 325 vi. The role of each member of the Board. 326 vii. Meeting format, including presentations and member participation. 327 328 OUTBoard Action: Receive comments and participate in discussion. 329 330 Paul Guthrie: I would like to pose several questions for the Board to consider over the next several meetings: income 331 and housing locations, work locations, school locations, affordable housing, income diversity, a discombobulating of 332 transportation planning and providers, public and private, a lack of resources in revenue and authority statutory for 333 the city and county, the state governments role and responsibility and the costs and uncertainty of the future. The 334 role of the OUTBoard in examining the difficulties in transportation planning brought about by the programmatic 335 fragmentation of our current transportation planning of funding in private and public. Also, improved OUTBoard Approved 11/19/14 engagement of Orange county residents and transportation concerns; how we can improve our advisory service to the BOCC; how we want to be involved in agenda development; what we see as the optimum role for each member of this Board; and we should look at meeting format including presentation and perception. I want to ask a question and I hope every member of this Board knows the answer to this. What is the largest single transportation organization in this county; public or private? Gary Saunders: Chapel Hill Transit. Paul Guthrie: Actually it's the Orange County Schools and Chapel Hill Schools. The Orange County schools have 72 bus routes, 70 buses plus activity buses operating. Chapel Hill schools have 50 buses, 16 mini - buses, and 19 activity buses operating; so we have 120, 16 mini - buses, and probably another 30 activity buses all operating under two different but similar systems. Chapel Hill Transit is the largest public transit organization but it doesn't approach those numbers of vehicles. My whole point is that while we probably spend less time on this issue, I wanted to point out that there is a number of things on transportation that go beyond what we now think of as transportation systems and at some point I will argue that we ought to at least make a passing comment on is there a way to better coordinate school transportation and public transportation in terms of route structure and things like that as we grow? That's the key word as we grow. We become less and less rural and more and more urban. Do we need to look at those interfaces? There are a lot of statutory problems of the school bus issue, and the financing issue but that is the kind of issue I would hope at some point in time we pay attention to. Where are we going in five years or ten years? A perfect example to me is the way in which we approach the Triangle Transit government's transportation systems that they are trying to put in place now. It's a little piece here, a little piece there, and division is really about two things. Building a coordinated bus system and building a limited rail system. I would hope that over the next few months and probably even years, we could tackle some of those things. I will be glad to send everyone what I just said, that's where I'm coming from so that we can really give good solid long term advice and not just be reactive to the current issue if we just reacted to the current issue we will never build a vision for the future and this County will need it. I have been doing something lately that scares the dickens out of people, take Google Earth, now for those of you who have Google Earth; it will show you the 1993 flyovers and 2014 flyovers in sequence. Take parts of the county and just click up the number of 10 to 14 different views that you can get for those years. See what has happened in 20 years and then think what is going to happen in the next 20 years. So that my little sermon for the day. Alex Castro: The service provided by OPT (they call it Old People Transportation) and Chapel Hill's Easy Rider the criteria, the determination of who gets the service is different. Individuals that are customers get confused. That should be seamless and it should be one for everyone. AGENDA ITEM Vil: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED BOARD AGENDAS OUTBoard Action: Receive information Abigaile Pittman: On May 8, the BOCC will review recommended bus expansion services program. In late May and early June we have scheduled meetings for public outreach for the recommended bus expansion route, asking for input on recommended specific routes. On June 12, from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, there will be a Map 21 Funding Program given by the Town of Carrboro and Carrboro Bicycle Coalition. The next OUTBoard meeting is May 21. Jeff Charles: I would be interested in meeting with the Orange County Sherriffs Department to talk about a project I am working on with respect to the bicycle safety rules and the non - cyclist perception of cyclists. Matt Day: The main information from TARPO is the project scoring for Strategic Transportation investments. We will have a public hearing in early June to present draft scoring results. AGENDA ITEM Vill: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 392 Paul Guthrie, Chair Approved 11/19/14