Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 022013Approved 4/17/13 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD 3 FEBRUARY 20, 2013 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Alex Castro, Bingham 6 Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Access & 7 Safety Advocate; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Amy Cole, 8 Transit Advocate 9 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 MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Enoch, Cheeks Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township; Economic Development Commission - Vacant; CfE Representative- Vacant; STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS: Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Abigaile Pittman introduced Matthew Day and Scott Walston. AGENDA ITEM III: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 16, 2013 The January 16, 2013 minutes were approved with correction by consensus. AGENDA ITEM IV: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA AGENDA ITEM V: REGULAR AGENDA January 24, 2013 Public hearing Draft of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) http: / /www,ncdot,gov /doh /preconstruct/tpb /planning / orangecounty,html • Copy of Draft CTP sent to OUTBoard on 02/06/2013 (please bring this copy to the OUTBoard meeting on 02/20/2013) • Abstract providing history, background, and intro to CTP • Highway Map and Projects (Attachment 1) • Public Transportation and Rail Map and Projects (Attachment 2) • Bicycle Map and Projects (Attachment 3) • Pedestrian Map and Projects (Attachment 4) • Draft CTP Adoption Map (Attachment 5) • OUTBoard and Staff Draft CTP Comments (Attachment 6) Approved 4/17/13 • BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7) ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE: • Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8) • Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9) OUTBoard Action: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting Paul Guthrie noted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard's comments. Abigaile Pittman reviewed the CTP background and maps. Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities, as it is not fiscally constrained, to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. Matthew Day, TARPO explained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a project scores goes into the decision on what gets funded. Scott Walston, NCDOT explained the difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps, illustrating with a drawing on the white board for the group. Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a different stage and /or uses a different format so coordination is difficult, but the planning itself is simpler than what many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of other planning jurisdictions and that becomes significant as they need some background from the OUTBoard. Paul Guthrie commented that he thinks the projections for the rural numbers for the Durham — Chapel Hill population is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need more improvements all the way to Orange Grove Road than what the CTP calls for. Scott Walston, NCDOT noted that the CTP Plan gets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information. Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you assess the population using NC 54 to commute, it does not all originate within Orange County, but a large percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed that Chapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how to factor the commuting pattern into the calculations of traffic growth on NC 54. Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict their traffic patterns. Matthew Day, TARPO added that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than it is now. Approved 4/17/13 Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in Chapel Hill, noting that this puts some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. Highway Map Comments: Jeff Charles commented on the improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four -foot wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated that Old NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because of the line of sight deficiency. He noted that no one is going to ride on a road that is as dangerous as Old NC 86 is to bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and commuter cyclists in that area, such as new 86. The exception to that is the one project that is a pet project of the cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the Homestead /Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard to accommodating bicycles /pedestrians is at the Dairyland /Homestead intersection. Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have some traffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland -Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the Post Office. Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that traffic calming measures is something that needs to be discussed with the Division 7 office. Paul Guthrie commented that what goes on regarding the Rail Map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public transportation rail in Orange County's territory, there will be. Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments: Paul Guthrie referred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regarding the need of a footnote. Bicycle Map Comments: Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway Map about the widening project on Old NC 86 that proposes four -foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in actuality the Bicycle Map shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you go the Composite Map (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham /Chapel Hill has the route on either side of it and then DOT comes in and says now we are going to link it. Then it becomes part of the CTP and it is wrong thinking and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some input on the DCHC part of these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money for bicycles on Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four -foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at least on new NC 86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposed to Old NC 86 which is too dangerous. Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeffs comments on Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and stated that she clearly sees the safety issue. But she is looking at it from a connectivity point of view and leaving that out bothers her but the safety of having a four -foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP designate this bike path as an off -road facility? Approved 4/17/13 Jeff Charles responded that it would require doing all of Old NC 86 and not just the rural section. He questions the financial input of that versus just going to new NC 86 and going up that way. Jeff noted he could see that it would benefit pedestrians. Paul Guthrie commented again on the problems of assessing projects without full information on connectivity with other jurisdictions. For example, referencing that on the little segment of Jones Ferry Road which is marked up, he understands what it connects to because of what is down in Chatham County, but to someone in Orange County looking at this map, without reference to Chatham County's map, may not have any idea why that piece is there. Abigaile Pittman asked for a summary of the Board's final comment on the Old NC 86 project. It was summarized that the investment in the wide shoulders should be dropped unless needed for vehicle safety, that the commuting bike route would be best on new NC 86, and that the only way that a bike route should be included along Old NC 86 was if it was an off -road facility. Pedestrian Map Comments: Sam Lasris commented that he would like to see better identification of the MPO boundary lines and road names on the map. He said that he kept getting confused on what was a boundary line and what was a proposed pedestrian trail. Multiple other members of the OUTBoard agreed, saying that the boundary lines should be labeled on all of the CTP maps. Motion by Alex Castro that the OUTBoard recommend the comments discussed in the presentation and the additional comments discussed here tonight. Seconded by Jeff Charles Vote: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM VI: STAFF UPDATES a. Update on Orange County Master Aging Plan 2012 -2017 transportation strategies (Alex Castro) b. Update on BOCC review of a second County comment letter to NCDOT Rail Division regarding the three proposed railroad private crossing closures in Orange County. Related documents: http: / /orangecountync,gov /planning /RRCrossingClosure,asp c. Update on NCDOT Annual Statement for 2012 secondary road construction (Attachment 10). d. Update on proposed Mebane and Gibsonville Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans e. 2013 BG MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Barry Jacobs and Earl McKee) f. 2013 DCHC MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Alice Gordon and Bernadette Pelissier) g. 2013 TARPO RTAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Renee Price and Bernadette Pelissier) h. NCDOT new appointments to the Board of Transportation i. TARPO updates from Matt Day j. Specifics on roundabout project from DCHC list provided at January 16th meeting (to answer questions raised by Board members) k. BOCC's 2013 Boards and Commissions Work Session held on January 29, 2013 and was attended by Paul Guthrie, Jeff Charles, and Ted Triebel. OUTBoard Action: Receive updates Alex Castro updated the OUTBoard on the Master Aging Plan that pertains to transportation and navigation including 2 handouts. He noted that Craig Benedict is a member of the steering committee, so the Planning Department is represented in those efforts and Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier is also on the steering committee. In reviewing Approved 4/17/13 one of the handouts, he noted that it contains objectives, strategies, and indicators. He advised that in year two fiscal needs will be addressed. He referred the members to review the handouts and to email him with any inquiries. He would love to have anyone interested get involved in workgroups as they are developed to work with transportation issues. He added that the focus in this area is the rural areas. Abigaile Pittman suggested that when Craig Benedict presents the BRIP to the OUTBoard in March that perhaps he could give some thought to those issues aired in the course of the OPT analysis with the input of the OUTBoard. Alex Castro advised the members that the Department on Aging has applied for a grant to staff a Mobility Manager that would be working from the Department on Aging but coordinating with the Planning Department. Abigaile Pittman updated the Board on the status of the proposed railroad closures. She advised that the BOCC approved a second comment letter on 2/21/13 which will be posted to the website by 2/23/13. The next step is for Orange County to provide comments to NCDOT. NCDOT will be meeting with Planning staff in the next month to try to clear up some issues for the public and the BOCC. Abigaile noted that there is a proposed interchange design at 70 and 85 that needs to be redone and it hasn't been slated as a project yet but she has a draft drawing. Abigaile Pittman referred the members to the information regarding the annual statement for 2012 from NCDOT on secondary road construction. She noted some of the completed roads are Buckhorn Rd. and Dairyland Rd. Jeff Charles commented that the 2 -foot extensions to the shoulders are not 2 feet in many areas. They go from 3 feet extensions down to 6 inches in places. Jeff Charles would like NCDOT to be asked why the signed off on the project and would like Chuck Edwards to visit the OUTBoard. Jeff would like staff to get information about new construction this year. It is his understanding that they are going to do repair on New Hope Church Rd. replacing a bridge and he would like to know when that construction is going to begin as it will require shutting down New Hope Church Rd between Old 86 and Union Grove Church Rd. It is going to have a dramatic impact on the bicycling community and he would like to get the word out. Abigaile Pittman informed the Board of the updates in the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) including appointments to that group and to DCHC MPO and TARPO. She also advised that Dwight Stone of Greensboro has been appointed as the Orange County representative on the NC Board of Transportation. Ted Triebel noted that while 50% of the drivers using the highway are female and that 10 men were appointed by the Governor which seems to be a lack of gender diversity on his part. Matt Day gave the Board some updates on items being discussed at the next TARPO meeting including reviewing a map of the whole TARPO region showing all of the current plans. It puts about 15 plans into one map. He noted that a project coming up is the locally coordinated Transit Tlan that they will be working with the transit agencies in the four counties and this is a federal requirement. Matt informed the group that a 15 -501 Corridor Study by DOT is getting ready to start it will be on 15 -501 from 54 in Chapel Hill down to 64 in Pittsboro and they will be looking at how the roadways function in terms of traffic operations, placement of traffic lights, and improvement that can be done to make that function better from an operational perspective. Paul Guthrie asked Matt Day to provide a summary of the 15 -501 Corridor Study to Abigaile. He noted it is fairly crucial to southern Orange County. .Abigaile Pittman referred the group to the handout regarding the roundabout project on Erwin Road requested by Jeff Charles at the January OUTBoard meeting. Abigaile Pittman reviewed the outcome of the BOCC retreat with regard to the OUTBoard goals for 2013. 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 Approved 4/17/13 AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD MEMBERS' DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST OUTBoard Action: Finalization of list of members' areas of special interest and assignments for monitoring other boards' websites and /or agendas for transportation related information and activities The OUTBoard had some general discussion. AGENDA ITEM VIII: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED BOARD AGENDAS: OUTBoard Action: Receive information AGENDA ITEM IX: LISTING OF ITEMS FOR MARCH 20, 2013 MEETING a. Next steps for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Craig Benedict) b. Update on BOCC consideration of Comprehensive Transportation Plan c. Next steps for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan adoption and implementation d. Update on BG MPO activities e. Update on DCHC MPO activities f. Update on TARPO activities OUTBoard Action: Receive information AGENDA ITEM X: AGENDA ITEM XI BOARD COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus. Items for future meetings: • Discuss with Craig Benedict the possibility of touching on the transportation portion of the Master Aging Plan and potential mobility manager along with OPT's plans to address needs in the rural portions of the county. • Arrange for Chuck Edwards to attend a meeting in the May /June timeframe. • Find out when construction on New Hope Church Rd is scheduled to begin. • Summary from Matt Day regarding 15 -501 study Paul Guthrie, Chair