Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 032013AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board March20, 2013 7:00p.m. You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them. Conference Room 004(LowerFloor) Orange County West Campus 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Time Item Page Title 7:001. 2. Call to Order and Roll Call Introduction of guests: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Al Terry, Orange County Transportation Manager, Orange Public Transportation; and Tamra Shaw, Senior Mobility Development Specialist, NCDOTPublic Transportation Division 7:05 7:07 3. 4. 3-8Approval of Minutes Minutes from February 20, 2013 Consideration of Additions to the Agenda 7:10 7:30 7:50 5. 6. 7. Regular Agenda a.Next Steps for Implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Craig Benedict). Written materials pertaining to this item will be provided at the meeting. OUTBoard Action:Toreceive information in preparation for future OUTBoard role b.Next Steps for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan Adoption and Implementation. Written materials pertaining to this item will be provided at the meeting. OUTBoard Action:Toreceive information in preparation for future OUTBoard role Staff Updates a.Update on BOCC action on Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) b.Update on staff meeting withNCDOT Rail Division regardingthe three proposed railroad private crossing closures in Orange County. Relateddocuments: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/RRCrossingClosure.asp c.Update on BG MPO activities d.Update on DCHC MPO 2040 MTP and CTP OUTBoard Action: Receive updates Time Item Page 8:257.Upcoming Agenda Items of Interest on Other Regional Transportation Related Board Agendas OUTBoard Action:Receive informationas a handout 8:309.Items for April 17, 2013 Meeting OUTBoard Action: Receive information 8:3510.Board Comments OUTBoard Action: Receive comments 8:4011.Adjournment D R A F T MINUTES1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD2 FEBRUARY 20,20133 4 MEMBERS PRESENT:Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township;Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Alex Castro, Bingham 5 Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township;Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Access & 6 Safety Advocate; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township;Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative;Amy Cole, 7 Transit Advocate8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT:Susie Enoch, Cheeks Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township; Economic Development 11 Commission -Vacant; CfE Representative-Vacant; 12 13 14 STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land UsePlanner;Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning 15 Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II16 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT:Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning 19 Branch20 21 AGENDA ITEM I:CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM II:INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS:Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, 25 PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch26 27 Abigaile Pittmanintroduced Matthew Day and Scott Walston.28 29 30 AGENDA ITEM III:APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 19,201231 32 The January 16, 2012 minutes were approved with correction by consensus.33 34 35 AGENDA ITEM IV:CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA36 37 38 AGENDA ITEM V:REGULAR AGENDA39 January 24, 2013 Public hearing Draft of Comprehensive Transportation Plan 40 (CTP) http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/planning/ orangecounty.html41 x Copy of Draft CTP sent to OUTBoard on 02/06/2013 (please bring this copy to the 42 OUTBoard meeting on 02/20/2013)43 x Abstract providing history, background, and intro to CTP 44 x Highway Map and Projects (Attachment 1)45 x Public Transportation and Rail Map and Projects (Attachment 2)46 x Bicycle Map and Projects (Attachment 3)47 x Pedestrian Map and Projects (Attachment 4)48 x Draft CTP Adoption Map (Attachment 5)49 x OUTBoard and Staff Draft CTP Comments (Attachment 6)50 D R A F T x BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7)51 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE:52 x Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8)53 x Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP 54 Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9)55 OUTBoard Action:To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners 56 for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting57 58 Paul Guthrienoted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and 59 the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC 60 retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard’scomments. 61 62 AbigailePittman reviewedtheCTP background and maps. 63 64 Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities,as it is not 65 fiscally constrained,to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. 66 67 Matthew Day, TARPOexplained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see 68 funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets 69 to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a projectscoresgoes into the decision on 70 what gets funded.71 72 Scott Walston, NCDOTexplainedthe difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps,73 illustrating with a drawingon the white board for the group.74 75 Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO 76 jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a 77 different stage and/oruses a different format so coordination is difficult,but the planning itself is simpler thanwhat 78 many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of 79 other planning jurisdictions and that becomessignificant as they need some background from the OUTBoard.80 81 Paul Guthrie commented that he thinksthe projections for the rural numbers for the Durham –Chapel Hill population 82 is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need moreimprovementsall the way to Orange Grove Road than what the 83 CTP calls for.84 85 Scott Walston, NCDOTnoted that the CTP Plangets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information.86 87 Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you 88 assess the populationusing NC 54 to commute, it does not all originatewithin Orange County,but a large 89 percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is 90 concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed thatChapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how 91 to factor the commuting patterninto the calculations oftraffic growth on NC 54. 92 93 Scott Walston, NCDOTadvised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional 94 Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict 95 their traffic patterns. 96 97 Matthew Day, TARPOadded that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than 98 it is now.99 100 D R A F T Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in 101 Chapel Hill, noting that thisputs some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. 102 103 Highway Map Comments:104 Jeff Charles commented onthe improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four-foot105 wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated thatOld NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because 106 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 isto 107 bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the 108 investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no 109 monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes 110 no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and111 commuter cyclists in that area, such as new 86.The exception to that is the one project that is a pet project of the 112 cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the 113 Homestead/Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard 114 toaccommodating bicycles/pedestriansis at the Dairyland/Homestead intersection.115 116 Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have sometraffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted 117 speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland-Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the 118 Post Office. 119 120 Scott Walston, NCDOTadvised that traffic calming measures issomething that needs to be discussed with the 121 Division 7 office.122 123 Paul Guthrie commented thatwhat goes on regarding the Rail Map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain 124 times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul 125 suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public 126 transportation rail in Orange County’s territory, there will be.127 128 Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments:129 130 PaulGuthriereferred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regardingthe need of a footnote.131 132 Bicycle Map Comments:133 134 Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway 135 Map about the widening project on Old NC 86that proposes four-foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in 136 actuality the BicycleMap shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you 137 gothe CompositeMap (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham/Chapel Hill hasthe routeon either side of it and 138 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 139 and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some inputon the DCHC part of 140 these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money 141 for bicycleson Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks 142 Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four-foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at 143 least onnew NC86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposedto OldNC86 144 which is too dangerous.145 146 Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeff’s commentson Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and 147 stated thatshe clearly sees the safety issue. Butshe is looking at it from a connectivity point of viewand leaving that 148 out bothers her but the safety of having a four-foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP 149 designate thisbike path as an off-road facility?150 151 D R A F T Jeff Charles responded that it would require doing all of OldNC86 and not just the rural section. He questions the 152 financial input of that versus just going to new NC86 and going up that way. Jeff noted he could see that it would 153 benefit pedestrians.154 155 Paul Guthrie commented again on the problems of assessing projects without full information on connectivity with 156 other jurisdictions. For example, referencing that on the little segment of Jones Ferry Road which is marked up, he 157 understands what it connects to because of what is down in Chatham County,but to someone in Orange County 158 looking at this map,without reference to Chatham County’s map, may not have any idea why that piece is there. 159 160 Abigaile Pittman asked for a summary of the Board’s final comment on the Old NC 86 project. It was summarized 161 that the investment in the wide shoulders should be dropped unless needed for vehicle safety, that the commuting 162 bike route would be best on new NC 86, and that the only way that a bike route should be included along Old NC 86 163 was if it was an off-road facility.164 165 Pedestrian Map Comments:166 Sam Lasris commented that he would like to see better identification of the MPO boundary lines and road names on 167 the map.He said that he kept getting confused on what was a boundary line and what was a proposed pedestrian 168 trail. Multiple other members of the OUTBoard agreed, saying that the boundary lines should be labeled on all of the 169 CTP maps.170 171 Motion by Alex Castro that the OUTBoard recommend the comments discussed in the presentation and the 172 additional comments discussed here tonight. Seconded by Jeff Charles173 Vote:Unanimous174 175 176 AGENDA ITEM VI:STAFF UPDATES177 a.Update on Orange County Master Aging Plan 2012-2017 transportation strategies 178 (Alex Castro)179 b.Update on BOCC review of a second County comment letter to NCDOT Rail Division 180 regarding the three proposed railroad private crossing closures in Orange County. 181 Related documents: http://orangecountync.gov/planning/RRCrossingClosure.asp182 c.Update on NCDOT Annual Statement for 2012 secondary road construction 183 (Attachment 10).184 d.Update on proposed Mebane and Gibsonville Bicycle and PedestrianPlans185 e.2013 BG MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Barry Jacobs 186 and Earl McKee)187 f.2013 DCHC MPO TAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Alice 188 Gordon and Bernadette Pelissier)189 g.2013 TARPO RTAC Commissioner Appointments from Orange County (Renee Price 190 and Bernadette Pelissier)191 h.NCDOT new appointments to the Board of Transportation192 i.TARPO updates from Matt Day 193 j.Specifics on roundabout project from DCHC list provided at January 16th meeting (to 194 answer questions raised by Board members) 195 k.BOCC’s 2013 Boards and Commissions Work Session held on January 29, 2013 and 196 was attended by Paul Guthrie, Jeff Charles, and Ted Triebel. 197 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates198 199 Alex Castro updated the OUTBoard on the Master Aging Plan that pertains to transportation and navigation including 200 2 handouts. He noted that Craig Benedict is a member of the steering committee, so the Planning Department is 201 represented in those efforts and Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier is also on the steering committee. Inreviewing 202 D R A F T one of the handouts, he noted that it containsobjectives, strategies, and indicators. He advised that in year two fiscal203 needs will be addressed. He referred the members to review the handouts and to email him with any inquiries.204 He would love to have anyone interested get involved in workgroups as they are developed to work with 205 transportation issues. He added that the focus in this area is the rural areas.206 207 Abigaile Pittman suggested that when Craig Benedict presents the BRIP to the OUTBoard in March that perhaps he 208 could give some thought to those issues aired in the course of the OPT analysis with the input of the OUTBoard.209 210 Alex Castro advised the members that the Department on Aging has applied for a grant to staff a Mobility Manager 211 that would be working from the Department on Aging but coordinating with the Planning Department.212 213 Abigaile Pittman updated the Board onthestatus of the proposed railroad closures. She advised that the BOCC 214 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 215 Orange County to provide comments to NCDOT. NCDOT will be meeting with Planning staff in the next month to try 216 to clear up some issues for the public and the BOCC. Abigaile noted that there is a proposed interchange design at 217 70 and 85 that needs to be redone and it hasn’t been slated as a project yet but she has a draft drawing. 218 219 Abigaile Pittman referred the members to the information regarding the annual statement for 2012 from NCDOT on 220 secondary road construction. She noted some of the completed roads are Buckhorn Rd. and Dairyland Rd.221 222 Jeff Charles commented that the2-footextensions to the shoulders are not 2 feetin many areas. They go from 3 223 feetextensions down to 6 inches in places. Jeff Charles would like NCDOT to be asked why the signed off on the 224 project and would like Chuck Edwards to visit the OUTBoard.Jeff would like staff to get information about new 225 construction this year. It is his understanding that they are going to do repair on New Hope Church Rd. replacing a 226 bridge and he would like to know when that construction is going to begin as it will require shutting down New Hope 227 Church Rd between Old 86 and Union Grove Church Rd. It is going to have a dramatic impact on the bicycling 228 community and he would like to get the word out.229 230 Abigaile Pittman informed the Board of the updates in the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization 231 (BGMPO) including appointments to that group and to DCHC MPO and TARPO. She also advised that Dwight Stone 232 of Greensboro has been appointed as the Orange County representative on the NC Board of Transportation.233 234 Ted Triebel noted that while 50% of the drivers using the highway are female and that 10 men were appointed by the 235 Governor which seems to be a lack of gender diversity on his part.236 237 Matt Day gave the Board some updates on items being discussed at the next TARPO meeting including reviewing a 238 map of the whole TARPO region showing all of the current plans. It puts about 15 plans into one map. He noted that 239 a project comingup is the locallycoordinated Transit Tlan that they will be working with the transit agencies in the 240 four counties and this is a federal requirement.Matt informed the group that a 15-501 Corridor Study by DOT is 241 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 242 the roadways function in terms of traffic operations, placement of traffic lights, and improvement that can be done to 243 make that function better from an operational perspective.244 245 Paul Guthrieasked Matt Day to provide a summary of the 15-501 Corridor Study to Abigaile. He noted it is fairly 246 crucial to southern Orange County.247 248 .Abigaile Pittman referred the group to the handout regarding the roundabout project on Erwin Road requested by 249 Jeff Charles at the January OUTBoard meeting.250 251 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the outcome of the BOCC retreat with regard to the OUTBoardgoals for 2013.252 253 D R A F T 254 AGENDA ITEM VII:BOARD MEMBERS’DISCUSSION OF AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST255 OUTBoard Action:Finalization of listof members’ areas of special interest and 256 assignments for monitoring other boards’ websites and/or agendas for transportation 257 related information and activities258 259 The OUTBoard had some general discussion.260 261 262 AGENDA ITEM VIII:UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 263 BOARD AGENDAS:264 OUTBoard Action:Receive information265 266 267 AGENDA ITEM IX:LISTING OF ITEMS FOR MARCH 20,2013MEETING268 a.Next steps for implementing the Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Craig Benedict)269 b.Update on BOCC consideration of Comprehensive Transportation Plan270 c.Next steps for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan adoption and implementation271 d. Update on BG MPO activities272 e. Update on DCHC MPO activities273 f. Update on TARPO activities274 OUTBoard Action:Receive information275 276 277 AGENDA ITEM X:BOARD COMMENTS278 279 280 AGENDA ITEM XI: ADJOURNMENT281 282 The meeting was adjourned by consensus.283 284 285 Items for future meetings:286 287 x Discuss with Craig Benedict the possibility of touching on the transportation portion of the Master Aging Plan and 288 potential mobility manager along with OPT’s plans to address needs in the rural portions of the county.289 x Arrange for Chuck Edwards to attend a meeting in the May/June timeframe.290 x Find out when construction on New Hope Church Rd is scheduled to begin.291 x Summary from Matt Day regarding 15-501 study292