Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 082708Approved 9/27/08 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING 2 AUGUST 27, 2008 3 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Advocate; Jan 5 Grossman, Bicycle Transportation Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham Township; Bryn Smith, CFE 6 Representative; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Karen Barrows, Little River Township 7 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative; Pascale Mittendorf, Hillsborough 10 Township; Eric Tillman, EDC Representative; Dawn Brezina, Eno Township; Alice Gordon, Board of County 11 Commissioners; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II 14 15 OTHERS PRESENT: Andy Henry, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization; Felix Nwoko, City 16 Of Durham; Pat Strong, Triangle J. COG 17 18 I. Call to order 19 20 II. Consideration of additions to the agenda 21 22 III. Board Comments/Updates 23 24 Information item: Planning Board Meeting September 10, 2008 which will include Transportation Element. Sam Laris 25 asked for member(s) to volunteer to attend to represent OUTBoard. It was decided that Karen would contact 26 Planning Board Chair to see if it would be helpful to have representation of OUTBoard to attend/answer question. 27 Will email members regarding response. 28 29 Sam Laris updated members in regard to Buckhorn Village. Planning Board denied rezoning by a vote of 5-3. 30 31 IV. Approval of Minutes 32 33 The OUTBoard approved the June 18, 2008, minutes by affirmation. 34 The OUTBoard approved the July 16, 2008, minutes by affirmation 35 36 V. Presentation of 2035 DCHC Long Range Transportation Plan (LTRP) Alternatives 37 38 Sam introduced Andy Henry, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), who related 39 that the MPO does the long range planning for all of Durham County and about half or more of Orange County 40 including Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the 2035 long range 41 transportation plan (LRTP) alternatives and explained the next steps, and then asked for feedback.. He explained 42 that in order to spend federally mandated funds, there must be a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for all 43 areas having a population exceeding 50,000. The LRTP includes a list of highways, transit and other transportation 44 improvements including pedestrian and bicycle that local jurisdictions plan to implement in the future through the year 45 2035 to address transportation needs and deficiencies. The options are based on the future land use endorsed in 46 the land use plans and policies of the local jurisdictions. With help from staff from the local jurisdictions, the MPO 47 Lead Planning Agency (LPA) develops population and employment projections. The LRTP is fiscally constrained, 48 meaning that the plan must cost out the projects and have reasonable explanation of where the revenue will come 49 from to pay for projects. In order to receive State and Federal funding projects must be in the LRTP. He explained 50 that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the short range program (7 years) that programs projects and 51 identifies funding to build projects. Implement of the LRTP through the TIP starts with planning studies to produce a 52 Approved 9/27/08 2 feasibility analysis and then environmental studies, right-of-way acquisition, engineering plans follow prior to 53 construction. Nothing can be in the TIP without first being in the LRTP. 54 55 He explained the steps taken by the MPO in the LRTP development process: 56 1. Establish the goals and objectives; 57 2. Obtain the base socioeconomic data (population and employment); 58 3. Forecast the socioeconomic data for the horizon year; 59 4. Model traffic for the future year based on location of population and employment to produce the deficiency 60 analysis; 61 5. Develop alternatives (transportation projects) to alleviate future congestion and model; 62 6. Analyze model results (this the current step, public comment on results will be received until early October); and 63 7. Develop the preferred option (projects perceived to provide the best mobility for future traffic). 64 That (the referred option) is the draft plan that will be released in October. There will be a 2-month public review and 65 comment period. 66 67 The plan must be updated every four years to comply with air quality requirements. 68 69 The TAC will approve the draft of the LRTP in December and then it will go through air quality conformity analysis. 70 There is an emissions budget for each county, and the results of the transportation demand model for the regions is 71 run through an emissions model to make sure the plan, if implemented, will meet ambient air quality standards 72 established by the Environmental Protection Act. The entire process must be completed by June 15, 2009 (the air 73 quality conformity analysis, MPO approval it, and approval by the federal oversight agencies). He also mentioned 74 that products of each step are made available for public review/comment, including review/comment by each 75 jurisdiction, which involves review by agencies such as planning boards, elected boards, transportation boards, 76 public workshops, etc. They try to get a lot of feedback on the alternatives analysis. Input from the public comment 77 for the alternatives will be used in developing the preferred option, which will be brought back (to this board) in a 78 couple of months for review/comment. 79 80 Andy explained the five transportation alternatives: Comprehensive Transportation System, Intensive Highway, 81 Fixed Guideway, Bus Intensive Transit, and the Moderate Multi-Modal. The transportation alternatives are paired 82 with different land use scenarios (distribution of population and employment) to see how land use may affect traffic 83 patterns. For example, some of the population and employment was redistributed from some TAZs to TAZs 84 containing future transit stations to see how it might help the fixed guideway alternative. 85 86 Questions asked included: 87 88 Paul asked about the funding for a road to the new airport, being considered by the University of North Carolina at 89 Chapel Hill as this may have a major impact on transportation routes. When does it fit in the process when it is not 90 included in the original plan? In other words, what is the process when there is a new major actor that comes on the 91 scene? 92 93 Andy answered that it would go through the development process and at that time the plan would include 94 improvement to existing roads or the possible need of new roads. Also, since it would not be a federal or state road 95 it could still be built. In the example of the Streets at Southpoint, it came about pretty quickly and no real problems 96 occurred with getting access. Bryn pointed out that it was paid for by private funding. When a lot of subdivisions are 97 constructed they also build the roads and then the municipality or state takes over the roads. 98 99 Paul asked if the proposed sets of projects were staff developed and the answer was yes. 100 101 Jan asked if moderate multi-modal is always going to be the preferred option. That none of the other extremes would 102 ever be the preferred option. 103 104 Approved 9/27/08 3 Andy answered that it (Moderate Multimodal transportation system) will be closer to the preferred option. Sam also 105 noted that land use and funding will also be a factor. Andy noted that if one of the nodes really helped then the MPO 106 might go with that option and it would be the job of the MPO to convince the appropriate jurisdiction(s) to change the 107 land use. The base line land use option is based on the current land use policy and the other four land use scenarios 108 are different. 109 110 Sam asked if there is any one performance measure that weights the decision process. 111 112 Andy stated that there are nine performance measures and they never pick just one. It’s the balance of costs and 113 revenue and after that, some of the critical ones are the level of congestion, peak transit ridership, vehicle miles 114 traveled. 115 116 Paul asked about coordination of transit service between other planning districts. Does the process pull in data from 117 other counties? 118 119 Andy answered that the model includes data from outside the MPO planning boundaries. It would be up to the 120 transit provider(s) to determine whether or not to develop the service. There is no transit authority or system in 121 Chatham County. There is talk about additional park and ride service. He would have to look in detail at the transit 122 projects. They do work with Chatham County and surrounding Counties. 123 124 Paul asked about US 15-501 and if they are looking ahead at how it could end up with many stop lights due to 125 expansive growth in Chatham County. 126 127 Andy answered that an example of one the short-term issues of the controls would be the amount of driveways 128 allowed. 129 130 Andy talked about financial plan and the projected revenues and costs of each transportation network. He explained 131 the committed projects and pointed them out on the map. 132 133 Nancy asked about loop projects and if that means a loop around a municipality like a beltwa y? 134 135 Andy answered that the State and Federal funding is based on what they call the equity formula. NCDOT has a 136 formula based on equal share for each area, on population and on the percentage of area miles compared to the 137 number of miles in the state highway network. In addition, in North Carolina has a Highway Trust Fund designated 138 specifically in legislation that assigns funding to a specific list of roads to be upgraded. Loop funds refer to 139 improvements designated in that legislation. 140 141 Sam asked where the funding comes from for the intersection improvements. 142 143 Andy answered that it comes from money allocated by the equity formula, not from loop funding. 144 145 Sam asked when you say 2035, what does it really mean in what time frame? 146 147 Andy answered that is when the work should be completed. 148 149 Sam asked about the western bypass around Hillsborough and the Economic Development around the east of 150 Hillsborough just west of the Durham county line why the map doesn’t show plans for many improvements in those 151 locations. 152 153 Andy answered that it is not in the 2035 plan, Karen interjected that the Hillsborough Western Bypass is in the 2030 154 plan. For the eastern part of Orange County, all alternative transportation systems include express bus on US 70 155 Approved 9/27/08 4 from Hillsborough to I-85 near the Orange/Durham County line. If there is sufficient ridership in the Economic 156 Development District, there will be a bus stop. 157 158 Jan asked about when current big projects would be considered in the process. For example, there is going to be a 159 new solid waste transfer station; so there will be a need for road improvements due to large 18 wheelers, possibly 160 bike lanes, etc. 161 162 Andy stated that it all depends who funds the projects. 163 164 Andy talked about the next steps in the process, they are going to get the public feedback and then develop the 165 preferred option. He will return with that option for the board’s review and comment. Andy explained that comments 166 should be focused on looking at all the details and then deciding where to focus funding for transportation 167 investments: more on transit or roadways? If the decision is to invest more on roadways, should those 168 improvements be for widening, new alignments, or hot spot type improvement? If the decision is to invest more in 169 transit, should there be more local service, express bus service, or do we need fixed quideway here in the triangle? 170 If the feedback received includes a lot of transit, then it will get emphasized in the plan. 171 172 Paul asked about new grids/alignments for new projects, for example, the easiest right of way to obtain is where the 173 major electric lines are, they tend to be straight and direct and owned by one organization. They are leased but what 174 if that system is no longer valid. A lot of railroad systems were done that way. Are there other ways to draw these 175 lines? Most of the high tension lines are probably not leased. They may be easements or not. 176 177 Andy answered that he has never known anyone to look at utility rights-of-way as a possible road right-of-way. There 178 are five rail corridors in the long range plan for preservation. 179 180 Karen Lincoln interjected that new road alignments require more environmental disturbance and the costs for 181 acquiring right-of-way would be greater. 182 183 Sam asked about the bike paths and how those are provisioned, and how costs are determined. 184 185 Andy stated that in the past, costs were calculated by taking into account right of ways, etc., and by assuming 186 construction of bike lanes in the urban areas and wider outside lanes, additional pavement for facilities outside urban 187 areas. 188 189 Nancy noted that there are no off road bicycle facilities near Hillsborough and asked how to remedy that. 190 191 Karen Lincoln informed her that there is nothing in the plan for them. Hillsborough does have Riverwalk, but there is 192 no bicycle plan that includes off road bicycle facilities. 193 194 Nancy asked if they could come up with a plan, would it then go into the (regional long range transportation) plan and 195 was told yes. 196 197 Discussion followed in regard to intersections and interchanges in the plan. Andy informed that the Federal Highway 198 Administration wants a least one mile between interchanges. 199 200 Andy stated that he had already heard from the OUTBoard a lot of concerns and a lot of things that need to be 201 looked into further and he thinks that is a good start on recommendations. 202 203 Discussion about recommendations followed. Karen Lincoln let the members know that part of its recommendations 204 could be to consider how it (the plan) would be funded, i.e. comments on the potential revenue sources. Paul noted 205 that the plan in itself will create development and change and the more you go to high investment projects that will 206 Approved 9/27/08 5 change the development focus. Bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, parking space limits, and land uses were 207 discussed. 208 209 Sam and the board thanked Andy for the presentation and his time. 210 211 VI. Orange County Priority List for the 2011-2017 TIP 212 213 Jan noted that Eubanks road in particular will need to be improved due to the multiple new large facilities located 214 there. It is an artery between NC 86 and Old NC 86. In particular, the intersection at Old NC 86 and Eubanks Road 215 is problematic. There is also a need for a bike lane there. 216 217 Karen Lincoln explained a handout of the ranking methodology for priority projects for the DCHC MPO and revisions 218 to the criteria and scoring. She noted the addition of a category for regional connectivity for bike projects, and called 219 the board’s attention to page 2 of the handout, screening criteria for local priority projects (how well the project meets 220 adopted regional goals, cost effectiveness of the project and if timing is critical for the project). She also noted a 221 handout of “NCDOT General Guidance - TIP Project Priority Rating System” defining key aspects of an ideal 222 transportation system as mobility, accessibility, safety, environmental preservation, multi-modal connectivity, 223 economic vitality, and the preservation of existing systems, and noted that these aspects are some of the goals the 224 OUTBoard proposed in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Something else you might find 225 interesting, this is Orange County priority list from 1994 for the 1996-2002 TIP. The number 1 project was 226 Homestead Rd. improvements, which is still on the current list. The list also provides comments on the I-85 widening 227 project that the County continues to provide. Some of the countywide transportation issues mentioned have just 228 recently been funded such as intersection improvements at NC 54 and Southern Drive and other projects are still 229 currently needed such as intersection improvements at NC 86 and US 70 bypass. The priority list also included a 230 request for a feasibility study for am AMTRAK station in Hillsborough. 231 232 Karen went over attachment s 5 and 6, Orange County’s Priority Lists submitted to the MPO for the 2009-2015 MTIP 233 and to the RPO for the 2009-2015 STIP. She noted that Commissioner Jacobs, at the Board of County 234 Commissioners meeting at which the commissioners approved those lists, had requested several changes to be 235 considered for the next priority list. One change would be to change the description in the request to widen NC 86 236 north of Hillsborough to stop the project at NC 57. She explained that the original request was to widen NC 86 from 237 US 70 Bypass to NC 57, and the description was changed at the MPO level to continue the widening to the 238 Metropolitan Area Boundary. Orange County does not want that road widened beyond NC 57 due to the inability for 239 the road to handle more traffic through the intersection at US 70 and through Hillsborough to get to I-85. Sam stated 240 that he opposed changing the description because the road is the major regional route in the northern Orange 241 County and has a lot of traffic. It should be improved. 242 243 There was discussion on Elizabeth Brady extension and why it isn’t on the list. Karen related that the project is fully 244 funded in the current TIP and has advanced this far because the Town Board has consistently requested it as its 245 number one priority since 1996, when Hillsborough requested it for the 2004-2010 TIP. In 2001 a joint (Hillsborough 246 and Orange County) economic development transportation group developed a consensus that the project was 247 needed and both Orange County and Hillsborough adopted the groups recommendations. Orange County joined 248 Hillsborough to request the project, with many comments regarding its construction, as its number one priority for the 249 2004/2010 TIP. That is the only time Orange County has included it on the TIP. 250 251 The board discussed the western bypass and was informed that it has been in the TIP for many years as an 252 unfunded project and there has not yet been a feasibility study. Jan pointed that this route would use an existing 253 bridge over the Eno but would be on the other side of Hillsborough. Pat Strong noted that on the 2004/2010 TIP that 254 project may have actually been allocated some funding for right of way but that funding has been removed since 255 then. Sam asked if it there was a need to put it on the TIP priority list. The response was that there is nothing to 256 support the project. 257 258 Approved 9/27/08 6 Randy asked about Homestead Road, part of the widening has been done. The description needs to be rewritten to 259 connect previously constructed portions of this. Karen stated that another of Commissioner Jacobs’ request was to 260 revise the description of the Homestead Road project to include the entire road from Old NC 86 to NC 86 (Carrboro 261 has requested a project to take Homestead Rd. all the way over to Old NC 86 that would include bike lanes and 262 sidewalks. 263 264 Jan stated that bicycle lanes are need on Eubanks Road from Old NC 86 to NC 86. The board agreed to add 265 Eubanks Rd. including bike lanes and sidewalk s from Old NC 86 to New 86. Bryn related that a public works 266 employee who rides a bike was almost hit on Eubanks and since there are so many large trucks on that road the 267 need is especially great to provide safe passage for pedestrian and bicyclist. Paul suggested that there should be an 268 off road bicycle trail running parallel to the railroad tracks all the way into town. The board agreed that an off road 269 facility would be optimal. 270 271 Karen asked for feedback regarding Commissioner Jacobs’ request to consider an eastbound entrance to the I-272 85/US 70 connector instead of improvements and realignment of Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Mt. Willing Road to 273 make a more direct connection to I-85. NCDOT has made some improvements to Cedar Grove Road. One of the 274 recommendations from the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan was either to consider the Efland-Cedar Grove 275 realignment to Mt. Willing Road or to consider creating an access from US 70E to the I-85/US 70 connector. The 276 comment was to consider which of the two projects would be better. Discussion included current conditions and 277 layout of the connector. The board agreed to continue this discussion at the next meeting at which time it will 278 endorse projects to recommend to the BOCC for the priority list. 279 280 VII. Future Agenda Items 281 282 Sam asked about Safe Routes to Schools grant. Karen distributed the official letter of notification from Leza Mundt, 283 NCDOT Safe Routes to School Coordinator. The next step is to request a Community Workshop. 284 285 VIII. Adjournment 286 _________________________________ Sam Lasris, Chair