HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 101911Approved 1/19/12
1
MINUTES 1
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD 2
OCTOBER 19, 2011 3
4
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham 5 Township; Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Amy Cole, Transit 6 Advocate; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; 7 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Renee Price, CFE Representative; Al Terry, Transportation 10 Services Board; Economic Development Commission - Vacant; Cheeks Township - Vacant; Little River Township-11 Vacant; Hillsborough Township - Vacant 12 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, 15 Administrative Assistant II 16 17 18 AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM II: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA 22 23 24 AGENDA ITEM III: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 25 26 The August 17 OUTBoard minutes were approved by consensus 27 28 The minutes from the September 21 meeting were approved with changes by consensus 29 30 31 AGENDA ITEM IV: Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes and Economic 32
Development District Access Management Plan (Tabled from Sept. 21st ) The BOCC directed 33
staff to obtain recommendations from the Planning Board and the Orange Unified Transportation 34
Board to bring back to the BOCC for consideration to adopt the Access Management Plan by the 35
November 15, 2011 BOCC meeting. 36 OUTBoard Action: Discuss and endorse recommendation to the BOCC. 37
38 Craig Benedict discussed the general meaning of Access Management Plans are and how it would end up working. 39 The BOCC approved a tie-in for site planning processes to ensure that when a site plan comes forward that if there 40 are plans for roads to be connected or stubbed out, etc. that site plan would reflect those Access Management Plans. 41 He mentioned the Access Management Awareness Project on Orange Grove Road in 2003. The “Access 42 Management Program” handout was part of that project. He reviewed the handout. 43 44 Nancy Baker asked if these were the aspects of the Access Management Plan that were approved or would be 45 approved. Craig Benedict responded that they were not approved yet. They are guidelines to be approved. 46 47 Alan Campbell asked how much would this ties the County’s hands if there were a situation that a development 48 would not be ideal to have a road to go through it. Would that bind the County if it were adopted? Craig answered 49 that these are suggestions. If the same objectives can be accomplished in another manner that manner would be 50 used. Craig discussed maps for the Access Management Plan. 51 52 Nancy Baker asked if the high-speed railroad project give funds for accommodating traffic getting back and forth? 53 Craig responded by saying there will be a negotiation. 54
Approved 1/19/12
2
55 Paul Guthrie noted that the map was out of scale because the railroad right a way is 300 feet. Also, the design was 56 for it to become a second track. Craig noted there are remnants of a second track on the Mebane side. 57 58 Jeff Charles asked about existing roads with widening, does that include bike lanes? Craig responded by stating that 59 would be a cross section. 60 61 Nancy Baker asked if there was a mechanism now there to get the pedestrian bicycle facilities we want to see. The 62 other question is can it be mixed use, etc. Craig answered by stating that will happen in the next year. They will 63 work on profiles or a cross section that if an 80-foot road right of way, will have center turn lane, bicycle lanes, etc. 64 The second part of the question can be saved for another meeting. There will be areas that will not have mixed use 65 and areas that will. 66 67 Jeff Charles shared that there was a resource that they would be able to give, a written document that gives every 68 road on a given right. That would include the roads that are used the most. Craig noted that on the Access 69 Management Plans that are part of the review is focused on Economic Development Zones from Mebane to Efland. 70 71 Paul Guthrie asked when there is a project that was described there were two transportation issues that are not dealt 72 with and that would be if you go to middle size or light industrial, there may be a need to a rail siding into a facility. If 73 it is not rail but a manufacturer that uses a lot of trucking you need to think of turn radius in and out of the property 74 and the size of the intersection. He asks if you go from this level to a specific level? Craig answered yes it will be 75 project specific. 76 77 Jeff Charles noted that the outskirt around the area were the prime areas he bicycled to go to Efland and Mebane. 78 He would like to ensure that in the thought process, bicycle lanes should be considered. 79 80 Paul Guthrie asked who would pay for the water and sewer. Craig answered that Orange County would pay for the 81 Backbone Water and Sewer System. 82 83 Nancy Baker commented regarding access management, which is mostly automobile access, where in the process, 84 is there a formal discussion about bicycle and pedestrian access? Craig responded that it can be all those things, a 85 living document. That will be included in the document. 86 87 Alan Campbell added that his view was this plan actually helps control the development going there. 88 89 Craig Benedict noted that if someone is uncomfortable with the concept at hand to vote “no” instead of an abstention. 90 91 Motion by Alan Campbell to approve the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes 92 and Economic Development District Access Management Plan as presented by staff with the added recommendation 93 that the plan consider the impact of bicycle lanes on West Ten Road, Buckhorn Road, Mt. Willing Road, other used 94 by bicyclist to travel from Hillsborough to Mebane. Seconded by Jeff Charles. 95 Vote 5 in favor with one member abstaining- Passed 96 97 Paul Guthrie noted that his reason for abstaining from the vote was not because he thought it wasn’t a good concept 98 and that the ideas in this particular exercise in planning but he feels personally uncomfortable that this document 99 could become a way to move inappropriately in the financing of the public utilities that go into the facility and noted it 100 was millions of dollars of investment in public utilities. He added that with the financial pressures in the County at this 101 time, he is uneasy that this may be used as a document to say we have to spend this money on utilities. 102 103 104 AGENDA ITEM V: BICYCLE SAFETY (Tabled from September 21) 105 OUTBoard Action: Continue and complete discussion 106 107 Nancy Guthrie updated the Board on the issue at hand with bicycle safety. 108
Approved 1/19/12
3
109 Tom Altieri explained the “job description” of the Board. The Rules and Procedure of the Board are general. It does 110 lean toward the charge being land use and transportation based. Obviously this group can recommend widening 111 shoulders, bike lanes, etc. to help facilitate but in terms of rules of the road and how cyclist conduct themselves is a 112 public safety and law enforcement issue. The Board could frame a letter from the Board to the BOCC to ensure they 113 are aware of the issues by the individuals and provide opportunity for them to take the next step. 114 115 Craig Benedict noted that one recommendation that was discussed was an awareness campaign. 116 117 Jeff Charles noted that he was not here last month but he read the email and was concerned there may have been 118 some perception problems. He assured the Board there was communication problems between the two groups and 119 was both equally to blame. The problem would dissipate if there were more bicycle lanes and two feet lanes. The 120 comment about better education on both sides needs to be done but as far as the OUTBoard can do what is being 121 done now. He met the lady before when she almost ran over one of his friends. She was very upset so he 122 suggested she contacted the county to discuss this. 123 124 Annette Jurgelski asked if there was a brochure that is distributed to bicyclist as to what is expected and where they 125 will find bike lanes? Jeff Charles responded that there was a North Carolina Bicyclist and Pedestrian Law book that 126 is available to everyone. He stated that education and communication was the key. 127 128 Nancy Baker noted that our communication to them may be please help us by taking some of the role of 129 communication that is not really our purview but certainly their group working with your group would be great in 130 combination with putting articles in the newspaper, etc. 131 132 Paul Guthrie asked how the bicyclist group felt about putting a license tag on the bicycle. Jeff Charles answered that 133 he would not speak for anyone other than what would be the purpose. The bicyclist doesn’t have the ability to report 134 a car because they could not read the license plate. He noted that bicyclist was not running over people. Nancy 135 Baker commented that part of the reason was for accountability but mostly that if there were money that would go 136 directly to bike lanes. Randy Marshall noted that it was presented that the driver does not have any way of 137 identifying the bicyclist. Nancy Baker suggested that the Board could talk to Chuck and if Dairy Land is planned, see 138 what the plans are and see what we can do. There was also a suggestion to put flyers out a few day ahead of an 139 event that the roads would be closed to prevent confusion. Randy Marshall recalled a suggestion about a letter to 140 the BOCC from the bicyclist indicating that we have had the presentation and referring it back to them so they can 141 address concerns about public safety. A letter to the BOCC and copy Bonnie would be appropriate. 142 143 Jeff Charles asked if there could be a recommendation to BOCC to form a subcommittee of Orange County citizens 144 from both communities to discussion the issues and make recommendations. 145 146 147 AGENDA ITEM IX: BOARD COMMENTS 148 149 Tom Altieri updated the members on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan presentation to the BOCC by Sarah 150 Lee, NCDOT. Sarah Lee Presented the Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan to the BOCC. Some concerns 151 from the commissioners were that our Comprehensive Transportation Plan could be adopted prior to the MPO 152 Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which is behind in the process and did stress that we coordinate those efforts 153 ensuring that the corridors line up. One particular area that Commissioner Jacobs mentioned was north of town 154 where 57 and 86 come together and funnel down into Highway 70. They may have picked up on the Planning Board 155 minutes about the Comprehensive Transportation Plan regarding bicycles which originally had the idea that some 156 would commute by bicycle from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill but wanted to emphasize that we are talking about use 157 primarily for recreational purposes. They wanted notes about rationale behind the maps (i.e. what kinds of things 158 were used to develop the maps). There will be appendices to the maps. 159 160 Nancy Baker: Is the appendixes a text description of the process? 161 162
Approved 1/19/12
4
Tom Altieri: I think it is reference, sources, what is the CTP and information about how the maps were put together. I 163 get the impression we have the latitude to add what we think is appropriate in that area for supporting information. 164 165 Jeff Charles: Let me comment about recreational cycling versus commuting. A number of the roads currently on the 166 bicycle plan are, I think, roads that dove tail into Durham County’s Plan for Commuting from the Durham area to 167 Chapel Hill. An example is Whitfield Road. We need to look at why certain roads were included where it butts up 168 against Durham County. 169 170 Paul Guthrie: In the southeastern corner, Mt. Carmel connecting to Farrington connecting up to Stagecoach and 171 then 55 is a bicycle route to the RTP that avoids major highways. If you go at the rush hour times, you will find six to 172 eight people taking the six or seven miles to RTP. That kind of roads exist in other places but it doesn’t show up in 173 our map is because Mt. Carmel is NC2 for bicycles. It is more for pleasure riding. 174 175 Craig Benedict: That is where the text needs to explain the roads shown on this bicycle map are for both purposes. 176 If there is an explanation, then the maps become more understandable. You mentioned the Light Rail connection. 177 178 Tom Altieri: I don’t know if it was mentioned specifically but the whole Orange County Transit Plan and how does it 179 tie into it. 180 181 Nancy Baker: Isn’t that sort of thing mostly on an MPO plan? 182 183 Tom Altieri: Exactly. The whole idea is this is mentioned in the spirit of that coordination and it would be better to 184 have the two plans going together instead of this one so far out in front. Orange County does have the opportunity 185 when the MPO plan is adopted to readopt the whole thing as one package. 186 187 Randy Marshall: Did I understand you to say that Durham has a commuter bike route planned and we need to 188 acknowledge that? 189 190 Jeff Charles: I have been interacting with Bo Glenn who has been active in transportation in Durham County. We 191 were discussing Whitfield Road specifically and I ask why did that get there and he said there was the whole 192 connection coming up 751 taking Erwin 751 back onto Erwin coming up there and then using Whitfield as the natural 193 road to come up to get over to Martin Luther King and also over to Eubanks. Erwin Road is not a good place to ride 194 a bicycle either. I am not sure we can get a lot of commuting like that and it is not used for recreational. There is a 195 dovetail there. 196 197 Nancy Baker: There is a potential for it to be a good route for commuters if it is improved. 198 199 Jeff Charles: Yes but I still question whether there is enough rationale for that to occur from that area of Durham. 200 201 Randy Marshall: It may be an option for those who live in Chapel Hill who work at Duke might use that. 202 203 Jeff Charles: They chose that instead of some of the other roads because of the traffic pattern. 204 205 Randy Marshall: Weaver Dairy will have bike lanes. 206 207 Jeff Charles: Because of the high school. 208 209 Paul Guthrie: I have been concerned that the different jurisdictional plannings that are going on have no visible link. 210 We did get information from staff as to where those links might be but it doesn’t show up in the plans and at some 211 point, the commissioners need a map that shows the connections around the entire border because of the rural plan 212 and if it is only one map showing there is a linkage there, it would improve the whole ability for them to conceive what 213 is going on in the plans. 214 215
Approved 1/19/12
5
Jeff Charles: With all this transportation initiative going on in the three counties, it might be a good idea to create 216 these bicycling commuting pathways. Just as Orange County has numbered their map, we could have a more 217 regional listing where you do talk about it being bicycle commuting or walk able path, which would accomplish what 218 you are suggesting. 219 220 Nancy Baker: What is the plan for the MPO? 221 222 Tom Altieri: I am not certain but I think they are between six months and one year behind. 223 224 Nancy Baker: It think at some point in the process, we need to have a presentation to make sure our plans are the 225 same. 226 227 Paul Guthrie: Remember it is not just one jurisdiction. You are talking about four or five jurisdictions. At some level, 228 we need to give the BOCC some idea of what is going on. 229 230 Tom Altieri: After the meeting last night, these MPO boundary lines are somewhat in dispute. We thought we had a 231 meeting set up to work on it but it was postponed. The rescheduled is December 7 but the maps and plans reflect a 232 MP0 boundary that we are not sure is accurate. The last comment I heard last night was about two park and ride lots 233 and said it would be good if we could include in the plan what we had in mind. 234 235 Craig Benedict: As a note, a big element of the Orange County Transit Plan is light rail but a substantial is enhanced 236 bus service in Urban and Rural areas and how that would feed into light rail. The one in White Cross would be more 237 of a commuter drop off and bused into UNC. We don’t have numbers on that but we do know how many commuters 238 go down 54 to UNC to work. We also know that Piedmont area rapid transit has a bus that goes down 54. We may 239 put written text together of things that are out there. 240 241 Nancy Baker asked about the status of the TIP. Tom Altieri replied that the MPO, the Technical Coordinating 242 Committee (TCC) has received a prioritization of the projects within the district and needs to move forward with a 243 recommendation about how points are assigned. The points are assigned by the MPO and the ranking is done by 244 the state based on a quantitative process. All the MPOs and RPOs get a bucket of points (1,400) that can be 245 assigned to high priority projects. The staff sticks to the quantitative aspects. Recommendations will be made to the 246 TACs on how they might assign points. There will be a public hearing on both based on rankings and how the TAC 247 is giving out those points. Randy Marshall noted that he and Nancy Baker had been on the Board seven or eight 248 years and could not figure out the process and how the Board could affect the process. Craig Benedict commented 249 that it takes years to get through the process. Randy noted that all the groups assign the points and make the 250 decision. The Board’s job is to identify things that should go and the other bodies make the decision about the 251 project that get the approval. Craig Benedict responded that the Board’s job is to inform the BOCC about projects 252 and what should be the priority project and the BOCC considers that. Randy Marshall expressed a concern that the 253 little influence the Board had dissipated because there were no connections because of lack of time and staffing. 254 Craig informed the Board they had approval to hire another transportation planner. 255 256 Randy Marshall suggested an agenda item on each meeting agenda for a TIP update. 257 258 Annette Jurgelski asked about the new bus route. Craig Benedict said they were getting 20 or 30 people a day riding 259 so there is a learning process. 260 261 Randy Marshall asked about the schedule for a commentary at the BOCC to be integrated into the plan. Tom Altieri 262 responded that the steering committee will need to meet on a date to be decided 263 264 265 AGENDA ITEM X: ADJOURNMENT 266 267 ___________________________________
Nancy Baker, Chair