Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 101718Approved 11/28/18 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2 OCTOBER 17, 2018 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township 6 Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township 7 Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Erik Broo, At-Large Representative 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Jenn Sykes, At-Large; Alyson West, At-Large Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township 10 Representative; 11 12 STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Land Use/Transportation Planner; Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina 13 Love, Administrative Assistant III; 14 15 OTHERS PRESENT: Cy Stober, City of Mebane; Betty Rogers; Brian & Bonnie Myers; Jennifer Terrell; Anthony 16 Corbett; Mai & Huong Hguyen; Octavio Hernandez Lesso; Dana Richardson; Jolanda Williams; Annie Whitted; 17 Kristen Marbais; Richard & Brenda Bright; Robert Jones; Knox Efland 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM 20 There was not a quorum for the meeting 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 There was no quorum for the meeting so the minutes will be added to the November meeting 24 25 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 26 There were none. 27 28 AGENDA ITEM 4: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA 29 AGENDA ITEM 4A: BICYCLE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) – 30 Receive information and provide comments 31 32 Abigaile Pittman: There were some revisions on the posters and more needs to be done before they are finalized. 33 34 Heidi Perov: I would like to include how to safely adjust a child’s helmet as a flyer. 35 36 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the posters 37 38 Consensus was all were ok with the exception of poster number 4 about facilitating passing of cars by pulling over. 39 40 Erik Broo: I can try to contribute some photos or get some; I do have a couple of friends that ride with cameras so I 41 can ask them for some shots. 42 43 Abigaile Pittman: The subcommittee will meet next week to try to finalize some of these items. 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 4B: EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE (NISH TRIVEDI) – 46 Make a recommendation on the Efland-Mebane Access Management Plan 47 48 Nish Trivedi reviewed a PowerPoint presentation on the draft plan. 49 50 Resident: Does this include Highway 70? 51 52 Nish Trivedi: There are no recommendations on Hwy 70; it was not recommended for any right-of-way changes. If 53 the state decides to pursue some of these projects, these are along state roads and NCDOT has their own process 54 to acquire any additional right-of way. 55 56 Approved 11/28/18 2 Resident: I live in the Cheeks Crossing community and I noticed the intersections around where I live are congested; 57 I see congestion isn’t mentioned. Were there any studies done at the intersections of South Frazier and Buckhorn 58 Rd, East Washington Street Extension and Buckhorn Road? Those are highly congested areas. We have had 59 several accidents there. It really needs improvements. Also, what are the specific plans in terms of extending of 60 those roads on Buckhorn beginning on Exit 157 off I-85/40 going along Buckhorn Road toward US 70? That’s the 61 community I live in; what were the specific plans; what were the studies and what were the results in those areas? 62 63 Nish Trivedi: We have Cy Stober from Mebane. 64 65 Cy Stober: My name is Cy Stober and I’m the Development Director with the City of Mebane. To answer your 66 questions, in May of this year the NC Railroad conducted a study recommending improvements in the exact area you 67 are talking about for what they call grade separation, a bridge over the railroad tracks. I have sketches there is not a 68 public process; no designs have been done. The project is not funded. It was the only project in this plan that was 69 not funded. There are a number of safety improvements that are being done from Gibson Road in Mebane all the 70 way through town. The Buckhorn Road project is estimated to be around 8.5 million dollars and so it would have to 71 be funded and done by the state. There are 3 sketches in here, Mr. Jones came by the office this morning and got a 72 copy of the plan. We have more copies of the plan and it’s available on our website. I would be happy to talk with 73 you after the meeting and show you some of the safety improvements suggested for that very area. In addition, the 74 City adopted its own transportation plan. The limit of our jurisdiction is Buckhorn Road. Widening of Buckhorn for 75 safety improvements including intersection improvements is identified in this plan as a priority project. The City 76 cannot afford to do that project, it is well beyond our means. We would have to rely on state funding and again this is 77 an unfunded project that we would like to pursue that would be entirely separate process from what Nish is doing 78 here this evening or that Orange County is considering. These are unfunded projects that would have to have a 79 totally separate public participation and design process that would come in the future should the project be funded. 80 81 Resident: So what is long range goal here in terms of the future? 82 83 Cy Stober: We actually had a meeting yesterday about how to acquire state funds to do these two projects. Best 84 case scenario would be that the projects would be nominated for state funding in spring 2019. That will be a one 85 year process of consideration by the state so we won’t even know for over a year. After that point, should they be 86 funded, there would be a design and public participation process that last another year to 2 years and then 87 construction would begin. The first year of construction, the public doesn’t see anything, nothing happens. The 88 fastest track that we could see anything would be 4 years from now roughly. The soonest you would hear something 89 is 18 months from now about whether the state has funded anything and if it is this project, how you can participate to 90 make sure your concerns are heard. We know there are concerns about impacts to the churches on Buckhorn and 91 of the 3 sketches that have been done so far, avoid the churches there. 92 93 Resident: What about the homes? 94 95 Cy Stober: There is one sketch that avoids all homes and then two others that do not. We need your input to help us 96 decide the best sketch. We don’t have a favorite, Orange County has two sketches that they don’t like and the one 97 they do like is the one that does not impact any homes. They sent us a letter to that effect. 98 99 Resident: It still would be an impact, noise, getting out of their homes with a bridge. How close would it be near the 100 homes. There would be some impact. So as a homeowner there I would like to know now what would be the 101 foreseen impacts if I remain there. 102 103 Nish Trivedi: Right now it is not in the plan, if it is funded by the state it is in a ten year window. If within the first five 104 years it is guaranteed to be built. 105 106 Resident: I’m not asking about the process about when it will be built, I am asking about the study. If you did a study 107 and it was a holistic study then you should know the impact it would cause. You have 194 people in the Cheeks 108 Crossing Township that you are going to impact. What were the results in terms of if you did this, what would be the 109 impact on the people who remain living in that community? 110 111 Cy Stober: We simply cannot answer that question at this time because a design has not been determined. 112 Approved 11/28/18 3 113 Resident: So you did a transportation study and you don’t know the impact it is going to have on the community in 114 which you are going to put the road through? You did a transportation study, you had transportation engineers you 115 had environmental engineers and there is no results on how that would impact the 194 people that live there. There 116 were no results? 117 118 Nish Trivedi: In the 2017 study, that area was not studied. That is why we are saying additional study is required. 119 120 Resident: So when will it be done? The letter I received said you would connect Industrial to South Frasier, add two 121 lanes on Buckhorn starting from I-85/40 to Highway 70 so that is the Cheeks Crossing Township. That township has 122 194 people so that is not the study? You didn’t do any transportation study in that area? 123 124 Nish Trivedi: Not when the 2017 study was done, when the project is being done by the state the state would do a 125 separate, more detailed, on the ground public involvement study for that road. There is no design for that road at this 126 point. 127 128 Resident: You sent me a letter as a property owner telling me that you are going to impact my road and there still 129 was no study done. 130 131 Nish Trivedi: We’re not having any impact on your road, if you are not developing your property then there is no 132 impact at this stage. If the state doesn’t fund the project there is no impact. 133 134 Resident: Then why did I get a letter? 135 136 Nish Trivedi: To get your input and comments so we can include it in this plan when it is updated. If the state does 137 fund it we would come back to you again for more detailed, direct community meeting for that project - because there 138 is going to be increased traffic along Buckhorn Road, because of the development goal for this area and because if 139 any development does occur it is going to create more traffic. In the event that is not done it will create more safety 140 problems and more issues if not addressed. We feel that area needs to be studied and addressed. It is on the plan 141 as a blue dot indicating additional study needs to be done to address the increase of traffic that is going to be 10-20 142 years down the line for that road. 143 144 Resident: I would like to add there is already increased traffic. 145 146 David Laudicina: You mentioned the cross-section potential for bridges over the railroad, did they take into 147 consideration the fact that they may double that track in the future? 148 149 Cy Stober: That has been discussed with DOT and would be addressed by the design. Independent of all of this, 150 Orange County and Mebane have successfully lobbied DOT to put a traffic light at the intersection of Buckhorn Road 151 and US 70. It will be there by Christmas of this year. It’s been delayed already but we are working hard to get that 152 installed. 153 154 Nish Trivedi: One of the considerations the Planning Director made was to remove a road near the Mattress Factory 155 Road area because of a stream crossing and all the issues involved so we have removed some of that road network 156 to avoid touching the streams and the crossing and provide the same east/west connection. We have added text to 157 include bicycle safety based on the recommendations from the OUTBoard and to include that this network should be 158 for all users whether transit, auto or bike/ped. Another recommendation was how it addresses the Economic 159 Development objectives in the plan and how does it encourage mixed use projects to support walkable communities 160 and how does the plan address public transportation and alternative modes such as carpooling and park/ride 161 facilities. I will include more narrative about the cross section and try to meet these objectives. Now we are seeking 162 OUTBoard comments and recommendations. 163 164 Heidi Perov: You’ve had a lot of public comment, did any of it change any of the plans? 165 166 Nish Trivedi: The only real change was the removal of the roads in the Rock Quarry Road area we discussed. 167 168 Approved 11/28/18 4 Heidi Perov: The questionnaire you used was odd because you are working in an area where there isn’t any public 169 transit, bike or pedestrian facilities so it seems like the better way to ask this in the future is would you use transit if it 170 were available; would you ride bikes or walk in your community if there were facilities available; what is the one part 171 of your commute that is the most frustrating. Other comments I have is that I would like to see included in there in 172 the intersection improvements that roundabouts be considered along with turn lanes. I would say if you have a road 173 with sidewalks included in the cross-section that it would be good not to have a speed limit over 45 mph. I would also 174 say when you have a road with 12 foot lanes and 5 foot shoulders; I would consider changing that design to 11 foot 175 lanes and putting in an extra buffer between the lane and the shoulder with the other foot. Also, I didn’t hear anything 176 in the report about air quality. Is there anything that requires an air quality report would be part of that road 177 improvement process? 178 179 Nish Trivedi: No, I don’t think that is part of our UDO for development. 180 181 Heidi Perov: My last comment is that I think as part of this report there should be something that says that new 182 technologies should be taken into account and studied which may offer new ways to address intersection 183 improvements, traffic flow and safety without road widenings. I think there is going to be smart signalizations that are 184 going to improve in 10 years’ time and promoting transit to get people to not be in their cars which would actually 185 improve the roads to the point that we may not have to widen them. So I think new technologies and public transit 186 should be addressed. 187 188 AGENDA ITEM 4C: NC 54 CORRIDOR PLAN PRESENTATION (NISH TRIVEDI) – 189 Provide comments to the BOCC for November 1st meeting 190 191 Nish Trivedi reviewed a presentation on the draft plan. 192 193 Nish Trivedi: Because of the congestion along Hwy 54, people along 54 wanting to get out of their driveway have to 194 wait there for a long time just to get out. There are a couple of subdivisions along that road that people have 195 reported having to wait a very long time to get out on the road. 196 197 Heidi Perov: Where are the high crash points on this road, are there high crash points on this road? 198 199 Nish Trivedi: There have been crash studies done. As you can see on the bottom it shows the number of accidents. 200 201 David Laudicina: There is very high traffic on Mebane Oaks especially on the weekends going to Saxapahaw. 202 203 Nish Trivedi continued presentation 204 205 Heidi Perov: That’s not going to support our planet very well. There’s nothing in this project that support public 206 transit. 207 208 David Laudicina: Was there any talk about having a Bus Rapid Transit with stations along the way. Make them 209 dedicated. 210 211 Nish Trivedi: We can include that in the comments. One thing mentioned as PART to provide service along this 212 corridor all the way to UNC. The total cost of this project if the entire thing was done over the next 20 years or 30 213 years would be 180 million dollars; 80 million in Alamance County and 100 million in Orange County and it does 214 include the shared use path which 20% would be on the County. 215 216 Heidi Perov: They also don’t have the right-of-way. 217 218 Nish Trivedi: And it would require right-of-way acquisition. 219 220 Heidi Perov: So it will never happen, I don’t even think you should include it because it is obvious – without the right-221 of-way. 222 223 Approved 11/28/18 5 Erik Broo: If the plan shows the path and it is being shown to the public and the conversation in this room is that it is 224 probably not going to happen, should the public be shown that without the context that we know. 225 226 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT is working on changing their bike/ped policies there is a big effort to change that rule. This is a 227 statewide issue and they’re changing it and it includes updating a complete street policy. There is an effort to push or 228 more bike/ped consideration in highways. Carrboro is very skeptical about the widening; they feel that intersections 229 improvement will address all the issues. There is an understanding that this is a 20-30 year long process because of 230 the phasing. 231 232 Erik Broo: So on the Orange County side most of the parcels of land are rural, and rural buffer. There is only a 233 handful of commercial properties and future land use doesn’t indicate that have changed to commercial. How does it 234 look on the Alamance side? 235 236 Nish Trivedi: Alamance County doesn’t have zoning. 237 238 Erik Broo: So is there an expectation that there be greater development on the Alamance County side than the 239 Orange County side? 240 241 Nish Trivedi: That’s a good question. 242 243 Erik Broo: So even if the public comments include that there isn’t going to see much development on the Orange 244 County side, we’re still going to see potentially a lot of development on the Alamance County side. 245 246 Nish Trivedi: And that development increases traffic. 247 248 Erik Broo: It’s like when Chapel Hill didn’t want Walmart so they just went across the line into Chatham County but 249 Orange County still has to manage all the traffic. 250 251 Nish Trivedi: Transit would help address some of the traffic that is why there needs to be better coordination 252 between PART and Chapel Hill Transit along this corridor. The plan doesn’t address it and that is one of the 253 comments that Carrboro is submitting and we will submit the same. There needs to be better coordination among 254 the transit agencies along this corridor. 255 256 Art Menius: We keep attacking this from the wrong end. Reducing use instead of increasing capacity. 257 258 David Laudicina: My concern is that we’re planning for all this road and more cars and it is going to be done by 2040. 259 Did that plan just come out that we are going to have a worldwide catastrophe with climate change in 2040 if we don’t 260 start doing something. A little thing like Bus Rapid Transit on this road would do something to reduce the usage. 261 262 Art Menius: I agree we don’t need wider roads, we need more transit along those corridors. 263 264 Heidi Perov: Unless the goal of NCDOT is to get more cars on the road, this is not the answer. I totally agree with 265 David, I think that global warming is right here right now whether anyone believes it or not. Pavement is increasing 266 that. I think the intersection improvements should be done but not the widening. Is it because people can’t get 267 where the want to go as fast as they want or is it a safety issue causing more crashes. I would like to see the crash 268 report and if that is the case then we have to improve the intersections where the crashes are occurring but we don’t 269 just pave over the entire western part of that area. I also think that technology is going to be changing a lot of the 270 congestion that we’re seeing with signalization being able to be synched in a way it puts people through in a more 271 efficient and safer way. 272 273 Erik Broo: With a lot of the road, if you want to pass someone there are certain sections that the elevation is too 274 great and there is no line of sight. If we are looking to increase driver safety and pedestrian and bicycle safety, are 275 there other ways of going about grading or making line of sight better or creating passing zones. 276 277 Brantley Wells: If you are talking about changing grade you might as well triple those costs. 278 279 Approved 11/28/18 6 Heidi Perov: Well, a passing lane if it is a constant problem in one spot. They have passing lanes all over Alaska 280 and it allows the slow vehicles to continue at their pace and the trucks and motorhome then everyone goes around 281 them. I just think it too much to widen that entire area. 282 283 Art Menius: I agree and would go beyond that to say I oppose the widening. 284 285 Heidi Perov: I would go with you on that and say I oppose the widening the entire length of 54 and would prefer to 286 see the intersection improvements done first based on safety and congestion. Identifying areas where passing is 287 especially problematic with possible location of passing lanes. Do we want more cars on 54 and remember that cars 288 coming into Carrboro are going to be quickly brought down to 2 lanes and it is going to cause a problem. 289 290 David Laudicina: They are also going to UNC to work, that’s the problem. People can’t afford to live here so they 291 have to live outside and drive in every day to go to work. 292 293 Heidi Perov: So if they have to have that commute why don’t they have a bus so they can actually ride or listen to 294 music on their way to work. 295 296 Art Menius: The reality is this massive exchange of traffic in and out of Orange County, the breakdown of white 297 collar- blue collar - managerial is almost identical with people leaving and people coming in. 298 299 Heidi Perov: You can also say that part of the reason for this because we are concerned about how it affects air 300 quality and the climate. 301 302 AGENDA ITEM 5: INFORMATION ITEMS 303 AGENDA ITEM 5A: IDENTIFICATION OF SMALL, RURAL, AND/OR MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS (ABIGAILE 304 PITTMAN) – Receive information and provide input to staff 305 306 Abigaile Pittman presented information on small transportation projects. 307 308 Abigaile Pittman: We are asking the OUTBoard to assist staff to develop a potential project list so when we get 309 requests we have this list that we can use. We want to have an ongoing process so we have greater input when 310 these funds become available. Typically we have a very short window of opportunity. 311 312 Consensus was to have bi-annual meetings with occasional reminders on the OUTBoard Agenda to email any 313 projects to staff who will keep a running list of projects. 314 315 AGENDA ITEM 6: STAFF UPDATES 316 AGENDA ITEM 6A: MPO/RPO AND NCDOT UPDATES (NISH TRIVEDI) – Receive information 317 318 Nish Trivedi reviewed the projects 319 320 *The next OUTBoard meeting is postponed one week to accommodate the member schedules for the 321 Thanksgiving Holiday and will take place Wednesday, November 28, 2018*. *There will be no OUTBoard 322 meeting in December* 323 324 AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT 325 326 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned 327 328 ____________________________________ Heidi Perry, Chair