Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard Minutes 101619Approved 11/20/19 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2 October 16, 2019 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Art Menius, Little River Township Representative (Chair); Heidi Perry, At-Large Representative; Ed 6 Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Todd Jones, At-Large Representative; Jenn Sykes, At-Large 7 Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative, Eric Broo, At-Large Representative; Randy Marshall, Bingham 8 Township Representative; 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Johanna Birckmayer, At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; 11 Brantley Wells (Vice Chair), Hillsborough Township Representative; Eno Township Representative - Vacant; Chapel Hill 12 Township Representative– Vacant; At-Large Representative - Vacant; 13 14 STAFF PRESENT: Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Nish Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, 15 Administrative Support 16 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Zachary Hallock, Town of Carrboro; 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER, DETERMINATION OF QUORUM AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS 20 Art Menius called the meeting to order. 21 22 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 MOTION by Heidi Perry to approve the January 16, OUTBoard Minutes with correction. Seconded by Todd Jones 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 27 There were none. 28 29 AGENDA ITEM 4: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 4.A.: NC 54 WEST CORRIDOR STUDY SUPPLEMENT (A.K.A. PHASE II) – NISH TRIVEDI 32 33 Nish Trivedi gave a PowerPoint presentation on the NC 54 West Corridor Study 34 35 Nish Trivedi: This report is now up for public comment, it’s going through a 30 day public comment period. VHB will 36 present this the Board of County Commissioners on the 7th. 37 38 Nish Trivedi: The slides showing future projections of jobs –shows to be at the ends of the corridor and beyond those 39 ends. The model takes into consideration and projects where the traffic is going to be. 40 41 Heidi Perry: So, if we could just get all those people who are moving into Mebane, Chapel Hill and Durham, to have 42 jobs in Mebane, Chapel Hill, and Durham. 43 44 Jenn Sykes: Just knowing from the hospital the demographics, you get the doctors coming north and throughout the 45 Carrboro/Chapel Hill area to the hospital. All the nurses are in Alamance County. All the environmental services are 46 Alamance County. I’ve had enough people I know say, I would use the bus if I can get better hours for it and get slightly 47 more extension on where need to go. And they want a crosswalk. 48 49 Nish Trivedi: One of the things VHB was asked, UNC, the school and hospital. Where are the people coming from, 50 what is happening, and why? UNC only accounts for 12 percent of the traffic along NC-54. Orange County was the 51 focus of Phase 2 study and almost 60 percent of UNC commute is on the east side from Durham, Wake, and a little bit 52 further southeast. 53 Approved 11/20/19 2 54 Heidi Perry: I think I read a study once that said for every Lane you actually increase the number of crashes. 55 56 Nish Trivedi: NC DOT has a thing called frequency. High frequency crash locations. This data is from 2012-2016. 57 58 Randy Marshall: The data is no longer particularly reliable or valid if the conditions on the road have changed. 59 60 Heidi Perry: We need this data for that year. 61 62 Nish Trivedi: I will get this updated and if there’s any new data for this high frequency. 63 64 Erik Broo: Roundabouts lowers speed on the corridors especially at intersections which is why they’re safer. 65 66 Nish Trivedi: Just to let you know the independent local decisions for the corridor have been made. In November 6 67 2018 Graham Town Council approved the whole study. Not just for their area. Last week, Carrboro made its decision. 68 I don’t want to paraphrase Carrboro, I put a link to the video from last night’s meeting. I highlighted a couple of 69 questions. These are some the issues that I thought were relevant. The decision Carrboro made was rejecting phase I, 70 Old Fayetteville Road to Dodsons Crossroad widening and improvements along that section. 71 72 Tom Altieri: It’s my understanding that there’s a resolution that will be forthcoming. 73 74 Zachary Hallock: I have a timestamp if you want to go and here the exact resolution. 75 76 Nish Trivedi: I have asked the clerk to give a draft so we can so we can include it in the packet for the Board of County 77 Commissioners. And for Graham it was in the minutes which was unanimous, they didn’t do a resolution. 78 79 Art Menius: Can you distribute a link or download to your PowerPoint? There’s a lot of information i n there I’d like to 80 review. 81 82 Nish Trivedi: I’ll send both the PowerPoint and the link. 83 84 Zachary Hallock: The Public input session that is not at a presentation is in Carrboro next Thursday 6 p.m.. We will be 85 there with some images. The consultants will be there and there will be another formal presentation as well with a Q&A 86 session. 87 88 Zachary Hallock: Next week we have the official resolution I’ll get that over to you so you can see exactly we said. 89 90 Nish Trivedi: I will include it in the BOCC packet when BHP presents. The request right now is this a public comment 91 period. You are welcome to make comments, and I will include them and submit them to VHB and Aaron at the MPO 92 and you are also welcomed to make as you are charged to recommendations to the board. 93 94 Heidi Perry: I feel there’s a lot of technology at a lower level that can be implemented a lot sooner that could make 95 intersections safer. There are ways to control speed. We should try to support that to make our roads safer. 96 97 Nish Trivedi: I think VHB touched on that the first public hearing in November. They created a column with the 98 comments of all the comments they received in first public rounds reviewed and they had responses. I think one of the 99 responses involves ITS, Intelligence Transportation System. I’ll look into that and asked them. 100 101 Amy Cole: I would like to know the crash rate differences between a 10-foot lane cost, a 11-foot lane, and a 12-foot 102 lane with the speed limit that we are referring to on 54. 103 104 Nish Trivedi: I think DOT has a library and they did a study on that. I’ll have to look into that and get that information for 105 you because. They have one for capacity, and I think they have one for crash rate as well. 106 Approved 11/20/19 3 107 Amy Cole: I would like to get information on where UNC staff is commuting from it would like to know how that has 108 changed in the last ten years. 109 110 Heidi Perry: I was wondering if there was a way to compare it to like, is this area growing in terms of the number of 111 people coming in from this area as opposed to ten years ago. I don’t know if that exists but would be great if it did. 112 113 Nish Trivedi: I’ll look into that from the UNC demographer and to Carolina Demography. 114 115 Heidi Perry: On every single cross-section that they show, they need to make it very clear that there’s not right away for 116 the bike-ped thing that is there. There should be a way for bikes and pedestrians to get safely from a part of it to 117 another. I don’t think it needs to go from here to Mebane or to Burlington, but I think it’s disingenuous to show it on their 118 as a cross-section when it is really still an add-on. I feel like they’re doing that just to comply with lead streets, but they 119 aren’t complying with it if there’s no right-of-way for it. 120 121 AGENDA ITEM 5: STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 122 123 Tom Altieri: The Planning Department has hired a new planner and his name is Tom Ten Eyck, he has been working 124 with NC Central University as their TDM coordinator. He has a Master’s Degree in Urban and Regional Planning from 125 Iowa and a Bachelor’s Degree in English from Miami. He starts Monday, October 21st. Also there was some questions 126 and discussion from the TAS portion of the August meeting about the Transit Plan update. It was mentioned another 127 robust outreach process similar to what was done in 2017 with the updated plan. We have received new information 128 from GoTriangle, specifically information about the financial model and now have a full understanding of how much 129 additional monies there are available to Orange County absent the light rail project. For the next five years there is little 130 to none. The reason for that, primarily, is that we have a Chapel Hill Transit BRT project that will need funding for the 131 next few years. Beyond five years, we do begin to build up some surplus capacity again in those funds and will have the 132 ability to expand upon some services at that time. What I think will take place is, we are going to have to have some 133 type of an outreach to communicate to the public, what are the services that can be expected, a review of what was in 134 the 2017 plan and then this explanation to be able to show the financial landscape. There is a lot of work to be done, 135 including the cost share and even the structure of the Staff Working Group. 136 137 AGENDA ITEM 5A: FY 19-20 ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR SIDEWALK STUDY – TOM ALTIERI 138 139 Tom Altieri: Within this year’s fiscal-year budget there is $50,000 to complete some type of a consultant study for safety 140 improvements, primarily along Orange Grove Road, in the areas we have been discussing in the Focus of the Safe 141 Routes to Schools Initiative. We are aware that there was an accident last month where a student was hit, and it 142 certainly looks as if he was hit on the bridge. An attachment was added to your packet which was the Principal’s 143 response immediately following the accident. Over the course of the next few weeks, Nish and I are going to be 144 meeting with DOT, a representative from Orange County Schools, as well as Margaret Hauth, The Town of 145 Hillsborough, primarily to help form a scope of work for these consultant services, but also to reestablish an equal 146 knowledge base of all of the study, work, and effort that has gone on by different parties. Chuck Edwards provided 147 input based on his review of the recommendations on the Safe Routes to School Plan with things that can be done to 148 achieve the recommendations in that plan for sidewalks and crossing improvements. We will be having that meeting in 149 the next couple of weeks. I have some notes here on what we think is a possible scope of work for that consultant. By 150 going back to the original Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan, we can compile data and information in order 151 to try to help us with recommendations on implementation. This could also help as a reminder to our commissioners 152 some of the critical path issues that need to be accomplished in order to make a project work. Recently, we have heard 153 formally that the Town and its attorney have determined that it cannot maintain infrastructure outside of its incorporated 154 area, as it is would be inconsistent with state law, so we know that if there is going to be sidewalks there, Orange 155 County would have to provide the maintenance. That’s a policy decision. Much like providing local funding for local 156 match for competitive projects those are some critical path issues that we just haven’t been able to get beyond to date. 157 The bridge is really the problem. We’ve had our staff engineer, Chris Sandt, do a rather detailed cost estimate for some 158 sidewalk from Patriots Point to the bridge and I-40, and it would be a rather large investment due to the need of curb 159 Approved 11/20/19 4 and gutter, and we would have to stay within the existing right-of-way and topography. We have most recently added 160 comments and provided those to DOT with regard to the I-40 widening project so we know they’re going to be widening 161 I-40 through this area under the bridge all the way to where 40 and I-85 come together, and it’s possible that they are 162 going to have to do some work to the piers underneath that bridge in order to accommodate the additional lane. The 163 topic did come up at last night’s commissioners meeting during comments. It was mentioned that there were monies for 164 this consultant study, and it was considered to be at the forefront with a request that there be coordination with Orange 165 County Schools. Now, on the other side of the bridge, there is a need for some walkability in between the schools. You 166 are aware that we have submitted projects previously for SPOT scoring through the STIP, as recommended by DOT 167 staff. As we have done before when we are pretty confident that we would not have a fundable project and it would not 168 score well and certainly didn’t in SPOT 3.0. We took sort of a gap year there and did not submit that project in SPOT 169 4.0, but it certainly does remain on the County’s priority list. 170 171 Nish Trivedi: Just to give you an update on that, it is one of six projects that is submitted in TARPO for modernizing. 172 Not just modernizing, bringing it up to current standards and adding more paved shoulder and providing a safe benefit 173 for the shoulder. I’ll give more detail of their preliminary scores next year. That is on Orange Grove Road from 85 to 174 Dodsons Crossroads. 175 176 Amy Cole: I have some short-term solutions until potentially a new bridge can be built. I would really like to see at least 177 a temporary light to see whether or not this would actually slow down traffic and reduce the potentials for accidents. So, 178 at Oakdale and Orange Grove Road a temporary traffic light to see how this would slow down traffic and also reducing 179 the speed limit to 25 miles per hour during school time hours. There’s only one lane of traffic that’s able to actually 180 crossover the bridge at a time so it kind of cuts it back-and-forth. I would like to see some type of traffic calming 181 measures that occur there, and I think these are realistic temporary solutions that we can actually test out. I think this 182 is something that could potentially be a solution. 183 184 Tom Altieri: Particularly, if they could be time-limited so it coincides with the beginning and end of school. 185 186 Amy Cole: I’d rather see a Greenway down Old NC 86 than a sidewalk that takes a lot more maintenance to maintain. 187 The greenways are more attractive and there’s more flexibility on where they can go. 188 189 Tom Altieri: Greenways would go on currently private property, so you would have to obtain easements. 190 191 Amy Cole: Two years ago, when I went through and knocked on all people stores on Orange Grove Road and said how 192 do you feel about a sidewalk being built they were all supportive of it. I don’t think that it should be nixed, I think it 193 should be pursued. 194 195 Randy Marshall: Can we get a comment from the Sheriff about his reading on that intersection, and why he doesn’t 196 have officers servicing that intersection when there are other officers at other schools? 197 198 Tom Altieri: There are officers that are on do Grady Brown School Road between those two schools, but I have not 199 seen them on Orange Grove Road. 200 201 Tom Altieri: It’s to get the cars in and out of the schools and for pedestrians and crossing guards. I’ll bring that up. 202 203 Todd Jones: I think DOT needs to start taking pedestrians as seriously as automobiles. 204 205 Heidi Perry: They need to start walking with kids. 206 207 Amy Cole: Abigail had mentioned many times that the DOT was doing a safety check on that area, we have not 208 received that report. 209 210 Tom Altieri: We are hoping to get that information soon. 211 212 Approved 11/20/19 5 Todd Jones: I’m a little confused that the Town of Hillsborough says they are not legally allowed to maintain any facility 213 outside their boundaries. I know they’ve got Kings Highway Park that’s outside the town limits, and they appear to 214 maintain that however minimally. 215 216 Nish Trivedi: The South portion is in the ETJ. Not where the bridge and the fencing is. 217 218 Heidi Perry: I would like to know what the state law is. 219 220 Tom Altieri: I’m happy to submit with the highlighted section of the state law that we received the town. 221 222 Heidi Perry: Maybe I’ll just ask somebody like Sig Hutchinson how Wake County gets all their stuff maintained because 223 it’s not all in any particular community. 224 225 Todd Jones: Regarding the schools being funding partners for all of this, there’s two main sources of funding for the 226 school system. The state provides funds that are very strictly earmarked to teachers and some facilities and then the 227 County and its generosity provides a lot of funds to the schools and presumably that would be the only area we had 228 some flexibility and discretionary use of funds, so whether it’s the County paying directly or the County paying the 229 schools money, the schools turnaround and say hey we’re partners. It’ s all essentially from the same bucket of money. 230 231 Heidi Perry: In 2010, there was a pedestrian bridge that was submitted for funding from NC DOT and my understanding 232 was that it had scored well but that DOT pulled it because there were no sidewalks on either end of it and they weren’t 233 going to build a bridge that didn’t connect to something. I have a couple of the letters from 2010, but I don’t have the 234 whole chronology of that, but I’d love to see it. I’d love to see how it scored and what year and then when it was pulled 235 from consideration. Which was in 2010. Amy did a very nice presentation at DCHC/MPO a couple years ago that laid 236 out some of the things she’s talked about today, and I think it would be good to have that as part of the stuff that you’re 237 looking at. I’m going look and see if I can find other examples around the state. I don’t know what that law is. Maybe 238 you should show to the people at NC DOT and ask them how they interpret it. I just think that other places have 239 managed to build things that are outside of city limits, so either Orange County is very specifically different in that they 240 have a policy that they won’t maintain sidewalks or greenways and, if that’s the case, Orange County needs to work on 241 their policy, or other places have figured out to do it and we need to figure out what they’ve done to make it work. 242 243 Heidi Perry: I think the focus probably should be: How do we have a safe route to the school. As Todd said, the cost 244 and how we pay for it should not be a part of the study. There are different mechanisms that can help pay for things, 245 but I think somebody has to actually take responsibility for apparently the maintenance of it. 246 247 Art Menius: I think it has to be solved politically. I don’t think it’s going to get solved logically or administratively. 248 249 Erik Broo: It would just be nice to have this come back to us with, here’s how we can get Hillsborough to think 250 differently. Here’s how we can make these examples in Onslow County good things that we might use in making an 251 argument. 252 253 Heidi Perry: And Todd’s argument about some of these kids, you give them away to get to school safely without a car 254 and it gives their whole family more freedom plus there are studies that show people who arrived to school walking or 255 biking are more attentive in class. It’s healthier for the kids too. 256 257 Tom Altieri: I think the study could include what are those critical path policy issues that need to be identified and the 258 maintenance is one of them. Thank you for your comments. 259 260 AGENDA ITEM 5B: MPO/RPO AND NCDOT UPDATES – NISH TRIVEDI 261 262 Nish Trivedi: Burlington/Graham Metropolitan (BGMPO) is moving forward with their MTP update. They have created a 263 universal list of projects. Their student committee met yesterday to go over the project selection process and how they 264 were to select projects for the new MTP. They are waiting on the Piedmont Triangle Regional model to be updated and 265 Approved 11/20/19 6 that should be done at the end of this month. I will give you an update on those projects as the model input as they get 266 to the point of giving public information for that. Two MPO’s and TARPO have passed a The Title VI program. Title VI 267 being the nondiscrimination policy that is done by executive order that all transit providers have to follow being 268 recipients of federal funds. DCHC, BGMPO, and TARPO have all completed theirs. Orange County is under three Title 269 VI programs. DCHC/MPO has released a tolling study. A public hearing was done on the tolling study and they should 270 be approving that in the next meeting. I think you have a list of the highway projects for NC DOT. If there are any 271 questions, please let me know. 272 273 AGENDA ITEM 6: INFORMATION ITEMS 274 275 AGENDA ITEM 6A: NCDOT COMPLETE STREETS POLICY AMENDMENT 276 277 Nish Trivedi: The last time we met I gave you the draft. This is the Board of Transportation approved version. 278 Differences can be found on page 66, Section 6. The cost share is different. There was always a discussion on how 279 the NC DOT is going to change their cost-sharing in paying for bike ped and this includes the transit bicycle facilities, 280 pedestrian facilities, side pads, bus pull out, bus stops, Greenway crossings. This is something were going to be asking 281 Hanna Cockburn when she comes in November because it says if it is in a bicycle and pedestrian project/public 282 transportation facility that appear in a state, regionally, or locally adopted transportation plan will be included as part of a 283 proposed highway project, roadway project, NC DOT will fully fund the cost, design, right-of-way, and construction of 284 those facilities. If it is not in the plan but identified as a need, there’s a cost share policy. If it’s just betterment, local 285 pays. The only clarification that has been made so for that I know of in this policy is: you have to distinguish between 286 an independent bike ped project and an incidental bike-ped project. SDI law has not changed regarding independent 287 bike ped projects. If you submit a bike-ped project independently of a highway project, DOT does not pay. This 288 Complete Street does not affect independent bike ped projects. If submitting a highway project with a Greenway or 289 component of a bike ped and if it is a locally adopted, regionally adopted, or state adopted plan then it says DOT is 290 supposed to pay. There’s one problem, this is administratively enforced by Hanna Cockburn and other the members of 291 DOT which are listed on page 60 with the exceptions to the policy, and in the SPOT people who review this new 292 administrative policy. When you submit a SPOT project or a STIP project, you have to fill out a form called a Complete 293 Street form and show that your project meets the Complete Streets Report. These five members are the only ones who 294 review the application and a complete Street form and say no or yes. 295 The burden of proof is on them to deny a Complete Streets. It is no longer on the local jurisdiction to say it does or 296 doesn’t when bringing the application. The cost share has changed as well. The cost share you see in the second 297 column, if you turn to page 268. The percentages have changed. If it’s not in a locally adopted plan, it’s not in a state 298 plan, and there’s no line on the map, and you want to submit a bike ped or meet this Complete Street, you have to go 299 through the cost share process. If a municipality, a town, has a population of less than 10,000 their share is five 300 percent. If a population is between 10-50,000, their cost share is ten percent. Municipalities, towns, over 100,000 are 301 now doing the 80/20. 302 303 AGENDA ITEM 6A: BOCC SEPTEMBER 3 MEETING INFORMATION ITEM – NCDOT CORRIDOR UPDATES 304 305 Nish Trivedi: These are the corridor updates that I mentioned about the Orange Grove Road extension being pulled 306 and with the state is doing. Now that the STIP has been adopted, the funding for the Orange Grove Road that was 307 committed is now being distributed to the projects. And the update on the 54 and its process. 308 309 AGENDA ITEM 7: ADJOURNMENT 310 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned. 311 312 313 ____________________________________ Art Menius, Chair