Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.18.2024 OUTboard Minutes ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES Monday, March 18, 2024 6:30 pm 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 Attendance: Members Present 2 3 Jamie Crandell Eno Township 4 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township 5 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director 6 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager 7 Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township 8 Erik Legg Cheeks Township 9 Adam McGovern At Large 10 Micheal Hughes At Large 11 Joshua Mayo At Large 12 Amy Cole At Large 13 Sherry Appel At Large 14 Randy Marshall Bringham Township 15 16 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER 17 The meeting was called to order and the roll taken. 18 19 AGENDA ITEM 2: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA. None. 20 21 AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS. None. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 4.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 24 25 Corrections: Roy was not in attendance, Greg was in attendance, and Sherry and Hillsborough were misspelled. Future 26 minutes should have the names of people speaking and asking questions.S.Appel suggested striking the last line (78)as not 27 relevant,the explanation clarified road diet as an urbanized practice and the difference in road functional classification. 28 29 Motion: Randy Marshall with corrections Second:Amy Cole Vote: Unanimous 30 31 AGENDA ITEM 5. OUTBoard Agenda 32 33 5.a.Short-Range Transit Plan 34 35 Nelson Nygaard presented the process,findings from the Existing Conditions report,and the public involvement 36 process. 37 38 S.Appel asked for copies of the presentation maps.They are in the report and copies could be provided. 39 40 R.Marshall:Advised that members are asked to provide comments,also wanted hard copies.N.Trivedi clarified that hard copies 41 of the packet will be provided. 42 43 A. Cole: Can you explain a little more about the residential and the business square footage? Is it land and business square 44 footage?What is the population density of those areas?NN:received information provided by Core Technical Team. N.Trivedi 45 clarified that it was building square footage per approved development. 46 47 A.Cole:So,it could be that a business has a large footprint but not that many employees based on the type of business it is,and 48 the same for housing,we could be talking about houses that are relatively large but are single-occupant.NN:We have maps for 49 future year population and jobs that look just at what is the projected job growth is over the next ten years;we've mapped that 50 density and it highlights some different areas than this map does because the region is growing so fast,a lot of the data is playing 51 catchup. 52 R. Marshall asked about paperwork and disability accommodations. N. Trivedi explained that the easiest way to request 53 medical-related transportation is through DSS, which coordinates with us and other transportation providers on behalf of 54 Medicaid clients. 55 56 S. Appel: As part of the planning, is there a look at accessibility, meaning how to access the system? NN: Yes, one of our 57 recommendations is to make information easier to find. The Department of Aging flowchart was used as an example and 58 included in the report. 59 60 J.Mayo: It looks like 36%on time.Did you identify some of the barriers there?N.Trivedi explained that on-time performance is 61 data we constantly track through Ecolane software.There have been fleet issues,and traffic issues,but that is a service we are 62 trying to improve. J. Mayo: The 36% is with the Rural Operating Assistance Program. N. Trivedi: yes, hopefully, one of the 63 recommendations to come out of this will address that. 64 65 S.Appel:Is there any way to determine what the age range is for the data like the Department of Aging clients,but if we are trying 66 to reach different communities,younger communities,or different language communities?Do we have any data that would tell 67 us who those users are?N.Trivedi:The users are evolving because of Medicaid expansion,we can pick up families with children, 68 and college students,so the data itself is evolving. NN:Using Census data,we can find out where a lot of these groups live but 69 tying it to specific rides is harder because of doing counts on the actual bus or going into confidential data so it's more 70 complicated. 71 72 A. Menius: Do you see Demand Response as a service that could be expanded? NN:Yes, in the next slide we will look at the 73 mobility on demand.It has the broadest hours and the least restrictions.With demand response,you qualify by age or disability 74 for services based on medical or job need,with 48 hours in advance scheduling. 75 76 S.Appel: What would be a reasonable goal to say that we are maximizing the number of riders for Mobility on Demand? N. 77 Trivedi:Hopefully a recommendation will come out of this report.NN:And we would hope for something more than a few riders 78 per day, especially if there are five full vehicles on the road. Since our plan does look to 2030,we want to make sure we hit 79 baseline service and then keep going up from there. 80 81 J.Mayo: It looks like a lot of destinations are in urban areas. Do we know if a lot of those users are coming from rural areas that 82 aren't going to be served by fixed routes?NN:That's correct. 83 84 J.Crandell:Do we know if the same people repeatedly?NN:Yes.You do start to see that pattern,but you see it a lot more with 85 Demand Response. 86 87 G.Woloszczuk:What about private services? Is there a lower-cost option that might provide more flexibility? N.Trivedi:The 88 opposite has been discovered in this use. Contracting the service out has cost more.That is why a lot of these contracting 89 services are going in-house. NN:Sometimes we do see these services around the country,if they get too successful,they can 90 hurt themselves because there are not enough cars on the road and reliability,so it's a delicate balance,but if there's too much 91 demand there might be strategies of converting some of it to fixed route service.N.Trivedi:Wilson did that;they converted their 92 entire service to MOD. 93 94 G.Woloszczuk: I would feel more comfortable if we had some of the ROI (Return on Investment) projections N.Trivedi: Right 95 now,there's confusion between demand response and MOD,so we need to clear up our message because while the services 96 are similar and both have demand"in the name,they are supporting each other and not the same. A. Menius: Does Wilson 97 have any data that would be relevant to Greg's query? NN: Yes,we can do a data pull. Nygaard then proceeded to discuss 98 engagement strategies.G.Woloszczuk pointed out issues with the website and Nygaard noted it as an action item. 99 100 S.Appel:Did anyone submit anything to the News of Orange?It's now the news of Orange and Mebane and is a key vehicle for 101 getting people to know about things in both areas. N.Trivedi:We'll reach out to them.S.Appel:Also,I assume Chapelboro and 102 the W Radio Station. N.Trivedi: I told our communications team who does all of the public engagement with news for Orange 103 County to use all available resources.S.Appel:If you provided a press release to the News of Orange and it's clean and not too 104 long,they will run it verbatim.And you can do the same on Chapelboro's website and the radio station.NN:Got it. 105 106 S.Appel: How many people so far have you had feedback from?NN:So far we've spoken to a lot of people at the pops-up,but 107 I'd have to ask our public engagement person how many people have responded to the survey so far.Closer to 100.There was 108 a question regarding using the Daily Tarheel for surveys. N.Trivedi explained that since Chapel Hill Transit was doing its own 109 SRTP,the County will participate when they do theirs. NN:explained that they want to get views from the whole County but be 110 careful of getting results from people in Chapel Hill who only take Chapel Hill Transit. 111 112 5.11b. US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study 113 114 N.Trivedi presented the final study results. 115 116 G.Woloszczuk: Do we have any data on bike lane usage?I was almost run over on the sidewalk. N.Trivedi: Near misses don't 117 get reported. Hillsborough and Mebane Bike-Ped data fed this plan.Orange County hasn't done it yet but will be doing one next 118 year.This plan addresses our data gap. 119 120 R.Marshall: How is 70 classified,is it a thoroughfare or?N.Trivedi:Federal Highway. It is considered a Federal Highway like I- 121 40. 1 can get you documentation on this. R. Marshall: So who officiates in terms of access?Are there Federal officials who 122 determine if you can add a business driveway or other things?N.Trivedi:NCDOT and federal agencies. 123 124 R.Marshall:Are we trying to be more of a Complete Streets project or get people from Durham to Mebane?N.Trivedi:I'm about 125 to cover that in the recommendations.Recommendations include reducing the speed in specific areas including the urbanized 126 areas. 127 128 G.Woloszczuk asked how reducing speed would reduce accidents.J. Mayo: Reduced speed and multilane seem like a tough 129 combination to work like in MLK,even with development on both sides,folks are going well over 35. 1 have concerns about the 130 lack of future demand shown in the document.I don't think I saw anything in future traffic numbers that will justify four lanes. 131 132 S.Appel:The railroads own a lot of the rideway to the South of 70 from the last part of Hillsborough all along to Mebane;have 133 they been engaged in this process,this vision?N.Trivedi:Yes.NCDOT(IMD and Railroad)is part of the Core Technical Team and 134 has been from the beginning.We will forward these comments as part of the public engagement portion to the consultant. 135 136 J. Mayo: How does that play into the SRTP, especially given that the existing conditions highlight that the Oange-Alamance 137 Connector may be better served by demand response?N.Trivedi:Or reorganizing that fixed route for better service because this 138 plan's transit recommendations will feed into that plan as this is locally adopted.J.Mayo:So,the 70 plan would feed the SRTP 139 recommendation?N.Trivedi:Yes.J.Mayo:Even though the Transit experts are on the SRTP?N.Trivedi:That's something we can 140 discuss when we get to the SRTP recommendations as one document feeds the other. Further recommendation slides were 141 shown,and both Durham and GoTriangle SRTP informed this process. 142 143 A.Cole:You presented this last month, N.Trivedi. Last month we were asked to submit our comments. N.Trivedi: I presented 144 the recommendations, and I gave you the whole document, and you had a month to review this. A. Cole: If you weren't here 145 that's one thing,but we were given a presentation last month,and we were asked to provide comments. I also feel like you did 146 your due diligence,in giving us the time that we wanted to provide feedback. You provided last time where those heavy traffic 147 areas are,and I didn't see that in this report today but what I'm not clear on is the true goal of widening 70 besides those five key 148 things we're talking about at the beginning which are completely contradictory to the plan of 70.We talked about preserving 149 nature,and rural communities,and then we talked about what we want to do to widen roads but those are very contradictory to 150 me.So,I don't understand what our true goal is.Whether or not it's to get people off 70 or to make it easier for people to drive on 151 70.And we have a parallel road which is 1-85 which is expected to be widened by the time frame of what we're proposing to 152 widen 70.So,either our goal is to get people off of one,or off of the other.And if the goal is to get people off 70 and on to 85,then 153 1 don't think we need to widen it if we want to make it into a rural space with the bike-ped stuff.If you keep it as is and make it a 154 rural area preserving nature and putting bike paths on there, people are more likely to use it for those means. But if you're 155 widening it, I think you're reducing the likelihood of that going to happen,and I just don't understand why we're trying to widen 156 both of those roads. I'm missing something. N.Trivedi: If you look at the existing conditions report,we reviewed it last year, it 157 showed streetlight and modeling data analysis, that 85 wasn't the commuting pattern for the corridor.A. Cole: But if it was 158 widened. N. Trivedi: Data analysis-wise, the study uses the adopted TRM, which includes 1-85 widening. Future growth will 159 continue along the corridor itself,affecting local commuting between Mebane and Hillsborough and Durham. A.Cole:So,when 160 you analyzed the traffic density,do we have the parallel data to show how densely populated 1-85 was at that same time?It's 161 congested. If you're a local person,you're going to get off and take 70. Do we have the data that says 85 traffic is congested at 162 the same time as 70? N.Trivedi: It is the Triangle Regional Model(TRM) data that shows the future impact of population and 163 employment growth impact on the transportation infrastructure.This data is adopted with the MTP and used by all consultants 164 for all traffic studies.The triangle model showed that even with 85 widened, US 70 still needed to be widened because more 165 people and future businesses are going to keep using US 70. and the development on 70, whether it's Mebane, Efland, 166 Hillsborough or west Durham,growth of 70 itself that will cause increased traffic on 70.As development grows,we want this 167 plan approved so we can use it as a locally adopted collector street plan to request developers address the impact their growth 168 will cause US 70.It's notjust that it will be a future State project,the developers themselves will be causing the growth and the 169 traffic. 170 171 S. Apple. What if the Orange County Commission does not approve this plan, can we still require developers to make 172 improvements? N.Trivedi:Without this locally adopted plan,there is no basis to require any improvement by Developers. S. 173 Apple: Even though this is a Visionary Report"?N.Trivedi: It becomes a locally adopted plan.That local adoption gives us the 174 authority through the Unified Development Ordinance.Without adoption,there is no authority. 175 176 S.Appel:And it could also be that there are parts I would feel comfortable with,some parts that I think are good and are needed 177 for Orange County to be able to constrain Developers or require developers to do things but there are parts of it that I don't feel 178 comfortable with. N.Trivedi: Please understand without approval,without it being a locally adopted plan,there is no imposing 179 on a Developer or asking a Developer or requesting a Developer-S.Appel: But can we take parts of this plan out,or is it all or 180 nothing?N.Trivedi:You can make the recommendations as you see fit.Staff and TAS have recommended approval.Mebane has 181 approved their portion and endorsed the plan.If you are piecemealing,and taking things away,such as suggesting the bike-ped 182 component without the highway component,you're telling the County Commissioners to pay for it.Because if you're saying the 183 bike-ped is good but the widening is not,then Complete Streets no longer applies. 184 185 G.Woloszczuk:To Amy's point about the purpose,my daughter lives near New Bern,and you can go 70 miles an hour,and it is 186 restricted,so what's the problem we're trying to solve?The more I think about it,the more I'm unsure what problem we are 187 trying to solve.One minute it's school traffic,then it's nature walks.N.Trivedi:That is why the consultant is providing a 188 combination of short-,mid-,and long-term improvements for the full multimodal corridor. 189 190 J. Mayo: Looking at the Goals and Objectives that we've got up front, it serves Mobility,but I don't think it serves placemaking, 191 for safety or natural environment to widen 70. 1 think especially in this part of Orange County and Alamance County 70 doesn't 192 need to be the controlled access highway.That's 85's job and it's right there. I think the goal should be to make the urban parts 193 of 70 in Hillsborough and Mebane safer and add some of that to Efland as well.The focus on mobility and adding lanes would 194 lead me to not approve this Study. 195 196 S.Appel:Regardingthe environmental issues,I've been consciously looking atthe rights-of-way and the trees alongthe corridor, 197 and heavily forested. She indicated that she was worried about the Federally contracted work/maintenance concerning 198 Stormwater control and the replacement of trees.She cited an example at the bridge at Riverside Drive.Overall concerned with 199 widening the roads would lead to a reduction in tree cover. 200 201 R.Marshall:Is it fair to say that there seem to be items in this plan that appear to be at cross purposes to each other?N.Trivedi: 202 advised starting at section 5.1.1.1 which addresses the goals and how they are mapped out.A.Cole requested that each item 203 be explained how it worked toward the goal with data from the consultant.Other members agreed that they needed the data 204 explained to support the mapping and to show the how.Members advised they needed the study to connect the dots for them. 205 Mortality rate concerns from road widening were mentioned. N.Trivedi advised that the AASHTO showed a four-lane divided 206 highway has a reduced crash rating over a two-lane undivided.This was presented in the NC 54 corridor study. R. Marshall 207 wondered if pedestrian accidents were higher in four lanes. 208 209 Motion:A.Cole-Consultant provides a clear indication of how they plan recommendations to help meet the goal with data.A 210 friendly amendment suggested tabling action until members get the consultants' corrections back. N.Trivedi: For clarity,the 211 motion is tablingthe item until the consultant can come back and demonstrate data-wise howthe recommendations help meet 212 the goals.A Cole: I'm good with that.S.Appel suggested they make a motion to disprove the study as presented because the 213 goals are contradictory,and the recommended plan does not align with the goals.J.Mayo seconded the motion. 214 215 Due to confusion in two motions,N.Trivedi promised to get the consultant to meet with OUTBoard to address all the issues 216 identified in today's meeting. 217 218 AGENDA ITEM 6:STAFF REPORT/UPDATES 219 220 6.a. MPO, RPO, &NCDOT Updates 221 N. Trivedi advised members this was contained in the packet. R. Marshall asked about the NC-54 to Westbrook Drive in 222 Carrboro project on 15-501 if it was on the bypass.N.Trivedi:confirmed. J.Mayo advised it was due to apartment projects that 223 were built with no other access to transit. R. Marshall requested a list of DOT administrative items which N.Trivedi advised he 224 would provide. 225 226 6.b.OCTS Updates 227 Staff will provide the HMIP plan 228 229 AGENDA ITEM 7: 230 231 FY25 WORK PROGRAM 232 N.Trivedi advised this is contained in the meeting packet and going to the BOCC for approval in April.The annual work program 233 for transit tax also waiting for approval and is the last thing in your packet is the NCDOT report. 234 235 Public Involvement Strategies 236 No update 237 238 AGENDA ITEM 8:ADJOURNMENT 239 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m.The next meeting is scheduled for April 15, 2024.