HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard Minutes - April 15, 2024 I AGENDA
2 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
3 Monday,April 15th, 2023, 6:30 pm
4 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278
5
6 Attendance: Members Present:
7
8 Jamie Crandell Eno Township
9 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township
10 Nishith Trivedi Transportation Director Orange County
11 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager Orange County
12 Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township
13 Erik Legg Cheeks Township
14 Adam McGovern At Large
15 Micheal M. Hughes, PE At Large(Present on Teams)
16 Joshua Mayo At Large
17 Amy Cole At Large
18 Sherry Appel At Large
19 Randy Marshall Bringham Township
20 Greg Woloszczuk At Large
21 Art Menius Little River Township
22
23
24 AGENDA ITEM 1:The Meeting was called to order and roll was taken.
25
26 AGENDA ITEM 2:Considerations of additions or changes to the agenda. None.
27
28 AGENDA ITEM 3: Public comments.None.
29
30 AGENDA ITEM 4:Approval of Minutes
31
32 Corrections to March 2024 minutes:G.Woloszczuk is missing from the minutes. Lines 136 and lines 171-174 need
33 corrections.Line 14 should be Bingham Township. M. Hughes'name, middle initial,and degree qualifications are
34 requested to be added to the minutes in the future.
35 Regarding line 72,A. Menius wasn't listed as attending in the meeting minutes but is listed commenting. No other changes.
36
37 Motion: R. Marshall with corrections Second: Vote: Unanimous
38
39
40 AGENDA ITEM 5.OUTBoard Agenda
41
42 5.a.SPOT 7 Local Input Points
43 N.Trivedi was out of the room due to tech issues,and D.Weaver presented.
44
45 All three MPOS approved their new methodology,and we should have the new updates in a couple of months because
46 they are still going through the process of scoring. D.Weaver asked if there were any questions.
47
48 S.Appel asked if the submittal list in the packet was using the new methodology and if that was why the categories said
49 "pending"on the P7 Schedule. D.Weaver advised that the NCDOT did the scoring based on what each methodology
50 required.J. Mayo advised the NCDOT does allow for local jurisdictions to put in their input on the smaller projects. He gave
51 an example of Central Pines.
52
53 J. Mayo then asked about Outboard priorities for the projects,and N.Trivedi advised it wouldn't be coming to them until
54 May.State Law[STIP]statute 146. N.Trivedi discussed the SPOT 7 process, R. Marshall asked if the formulas changed,
55 and N.Trivedi and D.Weaver advised no.
56
57 R. Marshall asked when we would get scoring; N.Trivedi advised we didn't know for sure but in the next few months.
58
59 R. Marshall asked how to influence the scoring. N.Trivedi advised that for the local ones we had influence, but the state
60 scored it the way they wanted.A comment was made that the Complete Streets project should make the score better.J.
61 Mayo advised that NCDOT will score it from their highway metrics.
62
63 S.Appel asked if the NCDOT scored something lower,could we ask the county to give it more of a priority?J.Mayo advised
64 that if it scores low, but if our division engineer,and we, make it enough of a priority then at least for our funding we can
65 influence that.Think of it like funding=NCDOT 50%and Local 50%.
66
67 i. Action: Informational only until MAY
68
69 5.b. U.S.70 Corridor[in SPOT 7]
70
71 Presentation by the consultant based on previously submitted questions.They advised to be clear,the widening of the US
72 70 isn't the consultant's recommendation,it's an assumption that it will happen;the recommendations are based on that
73 assumption.
74
75 The consultant referenced slide 2,the transcript of their last one-hour meeting,and the existing conditions report.
76
77 The volume development and model used was the Triangle Regional Model.This includes inputs from where people live,
78 where they work,anticipated future improvements,and modeling what traffic does now,and how it should change over
79 time.
80
81 They utilized street light data for tracking to develop 2022 base numbers;they work from projections, not absolute values.
82 Percentage differences are shown up until 2050.The thickness of the lines shows the difference in growth-the thicker the
83 line,the more growth. Regardless of widening there will be growth on 70,and what CAN go on 40 and 85 IS going on 40
84 and 85 with the widened 70 hwy in the presentation.
85
86 M. Hughes asked about Hillsborough 86 plans. N.Trivedi advised that Hillsborough has a Churton Street widening plan and
87 is going forward.The outcome of that widening is submitted to NCDOT to shape the multimodal corridor and is going
88 forward. How it will influence and shape 70 is to be determined.The consultant advised that if 86 looks like it will have
89 more traffic in the future, it's because it will,even if it is not widened,there will just be more congestion,even with
90 widening.
91
92 A. Menius asked why 70 businesses to the West of 86 from ENO are not in the study because it's historic. N.Trivedi
93 advised that the part that goes to historic is not,but the other is and it was decided this past year. It's a Town project so the
94 OC Board is not involved.
95
96 R. Marshall asked about the intersections with the 70 and if we had anticipated intersections,stoplights, roundabouts,etc.
97 that may be put in,in the future.The consultant responded that it would be at a major crossroads that will show growth
98 and that is taken as a base assumption from a flow perspective.J. Mayo wants to know about 2 lanes for portions of 70.
99 The consultant advised in the short time that there is a section B with 3 lanes including rumble strips, but that 70 hits flow
100 failure soon without the 4 lanes.There are issues of public right-of-way being used as parking lots that will be taken away.
101 Currently,there are 100-120 feet of right-of-way.
102
103
104 N.Trivedi advised that SPOT 6 had Orange County approve widening in 2019,so then it was submitted. However,Spot 6
105 was cancelled.Some members asked why the report suggested road widening, and it was explained again that the
106 widening was going to happen,and this was a study making best-case suggestions for when that inevitably happened.The
107 widening is going to happen with or without the Study being approved.The consultant advised that their recommendations
108 weren't intended to be primarily vehicular.They did have recommendations on larger intersections, but not all the finely
109 detailed ones, like University Station and US 70.
110
111 Figure 23 explains intersection improvements based on the data. For example,the University intersection is more rural and
112 that is why the consultant didn't focus on it;they focused on the larger intersection issues.Signage considerations are
113 outside the scope of this project-they should be added to mid-year STIP.
114
115 Slide 3 Level of Service(Future No Build Vs. Build)addressed corridor-level traffic time.
116 J. Mayo asked about the divided highway in Efland and if we had heard from them regarding the divided highway. N.Trivedi
117 responded that the TIA has recently been completed for future development.The consultant added that the NCDOT would
118 probably not allow left turns on a divided highway."Safe access for business"at the point where it's warranted and
119 implemented,and locals will have to make a right turn and then a U-turn if they live off of 70. N.Trivedi advised there
120 should be a single access point for a given area, not an individual one at each property.J. Mayo asked if the information was
121 shared with folks in Efland. Regarding Land Use,it was explained that Efland needs to update the 2019 Efland-Buckhorn
122 access plan.That plan fed into this study.The consultant stated that was a recommendation in the study. Mebane has also
123 advised this.
124
125 Crash and Speed Data Slide:if congestion is reduced in the future,the crashes should go down. From a speed perspective,
126 the slower the speed limit,the more time a driver has to react,and the lower likelihood of fatal and serious accidents.
127 From the federal highway perspective for a multimodal corridor,the speed limit should reflect that,especially the vehicles
128 and vulnerable users(pedestrians and bikes).
129 Comment from a member about lowering the speed of cyclists,as he found that valuable,and the plan for safety, nature,
130 and calm places aligns with the goals.
131
132 On the next slide[2019 speed data with run-off road crash severity]the speed correlates with the amount of runoff road
133 crash severity.S.Appel asked about accidents in no-passing zones;pg.74 of the existing conditions report shows lowering
134 the speed limit would help and it's also a general recommendation that would be helpful.
135
136 March 2024 SRT update by Nelson Nygaard shows we are in the heart of where transit is needed in Orange County.J. Mayo
137 advised that he didn't think there was that much demand. H. Pfau advised that based on conversations with numerous
138 County residents,we would have the demand throughout Orange County if there were additional access points and route
139 times that allowed the public to get where they needed to go when they needed to be there.
140
141 S.Appel asked about the conditions report and conservation and widening of 70 and runoff stormwater,etc.as she wants
142 specific recommendations for stormwater runoff.The consultant advised that the protection of environments falls under
143 land use or planning,it's not something that falls under multimodal study. N.Trivedi suggested we reference the Planning
144 Department through the UDO"in accordance with the UDO of the Planning Department"to protect the watershed.The
145 consultant advised that it wouldn't be enforceable because it's outside the scope of Transit, but that we could put a
146 statement in the study acknowledging that we would like for it to be a priority.
147
148 J. Mayo suggested that we put something in about greenspace in the medians,and the consultant said that would be a
149 buffer.S.Appel advised she was worried because,on other projects, NCDOT removed greenery and didn't replace it. M.
150 Hughes advised he didn't think the Cane Creek watershed extended that far North. N.Trivedi explained Wake County's
151 watershed protection process, based on their UDO. He again advised it has to do with the planning ordinances,not transit
152 requirements.
153
154 J. Mayo advised that since the study assumes there will be a widening,it is a good plan based on that.
155
156 A. Menius made a comment to move for approval because it will happen anyway whether we want the widening or not.
157
158 N.Trivedi requested a friendly amendment about base assumption,signage,and signal at the university intersection,and a
159 statement addressing the environmental watershed conditions.
160
161 Motion to approve with additional changes, motion seconded.
162
163 J. Mayo dissents"just to record that we shouldn't widen 70"although he recognizes it will happen and this plan gives our
164 communities protections for the upcoming development.A.Cole votes for approval.S.Appel votes for it without approval
165 for the widening.A.Cole told consultants that the report was extremely well done.The consultant advised several
166 recommendations could be used regardless of widening.G.Woloszczuk advised he approved but is opposed to putting a
167 left turn lane at the University intersection.
168
169 Motion to approve:A. Menius.Vote: 8 in favor. J. Mayo dissented.
170
171 i.Action:Approval.
172
173 Motion to adjourn without discussing other items because it was 8:53 p.m.
174
175 8.Adjournment-The next meeting—June 17th,2024