Agenda - 09-15-1998 - 10b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

5. _ _ _ McCalip responded that it is not clear. Durham County is requesting enabling legislation authorizing the County of Durham to fund bikeways and trails. It is very clear what municipalities can do. For counties, it does not specifically mention pedestrian paths, bikeways and trails. Selkirk noted that there were several places where roads were mentioned but that sidewalks and bike paths were not specifically referenced. Several rules and regulations were also mentioned. Price asked the reality of the proposed bicycle transportation route, NC 86 as a priority when it is a two-lane .road and no space for bicycles without grave endangerment. McCalip responded that is the # 1 desired route of cyclists in Orange County to be improved for transportation between Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. We can't improve it on our own. It has to be done by the State. The overall recommendations of the Bicycle Task Force is to include some provisions for more bicycle funding in the State laws and Transportation Improvement Program. At this time, there is only $3M for the entire state per yeaz and that is not enough. Most of this goes to urban azeas. Price continued what does the Planning Boazd need to do to make this become a reality? McCalip responded that the Board could recommend that in the legislative package for Orange County delegation to General Assembly to include, as Durham County did, legislation for Orange County or across the state for improvements such as these. Selkirk asked that McCalip review the map of proposed routes explaining why those routes were selected as the primary routes. M~Iip explained that this plan is for bicycle transportation as opposed to bicycle recreation. He referred to the profile of the cyclist in the agenda materials noting that the design cyclist is usually someone who has a driver's license and knows how to operate a vehicle on the road whether it be a caz or a bicycle. This cyclist is going to a specific destination, usually to work and the intent of this plan is to address this type of cyclist. The 1993 Regional Plan tried to address everyone at the same time. It mixed child cyclists and novice adult cyclists with the advanced cyclists. Most of the cyclists on the Task Force aze advanced cyclists. They are comfortable operating in traffic except for the roads in our county because they aze too narrow even for advanced cyclists to be able to navigate particulazly when lazge equipment is on the road. The whole orientation of this plan is for transportation and for recreational cyclists to get to those azeas providing for recreation. Hopefully, there will be integration between this and the Master Parks and Recreation Plan. McCalip reviewed the schedule of meetings and what was studied and determined at each meeting. He reviewed the primary and secondary routes included in the plan and how they were determined. Barrows asked for more information on what the Bicycle Committee has been doing since creation in 1974 and why just 28 miles of bike lanes. McCalip responded that most of what goes on in the state is in urban areas. Some states have completely turned bicycle routes and lanes over to the municipalities to do as they wish. In North Cazolina funds are available and our region has been trying to dedicate STP DA funds to bicycling pedestrian paths but there have been stumbling blocks with NCDOT because it is the only region that is trying to do so.