Agenda - 10-03-1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Governor James B. "lb_mt Page 3 October 27 , 1 77 choice lay between Alternate 4 and Alternate 1-B was not recorded. The reasons w y the engineers recor.wended 1-•B were not recorded. The reason wh Member Jonas abstained was not recorded. None of the few comme is made by the Board members were recorded. The engineer' s co ent concerning the 1-85 interchange was not recorded. There was essentially no "discussion" -uhatever and yet the so--called "minutes" imply there was "discussion" in a true sense. The highway a gi.neers , among other representations, represented to the Board of I ransportation at the September 9 meeting that building of 1ternate 1-�B would eliminate the need to upgrade Route 86 be een Chapel Hill and 1--85 and would eliminate having to upgrade Route 54 between Chapel. Hill and the Research Triangle Park and represented that Alternate I-B was intended to connect I-85 and the Research Triangle Park as a local traffic corridor. Such representatio s by the .engineers, with no opportunity on the part of the public to refute such representations, represents a further reason as to why Officials and citizens of Orange County should be allowed to address the Board directly. If Route 86 and Route '54 are effectively to be abandoned, there is still a further apparent violation of law. I point out that the Board is not authorized to abandon an existing part of the highway system and construct an entirely new road in its place (see Town of Newton vs . State Highway Commission. 194 NC1.59 , 138 S.E. 601 (1927) . ) With further regard to the legislative intent that the Board shall hear citizens in highway disputes , note the following st=atement in N.C.G.S. 136-- 7 concerning how objections regarding proposed high- way routings are required to be handled by the Board: "If anv objections are made- by the board of county commissioners or county road--governing body of any county or street-governing body or the city or town, the whole matter shall be heard and determined by the Board of Transportation in session, . . ." . The proposed I-B 1-40 route has been clearly identified by the Department of Transportation as being intended to serve local, county traffic needs as well as State -traffic needs and I point 'out that the Orange Count Commissioners , the Chapel. Hill Town Board, and the Carrboro Town Board have long been on record as apposing routing of 1•-40 through Orange County. How can this law be so flagrantly ignored, both as to its letter and intent? Because of the apparent lack of sensitivity of the Governor' s Office to Ehe 1-40 issue, I also point out and reamed you that the Board has awesome powers and awesome responsibi.l.iti.es and its membership should surely reflect some degree of competence and responsibility over a broad range of environmental concerns . It would also seem desirable that, at least, one member of the Board be selected specifically because of competence in representing the low income segment of our population who so often are the most drastically