Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> Attachment 2: OUTBoard Draft Minutes <br /> 1 DRAFT MINUTES(Excerpt) —Agenda Item 4a <br /> 2 Orange Unified Transportation Board <br /> 3 April 4, 2016 <br /> 4 <br /> 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Heidi Perry,At-Large Representative; <br /> 6 David Laudicina,At-Large Representative;Amy Cole,At-Large Representative; Jeff Charles,At-Large <br /> 7 Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Art Menius,At-Large Representative; John <br /> 8 Rubin,At-Large Representative; Erie Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Gary Saunders,At-Large <br /> 9 Representative; <br /> 10 <br /> 11 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township <br /> 12 Representative <br /> 13 <br /> 14 STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; <br /> 15 Meredith Pucci Administrative Assistant <br /> 16 <br /> 17 OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Day, Principal Planner, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) <br /> 18 <br /> 19 AGENDA ITEM 4a: North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT) Strategic Planning Office of <br /> 20 Transportation (SPOT 4.0) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)and Rural <br /> 21 Planning Organization (RPO) Project Priority Lists and Scores(Max Bushell) <br /> 22 <br /> 23 OUTBoard Action: Make a recommendation to the BOCC. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 Max Bushell delivered his presentation. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 Matt Day stated that NCDOT has no idea when the scores will be released. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Heidi Perry asked if there was a possibility they would be ready for our next meeting. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Max Bushell said that he hopes so and that there is a BOCC meeting on April 19,where we are hoping to present the <br /> 32 scores. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Matt Day stated the RPO association is already working on a letter to send to the Secretary requesting they release <br /> 35 the scores. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Max Bushell explained to the Board that map ID 4 actually cannot be funded at the Regional Impact funding level <br /> 38 because it is a secondary route and is not eligible for funding, except at the Division Needs funding level. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Heidi Perry asked about improvements for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Matt Day explained that there are two pots of funding.There is a regional pot and a division pot. The bike and <br /> 43 pedestrian is only eligible in the division pot.Alex Castro asked,whether multi lane with pedestrian and bicycle <br /> 44 facilities is just modernization? <br /> 45 <br /> 46 Matt Day explained that multi lane means that they are adding extra lanes so they are saying to make it a 4 lane <br /> 47 road. <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Jeff Charles said that,while they are doing that, they wanted to go ahead and put the bicycle lanes in.As it is in the <br /> 50 MPO jurisdiction, it can potentially get funded. <br />