Agenda - 05-15-1990 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

that the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which 45 funded. published annually lists those bridges that re ch i asked if we could receive these materials. Rogers statedBhet would send it as soon as it could be assembled. Best emphasized the importance of having all pertinent documents available for review by the TAS, commissioners, and County Engineer before taking anything to public hearing. Best reiterated that we need the report referenced by the Rogers, the list of paving priorities, and the latest TIP which includes bridge priorities. Best stated that he wanted to have as much information as possible available for the public hearing. He gave an example of someone asking about the bridge in front of their house needing repair and wanting to know where it ranked in terms of priorities. He said if the commissioners and TAS had these materials available no one would be caught off guard and such questions could be addressed. Rogers stated that he could have the requested information sent to Bell and the TAS shortly. Best asked for a more specific date stating that two potential public hearing dates were under consideration, April 30 or May 29. Best stated that there were many levels of review that the transportation plan materials would need to go through between now and the Public hearing. Rogers asked when the report was needed, stating that it was being prepared in draft form for the Planning Department and TAS review. Best referenced a TAS meeting tentatively scheduled for March 28 and the desirability of having it for inclusion in that agenda. Norwood reminded the TAS that the plan being prepared for the County was a long -range plan. He drew a distinction between this and the other documents being requested (TIP and Priority Paving List) as funding documents. Best said he understood, that his main concern was to be sure everything was covered. Best then mentioned taking the County portion of the plan, i.e., the classification system done by Kimley -Horn, to public hearing with the ultimate goal of having it incorporated into the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He mentioned that the classifications used by Kimley -Horn were more detailed than those used by DOT and asked if DOT had any problems with that. Norwood stated that DOT would have no major problems with it. Rogers mentioned a potential problem with Kimley- Horn's use of the classifications, principal and minor arterials. He stated that these classifications have state and national significance and may have future federal funding implications. Best asked for examples of DOT's use of these classifications. Rogers stated that I -85 was a principal arterial and minor would be a highway such as U.S. 15 -501 or N.C. 54. Reference was made to Kimley- Horn's classification system where N.C. 86 and U.S. 70 were principal arterials and in the state classification they were major collectors. 3