Orange County NC Website
Approved 4/17/13 <br />• BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7) <br />ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE: <br />• Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8) <br />• Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP <br />Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9) <br />OUTBoard Action: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners <br />for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting <br />Paul Guthrie noted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and <br />the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC <br />retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard's comments. <br />Abigaile Pittman reviewed the CTP background and maps. <br />Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities, as it is not <br />fiscally constrained, to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. <br />Matthew Day, TARPO explained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see <br />funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets <br />to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a project scores goes into the decision on <br />what gets funded. <br />Scott Walston, NCDOT explained the difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps, <br />illustrating with a drawing on the white board for the group. <br />Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO <br />jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a <br />different stage and /or uses a different format so coordination is difficult, but the planning itself is simpler than what <br />many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of <br />other planning jurisdictions and that becomes significant as they need some background from the OUTBoard. <br />Paul Guthrie commented that he thinks the projections for the rural numbers for the Durham — Chapel Hill population <br />is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need more improvements all the way to Orange Grove Road than what the <br />CTP calls for. <br />Scott Walston, NCDOT noted that the CTP Plan gets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information. <br />Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you <br />assess the population using NC 54 to commute, it does not all originate within Orange County, but a large <br />percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is <br />concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed that Chapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how <br />to factor the commuting pattern into the calculations of traffic growth on NC 54. <br />Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional <br />Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict <br />their traffic patterns. <br />Matthew Day, TARPO added that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than <br />it is now. <br />