Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes <br />Division 7 and District 1 <br />November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m. <br />regarding the route options for Segment 11 because in some locations the <br />trail intersects with NCDOT roads. <br />Penny Rich stated that they need a map with all of the segments for the MST. <br />STAFF NOTE: Maps depicting proposed MST route segments have been <br />attached to these meeting notes. <br />Status: To be determined <br />c) Safety Improvements <br />i. Consideration of the signal warrant analysis for the Cates Creek Parkway/ <br />Lafayette Drive /S Churton Street intersection (Update) (Brian Lowen and <br />Mayor Stevens) <br />Margaret Hauth asked how many more warrants would need to be satisfied <br />for the warrant analysis at this intersection, and if Waterstone would be <br />responsible for a signal at this intersection when the warrant is met. <br />Chuck Edwards stated that a traffic impact analysis and traffic signal <br />warrant analysis were performed at the time of the development of <br />Waterstone based on national traffic control standards. The requested <br />traffic signal did not meet NCDOT's warrant requirements at that time. The <br />peak hours signal warrant were met but this is insufficient on its own, other <br />issues including safety and congestion are also factored into the warrant. <br />Additionally, Waterstone is still under development NCDOT does not <br />recommend a traffic signal at this time. He further noted that there are <br />opportunities within Waterstone for motorists to get to signalized <br />intersections. <br />Brian Lowen asked what warrant primarily drives a traffic signal. Chuck <br />Edwards replied that the predominant factor is traffic volumes. In this case <br />he felt that a signal analysis would depend on how much and how quickly <br />development will occur in Waterstone. Nish Trivedi added that SPOT <br />safety factors are included in the signal warrant analysis. Chuck Edwards <br />and Pat Wilson agreed, and stated that SPOT safety is a funding type <br />designed to correct a safety problem. <br />Chuck Edwards noted that the site has not developed as quickly as <br />originally anticipated, and stated that NCDOT is not in a position to require <br />the developer of Waterstone to pay for a traffic signal when it becomes <br />warranted because the original warrants were not met. Although there is <br />an issue of maintaining the network the State does not have any leverage <br />to require a traffic signal. Margaret Hauth added that the traffic volume on <br />59 <br />