OUTBoard agenda 041917 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 4/17/13 Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in 101 Chapel Hill, noting that this puts some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. 102 103 Highway Map Comments: 104 Jeff Charles commented on the improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four-foot 105 wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated that Old NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because 106 of the line of sight deficiency. He noted that no one is going to ride on a road that is as dangerous as Old NC 86 is to 107 bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the 108 investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no 109 monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes 110 no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and 111 commuter cyclists in that area, such as new 86. The exception to that is the one project that is a pet project of the 112 cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the 113 Homestead/Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard 114 to accommodating bicycles/pedestrians is at the Dairyland/Homestead intersection. 115 116 Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have some traffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted 117 speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland-Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the 118 Post Office. 119 120 Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that traffic calming measures is something that needs to be discussed with the 121 Division 7 office. 122 123 Paul Guthrie commented that what goes on regarding the Rail Map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain 124 times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul 125 suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public 126 transportation rail in Orange County’s territory, there will be. 127 128 Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments: 129 130 Paul Guthrie referred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regarding the need of a footnote. 131 132 Bicycle Map Comments: 133 134 Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway 135 Map about the widening project on Old NC 86 that proposes four-foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in 136 actuality the Bicycle Map shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you 137 go the Composite Map (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham/Chapel Hill has the route on either side of it and 138 then DOT comes in and says now we are going to link it. Then it becomes part of the CTP and it is wrong thinking 139 and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some input on the DCHC part of 140 these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money 141 for bicycles on Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks 142 Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four-foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at 143 least on new NC 86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposed to Old NC 86 144 which is too dangerous. 145 146 Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeff’s comments on Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and 147 stated that she clearly sees the safety issue. But she is looking at it from a connectivity point of view and leaving that 148 out bothers her but the safety of having a four-foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP 149 designate this bike path as an off-road facility? 150 151 Attachment 2 34