OUTBoard agenda 092017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Abigaile Pittman answered that the double tracks will not be done as much in Orange County because existing lines 808 will not be as high speed as in other counties and do not carry as much freight as do rail lines in some other counties. 809 However, she was told that rail right-of-way width in certain locations in the County will allow for some double-810 tracking. Traffic Separation Studies (TSS’s) help eliminate as many conflicts as possible and help sort out where 811 curves can be adjusted. 812 813 Donna Musson asked about the rationale of putting a roundabout there as an option. 814 815 Abigaile Pittman said that she had called the consultant to discuss this very question. She told him that the County 816 was submitting its comments in support of Option 2 but did not support the roundabout. Ms. Pittman’s impression 817 was that the consultant did not fully understand current conditions of the intersection and area. The County had its 818 own consultant do a study in the same area for the previously mentioned access management plan, which shows 819 that Buckhorn Road is going to need to be 4 lanes with a median and turn lanes. The roundabout would not suit 820 these future plans. In comparison, Mebane Oaks also only has about 600-650 ft. and this has not proved to be 821 sufficient. 822 823 Heidi Perry asked if the 4 lanes recommended for Buckhorn by the County’s consultant are planned, and if the TSS 824 considered this recommendation. 825 826 Abigaile Pittman said no, these two studies were not performed simultaneously. 827 828 Heidi Perry asked if the proposed roundabout would be a single lane roundabout? 829 830 Abigaile Pittman answered that the consultant did not specify the number of lanes for the roundabout, but the 831 concept appears to be a single lane. 832 833 Heidi Perry said that it would be interesting to know what may be built at that intersection. 834 835 Abigaile Pittman said that the consultant stressed to her that what they presented was “just a concept.” 836 837 Heidi Perry said that it would be hard for her to approve or disapprove a concept. 838 839 Abigaile Pittman said that Staff is not asking the Board to approve anything; that her presentation is just an update on 840 the courtesy review Staff completed on the TSS. 841 842 Heidi Perry asked if there would be any bicycle facilities as a part of this project. 843 844 Abigaile Pittman responded that this was not brought-up; however, there is a Buckhorn Road project to the south that 845 includes bike facilities that is still in the plans. She said that the department is hoping to coordinate with Mebane on 846 these projects on a regular basis. 847 848 7.B. MEBANE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP) 849 850 Abigaile Pittman explained that Mebane is working on its CTP with the consultant Ramey Kemp. This plan mostly 851 focuses on transportation improvements for the Mebane area. The plan includes three maps showing an area that 852 expands to Mount Willing Road. Orange County Staff was asked to provide a courtesy review since a portion of the 853 study area is in Orange County. She said that the she and the Planning Director provided comments that the plans 854 should be consistent with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Rural Planning Organization (RPO) 855 CTPS, and Orange County’s Access Management Plan. The proposed Mebane CTP is not entirely consistent with 856 these plans and does not include Orange County bike routes or access management routes, and did not 857 acknowledge that there should be consistency with Orange County plans. Mebane’s new Development Director 858 responded to the courtesy review comments by saying that County Staff’s feedback and additions would be 859 incorporated into the Mebane CTP. 860 861 18