Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
160 <br />Bret Martin: Answered general questions about the proposed BGMPO projects. He explained how the 161 <br />proposed Mattress Factory Road interchange is related to the planned improvements for Mebane Oaks Road to 162 <br />the west in Mebane. He explained that the focus of all the projects was economic development. 163 <br />164 <br />MOTION made) by Alex Castro to approve the recommended BGMPO list to the BOCC to submit to the MPOs 165 <br />and RPOs for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 166 <br />(STIP). Seconded by Art Menius. 167 <br />Vote: Unanimous 168 <br />169 <br />TARPO List 170 <br />171 <br />Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. 172 <br />173 <br />Bonnie Hauser: Asked whether consideration has been given to improving the connection of Efland-Cedar 174 <br />Grove Road to US 70 and the interstate, which would improve economic development in Efland. 175 <br />176 <br />Heidi Perry: Asked about making adjustments to the scoring methodology to improve prioritization of bike and 177 <br />pedestrian projects. 178 <br />179 <br />Bret Martin: Explained that for SPOT 3.0 it had been allowed that Divisions and Regions come up with their own 180 <br />highway scoring criteria, which improved the scoring of some widening projects and allowed for bike lanes. This 181 <br />was done in the eastern portion of the state, but here we have to get 6 different MPOs and RPOs to approve 182 <br />this. It is possible but strategically complex. 183 <br />184 <br />Heidi Perry: I don’t think I can support the NC 54 widening or alternative operational improvements project 185 <br />unless you take out the word’ widening’ and use ‘alternative operational improvements’ because I feel like a four-186 <br />lane divided highway is excessive. 187 <br />188 <br />Alex Castro: I agree. The simple answer for improvements on NC 54 in Carrboro is signals. 189 <br />190 <br />Bret Martin: The Town of Carrboro is support of that. That is the direction we are looking to see if we can 191 <br />address the problem with signals first. DOT is looking at the problem for a long term solution. If you add storage 192 <br />for left and right lanes, you have pretty much added a lane so that is an issue as well. 193 <br />194 <br />Paul Guthrie: One of the problems is the conflict between having this process where you put things on a list a 195 <br />long time in advance so they will be done, and the fact that in a very high growth area, that is not good enough. 196 <br />That road is in a high growth area. This process we have here hurts the ability to do long range planning in the 197 <br />sense you have to force this thing and you usually build the wrong thing as a temporary fix. The idea of traffic 198 <br />lights will work. 199 <br />200 <br />Art Menius: I’m not as confident that the growth is going to continue due to the land locked nature of Chapel Hill 201 <br />and Carrboro, considering the rural buffer. More importantly I am doubtful given the tenor of the state university 202 <br />that the university or hospital will be adding jobs at the rate they have in the last 20 years. 203 <br />204 <br />205 MOTION madeby Alex Castro to approve recommendation with changesto 1 and 2 with no ‘widening’andonly <br />206 alternative operational improvements’on theNC 54 projects. Seconded byArt Menius. <br />207 Vote: 1 opposed (DavidLaudicina . <br />208 <br />MOTION made by Heidi Perry to validate the discussion about scoring with regard to highway projects in order 209 <br />to improve the scoring for bike/ped projects. Seconded by Amy Cole. 210 <br />Vote: Unanimous. 211 <br />212 <br />6