OUTBoard agenda 032013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T x BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7)51 ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE:52 x Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8)53 x Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP 54 Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9)55 OUTBoard Action:To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners 56 for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting57 58 Paul Guthrienoted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and 59 the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC 60 retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard’scomments. 61 62 AbigailePittman reviewedtheCTP background and maps. 63 64 Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities,as it is not 65 fiscally constrained,to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. 66 67 Matthew Day, TARPOexplained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see 68 funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets 69 to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a projectscoresgoes into the decision on 70 what gets funded.71 72 Scott Walston, NCDOTexplainedthe difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps,73 illustrating with a drawingon the white board for the group.74 75 Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO 76 jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a 77 different stage and/oruses a different format so coordination is difficult,but the planning itself is simpler thanwhat 78 many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of 79 other planning jurisdictions and that becomessignificant as they need some background from the OUTBoard.80 81 Paul Guthrie commented that he thinksthe projections for the rural numbers for the Durham –Chapel Hill population 82 is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need moreimprovementsall the way to Orange Grove Road than what the 83 CTP calls for.84 85 Scott Walston, NCDOTnoted that the CTP Plangets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information.86 87 Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you 88 assess the populationusing NC 54 to commute, it does not all originatewithin Orange County,but a large 89 percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is 90 concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed thatChapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how 91 to factor the commuting patterninto the calculations oftraffic growth on NC 54. 92 93 Scott Walston, NCDOTadvised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional 94 Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict 95 their traffic patterns. 96 97 Matthew Day, TARPOadded that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than 98 it is now.99 100