Browse
Search
OUTBoard agenda 032013
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Agendas
>
2013
>
OUTBoard agenda 032013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/26/2018 12:02:54 PM
Creation date
3/26/2018 12:02:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/20/2013
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OUTBoard minutes 032013
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
D R A F T <br />Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in 101 <br />Chapel Hill, noting that thisputs some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. 102 <br />103 <br />Highway Map Comments:104 <br />Jeff Charles commented onthe improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four-foot105 <br />wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated thatOld NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because 106 <br />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 isto 107 <br />bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the 108 <br />investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no 109 <br />monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes 110 <br />no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and111 <br />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 <br />cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the 113 <br />Homestead/Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard 114 <br />toaccommodating bicycles/pedestriansis at the Dairyland/Homestead intersection.115 <br />116 <br />Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have sometraffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted 117 <br />speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland-Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the 118 <br />Post Office. 119 <br />120 <br />Scott Walston, NCDOTadvised that traffic calming measures issomething that needs to be discussed with the 121 <br />Division 7 office.122 <br />123 <br />Paul Guthrie commented thatwhat goes on regarding the Rail Map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain 124 <br />times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul 125 <br />suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public 126 <br />transportation rail in Orange County’s territory, there will be.127 <br />128 <br />Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments:129 <br />130 <br />PaulGuthriereferred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regardingthe need of a footnote.131 <br />132 <br />Bicycle Map Comments:133 <br />134 <br />Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway 135 <br />Map about the widening project on Old NC 86that proposes four-foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in 136 <br />actuality the BicycleMap shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you 137 <br />gothe CompositeMap (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham/Chapel Hill hasthe routeon either side of it and 138 <br />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 <br />and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some inputon the DCHC part of 140 <br />these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money 141 <br />for bicycleson Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks 142 <br />Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four-foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at 143 <br />least onnew NC86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposedto OldNC86 144 <br />which is too dangerous.145 <br />146 <br />Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeff’s commentson Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and 147 <br />stated thatshe clearly sees the safety issue. Butshe is looking at it from a connectivity point of viewand leaving that 148 <br />out bothers her but the safety of having a four-foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP 149 <br />designate thisbike path as an off-road facility?150 <br />151
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.