OUTBoard agenda 101613 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

D R A F T route as part of that plan. He stated Orange County staff is suggesting that during the process of the adoption of the 56 DCHC MPO CTP for the portion of Orange County in their upcoming plan that this could be reviewed for that region,57 and could be amended to reflect that change.He noted that the New Sharon Church Road route suggested by 58 Orange County staff is about 1/3 longer than the St. Mary’s route. 59 60 Alex Castro referred to the new transportation prioritization on the state level and questioned how it affects 61 recreational bicycling. (redirected to next agenda item)62 63 Ted Triebelcommented that he frequently bicycles on St. Mary’s Road and finds no problem with it.He noted that 64 Guess Road is a problem.65 66 Annette Jurgelski noted that she lives on St. Mary’s Road and she agrees that it is not a good road for bicyclists. 67 68 Paul Guthrie expounded that the main concern that Jeff Charles has with St. Mary’s Road is the safety issue and the 69 lack of shoulder for improvements and the speed of the drivers on that road. Paul addedthat the issue is the 70 combinationofimprovement limitations and theclear and present danger of the speed and number of automobiles.71 72 Dale McKeel responded thatthe first step if bicycle improvements are wantedto St. Mary’s Road isto put it in a plan 73 and hopefully the funding will follow. 74 75 Sam Lasris asked about the rationale during the CTP process for New Sharon Church Road as the preferred regional 76 bicycle route.77 78 Paul Guthrie suggested that a motion be made and then discussion can follow. 79 80 The OUTBoard unanimously approved a motion to designate New Sharon Church Road as the designated route up 81 to Guess Road as it is currently shown on the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). 82 83 AlexCastro noteda reference to the map that was developed asthe community bicycle map designating New 84 Sharon Church Road as the designated route. (Rural Road Safety Coalition Popular Bike Routes). 85 86 Bret Martin reviewed the prioritization process and changes. Bret clarified points from the last meeting regarding 87 local input, which meansthe division engineers have to come up with objective,quantifiable scoring criteria for 88 projects in their divisions and that has to be approved by the NCDOT Board of Transportationbecausethat method89 hasn’t been developed yet. He advised that division engineers are left to come up with their own methodology for 90 determining local input points. Bret noted that the question for Dale McKeel is whetherour division and region can 91 adopt criteriasimilar toNCDOT Divisions 1 and 4 so that there is potential forbikeway/shoulderprojects that are over 92 1 million, whichused to be modernization projects,to be funded somehow. Bret addedthat he thinks it is possible for 93 Orange, Alamance, Caswell, Rockingham, and Guilford County to get together and try to adopt new criteria. It is not 94 going to be in place for the development of the current STIPwhich must be adopted by July 2015.95 96 Dale McKeel noted that this year there was only about a 4 or 5 week window to put something in place and noted 97 that hopefully,if it is something the Board would like to pursue, they can make a motion and send it up tothe elected 98 officials, then it can be brought to the MPO.99 100 The OUTBoard unanimously approved a motion to pursue the quantitative scoring criteria such as what was used by 101 NCDOT Division 1 and 4 that the state uses to score projects in the regional impact and division needs tiers. 102 103 104 AGENDA ITEM V: STATE AND MPOPROJECT PRIORITIZATION105 i.Consider and recommend new projects in the Triangle Area Rural Planning 106 Organization (TARPO) planning area boundary for the TARPO regional priority 107 list and 2016-2022 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and108 4