Browse
Search
OUTBoard minutes 051706
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
OUTBoard minutes 051706
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2018 3:30:25 PM
Creation date
5/31/2018 3:30:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/17/2006
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
<br /> <br /> 3 <br />Barry Jacobs: As you can see, there is a blizzard of acronyms and rules relating to 90 <br />transportation. Counties have extremely limited opportunity for change. With this group, we 91 <br />can look for creative ways to work with the laws. For example, a pedestrian bridge across I-40 92 <br />on Orange Grove Road was able to move up on the Long Term TIP, due to community efforts. 93 <br /> 94 <br />Alice Gordon: Orange County is recognized as being aggressive with transportation 95 <br />opportunities. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO is very supportive of our County efforts. 96 <br />Also, we need to keep in mind that there are three overlapping NCDOT divisions within our 97 <br />MPO. 98 <br /> 99 <br />Jan Grossman: If NCDOT wanted to widen the Interstate, do we have a say in that? 100 <br /> 101 <br />Alice Gordon: We have a voice, however our impact on the actual decision may be minimal. 102 <br /> 103 <br />Bryn Smith: So, we’re really like a noise-making group. 104 <br /> 105 <br />Barry Jacobs: There is a proposal made by the mayors within the RPO to the County 106 <br />Commissioners to raise transportation funds in the local areas. The Capital Area MPO tends to 107 <br />be more road oriented. The Durham MPO is about 50/50 towards road improvements. Locally, 108 <br />we are not as road oriented. If this does get approval by the various BOCC’s, we could have 109 <br />more control or say over what gets done in our areas. The County Commissioners may not want 110 <br />to take the lead, however. 111 <br /> 112 <br />Alice Gordon: Each MPO has different legislative agendas and revenue sources. 113 <br /> 114 <br />Craig Benedict: Another opportunity is that the focus of NCDOT is to build roads, and they may 115 <br />not look closely at other efficient situations, such as using service roads instead of widening the 116 <br />roads. Your input on these matters may help with designing programs overall. 117 <br /> 118 <br />Karen Lincoln: With federally funded projects, there is a public involvement process. More 119 <br />projects will need to be looked at locally in the future. A comprehensive transportation plan has 120 <br />replaced thoroughfare plans. I will plan to develop a list of acronyms. 121 <br /> 122 <br />Al Terry: NCDOT has numerous acronyms on its website under the Highway Division, but is it 123 <br />several pages long. 124 <br /> 125 <br />Karen Lincoln: I will try to send the weblink to the Board members, as its difficult to find things 126 <br />on the DOT website. Another area this Board will be reviewing is traffic demand management 127 <br />ideas, and possibly proposals for businesses. 128 <br /> 129 <br />Craig Benedict: Traffic Demand Management, also called TDM, includes areas such as Park-130 <br />and-Ride lots, telecommuting options, flex hours and the like. 131 <br /> 132 <br />Jan Grossman: Are there TDMs for subdivision plans? 133 <br /> 134
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.