OUTBoard minutes 011608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 3/19/08 3 The board discussed problems with the Transportation goal objectives as provided by the consultant: • There is no objective that addresses transportation planning that ensures walkable communities, mixed development. • The objectives are not as forward looking as they should be. The wording does not address what is necessary to accommodate a doubling of the population as envisioned by regional projections. • The objectives should also address how to finance transportation infrastructure to handle anticipated increase in population. • The objectives do not address the necessary coordination of land use goals/objectives with transportation goals/objectives. • The wording is too soft. Words like “encourage” and “improve” do not sufficiently describe a method or action to accomplish goals. • There should be an objective that addresses requiring transportation facilities to be included in development. • Objective T-3.4 Change “Encourage” to “Provide” and strike out the last part of the sentence after “cul-de-sacs”. (The phrase to be omitted, “in accordance with applicable policies respecting residential neighborhood integrity” negates the objective.) • Objectives 2.3 and 2.4 do not fit under Goal 2. • Objective T-2.3: add “and public service vehicle access” after “to ensure adequate emergency vehicle access”. • Move Objectives T-2.3 and T-2.4 to Goal 3. • Combine Objectives T-2.5 through T-2.7, and move those to Goal 1. • Objective T-3.3: Add “transportation” in between “multi-modal” and “improvements”. • Objective T-3.2: Change “transportation facilities” to “transportation improvements”. • Objective T-3.3: Change “improvement to provide service to lands in Economic Development Districts” to “improvements to provide service to Economic Development Districts”. The board agreed by consensus for the Chair, Vice Chair and staff to develop written comments to submit to the consultant. VI. Comments regarding the Draft 2009-2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Karen Lincoln explained that the OUTBoard should endorse comments to submit to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding the draft STIP. The BOCC must endorse comments at its meeting on February 5 in order to submit comments to the Metropolitan Planning Organization and to the NCDOT at the public comment meetings held by those agencies . NCDOT released the draft 2009-2015 STIP in October 2007 for public review, and will hold a public comment meeting for Division 7 on February 20 from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. at the Seymour Senior Center at the Southern Human Services Campus in Chapel Hill. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), at its meeting January 9, released the local supplement of the draft STIP as the Draft Metropolitan TIP (MTIP) for public comment, and will hold a public hearing at its meeting February 13 to allow public comment on the draft MTIP. She suggested that the OUTBoard submit applicable comments endorsed by that board for the previous TIP (2007-2013) since there were few changes for Orange County’s TIP projects in the proposed draft for 2009-2015. She also provided a list flagged items prepared by MPO staff, which the OUTBoard may wish to consider in its comments. ACTION: The board agreed by affirmation to resubmit applicable comments recommended by the OUTBoard for the 2007-2013 TIP for the 2009-2015 TIP (schedule a feasibility study for the Orange Grove Road pedestrian bridge over I-40 and fund 4-ft. paved shoulders on Dairyland Road from Union Grove Church Road to Orange Grove Road), along with its concern that cuts in appropriated federal transportation funds to North Carolina coupled with the rapid increase in construction costs have reduced funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian projects