OUTBoard minutes 082708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 9/27/08 5 change the development focus. Bike lanes, pedestrian walkways, parking space limits, and land uses were 207 discussed. 208 209 Sam and the board thanked Andy for the presentation and his time. 210 211 VI. Orange County Priority List for the 2011-2017 TIP 212 213 Jan noted that Eubanks road in particular will need to be improved due to the multiple new large facilities located 214 there. It is an artery between NC 86 and Old NC 86. In particular, the intersection at Old NC 86 and Eubanks Road 215 is problematic. There is also a need for a bike lane there. 216 217 Karen Lincoln explained a handout of the ranking methodology for priority projects for the DCHC MPO and revisions 218 to the criteria and scoring. She noted the addition of a category for regional connectivity for bike projects, and called 219 the board’s attention to page 2 of the handout, screening criteria for local priority projects (how well the project meets 220 adopted regional goals, cost effectiveness of the project and if timing is critical for the project). She also noted a 221 handout of “NCDOT General Guidance - TIP Project Priority Rating System” defining key aspects of an ideal 222 transportation system as mobility, accessibility, safety, environmental preservation, multi-modal connectivity, 223 economic vitality, and the preservation of existing systems, and noted that these aspects are some of the goals the 224 OUTBoard proposed in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Something else you might find 225 interesting, this is Orange County priority list from 1994 for the 1996-2002 TIP. The number 1 project was 226 Homestead Rd. improvements, which is still on the current list. The list also provides comments on the I-85 widening 227 project that the County continues to provide. Some of the countywide transportation issues mentioned have just 228 recently been funded such as intersection improvements at NC 54 and Southern Drive and other projects are still 229 currently needed such as intersection improvements at NC 86 and US 70 bypass. The priority list also included a 230 request for a feasibility study for am AMTRAK station in Hillsborough. 231 232 Karen went over attachment s 5 and 6, Orange County’s Priority Lists submitted to the MPO for the 2009-2015 MTIP 233 and to the RPO for the 2009-2015 STIP. She noted that Commissioner Jacobs, at the Board of County 234 Commissioners meeting at which the commissioners approved those lists, had requested several changes to be 235 considered for the next priority list. One change would be to change the description in the request to widen NC 86 236 north of Hillsborough to stop the project at NC 57. She explained that the original request was to widen NC 86 from 237 US 70 Bypass to NC 57, and the description was changed at the MPO level to continue the widening to the 238 Metropolitan Area Boundary. Orange County does not want that road widened beyond NC 57 due to the inability for 239 the road to handle more traffic through the intersection at US 70 and through Hillsborough to get to I-85. Sam stated 240 that he opposed changing the description because the road is the major regional route in the northern Orange 241 County and has a lot of traffic. It should be improved. 242 243 There was discussion on Elizabeth Brady extension and why it isn’t on the list. Karen related that the project is fully 244 funded in the current TIP and has advanced this far because the Town Board has consistently requested it as its 245 number one priority since 1996, when Hillsborough requested it for the 2004-2010 TIP. In 2001 a joint (Hillsborough 246 and Orange County) economic development transportation group developed a consensus that the project was 247 needed and both Orange County and Hillsborough adopted the groups recommendations. Orange County joined 248 Hillsborough to request the project, with many comments regarding its construction, as its number one priority for the 249 2004/2010 TIP. That is the only time Orange County has included it on the TIP. 250 251 The board discussed the western bypass and was informed that it has been in the TIP for many years as an 252 unfunded project and there has not yet been a feasibility study. Jan pointed that this route would use an existing 253 bridge over the Eno but would be on the other side of Hillsborough. Pat Strong noted that on the 2004/2010 TIP that 254 project may have actually been allocated some funding for right of way but that funding has been removed since 255 then. Sam asked if it there was a need to put it on the TIP priority list. The response was that there is nothing to 256 support the project. 257 258