OUTBoard minutes 102010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 11/17/10 1 MEETING MINUTES 1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING 2 OCTOBER 20, 2010 3 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Cole Baker, Pedestrian Access Safety Advocate; Julian (Randy) Marshall, Bingham 6 Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Leo Allison, Cheeks Township; 7 Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; 8 9 MEMBERS ABSENT: Al Terry, Transportation Services Board Representative; Planning Board Liaison-Vacant; Little 10 River Township-Vacant; Economic Development Commission-Vacant; Eno Township Representative-Vacant; CFE 11 Representative-Vacant; Hillsborough Township Representative-Vacant; 12 13 STAFF PRESENT: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Mila Vega, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Tina Love, 14 Administrative Assistant II 15 16 OTHERS PRESENT: Leta Huntsinger, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 17 18 I. Call to order 19 20 Nancy Baker called the meeting to order. 21 22 II. Consideration of additions to the agenda 23 24 Approval of Minutes 25 26 The OUTBoard approved the minutes from September 15, 2010 with corrections by affirmation. 27 28 III. NC 54 Corridor Study Update 29 30 Leta Huntsinger gave a PowerPoint presentation to the OUTBoard on the NC 54 Corridor Study. Leta advised that 31 draft came out in August and staff has been working on getting feedback from the public meetings. She noted that the 32 catalyst for the study came from a site plan for what is now called Lee Village, which has since gone away but not 33 before alerting the decision makers for the need to study the impact of future development in the area. It is a critical 34 corridor for the region that links southwest Durham and UNC/UNC hospital and provides connectivity to regional 35 travelers. The corridor currently carries about 45,000 vehicles per day. Based on the current adopted land use plans 36 and the long range transportation plan for the area, the current projection shows upwards of 70,000 vehicles per day 37 by the year 2035. The purpose of this comprehensive study is to lay the ground work for how to move forward, both 38 with land use and transportation, while keeping a vision of how the corridor will look like in the future. If this study is 39 adopted as the final report, it will inform the update of the long range plan. 40 41 Ms. Huntsinger answered questions and discussed with the OUTBoard members alternative transportation, bicycle, 42 pedestrian, rail, barriers, flex transit, expanded local service, and covered areas. Ms. Huntsinger noted that since this 43 study area sits on the county line and there are multiple jurisdictions, there is a challenge of whose market it is and 44 who provides transit and other services. She continued the study tries to get away from that by determining the 45 funding logistics of the service to be provided. Determining who will operate the service can come later. Ms. 46 Huntsinger, responding to questions, noted in terms of bicyclist, pedestrians, and connectivity, I-40 is a huge barrier. A 47 grade-separated crossing is the best way to cross I-40 for bikes and peds but it will be a huge expense. She noted 48 the study team also looked at an interchange design that was very bike/ped friendly but it wouldn’t hold up to the traffic 49 demand at the interchange. Ms. Huntsinger noted the full report is available on the website (www.nc54-50 i40corridorstudy.com) and each chapter can be downloaded individually. 51 52 Jeff Charles noted that in planning for bicyclists the need exist to plan for recreation cycling in addition to commuter 53 cycling to work or school. 54 55