Browse
Search
OUTBoard agenda 101718
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Agendas
>
2018
>
OUTBoard agenda 101718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2018 4:06:43 PM
Creation date
11/13/2018 4:06:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
10/17/2018
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
OUTBoard minutes 101718
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
168 <br />Alex Castro: I see 4 crossings of the railroad, I am familiar with one at Mt Willing Rd where a young woman was racing 169 <br />the train and did not make it at that crossing, so my question is, what kind of road modifications will be made if the 170 <br />railroad does not want any more at-grade crossings with increase of traffic flow, is there any thought of reconfiguring 171 <br />those roads so they are no longer at-grade crossings? The crossings are there, they are major roads. 172 <br /> 173 <br />Nish Trivedi: The Plan does not go into any detail about what specific crossing will be closed. It does not make any 174 <br />recommendations at any railroad crossing. Some intersections with the railroad are identified in the Plan as needing 175 <br />additional study. 176 <br /> 177 <br />Alex Castro: No at-grade crossing between 85 to 70 and the segment I am looking at on page 66; it just shows the 178 <br />railroad. If they close all those at-grade crossings and you can’t get from 70 down to 85 in this area and if you are 179 <br />coming out of the Economic Development Zone you are not going to get up there. The big rail crossings are Buckhorn 180 <br />Road and Mt Willing Rd. I know this Board with the Planning Department looked at what was going to be done in terms 181 <br />of the traffic flow down Buckhorn Road and the railroad and some of the proposals were ludicrous down to tractor trailers 182 <br />being able to manage the roundabouts they were proposing. 183 <br /> 184 <br />Abigaile Pittman: That was part of Mebane Traffic Separation Study that was done, which studied about 5 existing 185 <br />crossing. The Study recommended closing a couple and 3 were remaining. For Buckhorn they did 3 different options for 186 <br />doing an overpass and the Orange County Planning staff had a preference that varied somewhat – A connection with 187 <br />Frasier Road was favored, but without a round-about on Buckhorn Road just north of the interstate interchange. 188 <br /> 189 <br />Alex Castro: Some were problematic like the one where that accident occurred. That is very difficult for tractor trailers 190 <br />and are also a problem for low-boy trailers that get hung up because of the crest of the railroad crossing and so, that is 191 <br />why I brought up the question. The railroad is not going away, and you are talking about access management road 192 <br />improvements and they co-inhabit, and you must co-exist with the railroad and how are you dealing where they meet. 193 <br /> 194 <br />Abigaile Pittman: The railroad also has some plan to alter the curve to make it less sharp because of the future train 195 <br />speed increase. More planning needs to be done at the intersection of Buckhorn Road and the railroad. If you ever 196 <br />want to see the Mebane Traffic Separation Study it is on the City of Mebane Website. The railroad will not have the 197 <br />much higher speeds in Orange County as in other counties. 198 <br /> 199 <br />5.0 Staff Updates 200 201 <br />5a MPO/RPO and NCDOT (Nish Trivdei) Materials to be provided at Meeting 202 <br />OUTBoard Action: Receive Information. 203 <br /> 204 <br />Abigaile Pittman passed out project updates for the Burlington-Graham MPO which was not available at the time the 205 <br />agenda packet was distributed. 206 <br /> 207 <br />Alex Castro: Question, Hwy 54 Corridor. Temporary traffic lights. They have been removed. Do you have any 208 <br />information about what they found out about the lights, the effectiveness, traffic, cross traffic or any other results of the 209 <br />test period? 210 <br /> 211 <br />Nish Trivedi: I can find out for you. 212 <br /> 213 <br />Alex Castro: The lights were removed completely. They were active for about 60 days at most. They were installed for 214 <br />longer than that. A lot of people were complaining that it was causing traffic problems. 215 <br /> 216 <br />Heidi Perry: Was it signalization timing or something else? 217 <br /> 218 <br />Nish Trivedi: It slowed down traffic. It was supposed to improve the traffic. 219 <br /> 220 <br />Alex Castro: They put one at Hatch Rd and one at Neville and both roads were one way, the north side of both roads 221 <br />were a dead end at 54, Hatch goes a little further but basically, they were a dead end at 54 and it was to prevent traffic to 222 <br />flow out of Neville up 54 during the rush hour. 223 <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.