Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Approved 10/16/19 <br /> 325 road is dangerous. The idea I have is to encourage the DOT to meet the expectations of the county and Carrboro. If there <br /> 326 were bike-ped improvements on either side of that sector of the corridor,would the DOT be more inclined to think about that <br /> 327 specific short piece of very dangerous road and possibly think of the idea that they are falling behind the other <br /> 328 municipalities? <br /> 329 <br /> 330 Zachary Hallock: The map is to tell the MPO that these are the projects that we like to prioritize and might someday submit <br /> 331 to SPOT. DOT will see that these are our priorities, but we can't bind them into anything. <br /> 332 <br /> 333 Erik Broo: Is there any way to encourage them through action? <br /> 334 <br /> 335 Nish Trivedi: The other issue to remember is the local match requirement with bike-ped projects. It's not just simply <br /> 336 identifying a bike—ped project or improvement, it's who is going to pay for it and who is going to administer that project and <br /> 337 monitor DOT doing the work. Is putting the local jurisdictions responsible. The cost plays a big part in who is paying, doing, <br /> 338 and administering the project and the DOT is putting this onto the jurisdictions more and more. <br /> 339 <br /> 340 Alyson West: What's the plan for restarting the conversations on the Greenways that have been adopted that are not be <br /> 341 discussed right now. <br /> 342 <br /> 343 Zachary Hallock: That's a discussion for the Carrboro Board of Alderman. <br /> 344 <br /> 345 Alyson West: Do they have a plan to restart the conversation, or are they just stalled? <br /> 346 <br /> 347 Zachary Hallock: They have a time point have to have the current conversation completed by. I think it is sometime next <br /> 348 year. <br /> 349 <br /> 350 Alyson West: Regarding the short-term and long-term priorities in the draft plan and the idea of the long-term big picture <br /> 351 ideas; are there funding implications for not having specific facilities listed in the bike plan? <br /> 352 <br /> 353 Zachary Hallock: The reason for not putting some of those on the map was based on some of the reactions we have gotten <br /> 354 in the past for putting things on maps. We wanted to make sure it was still the plan to get covered. <br /> 355 <br /> 356 Alyson West: Does it fall out of the CTP and the other bigger plans? <br /> 357 <br /> 358 Zachary Hallock: Those are separate amendments that would have to happen anyway. Once this is adopted, and we <br /> 359 decide to amend the MTO/CTP/or MTP we could include those. <br /> 360 <br /> 361 Alyson West: Keeping the Old 86 segment in the plan is important for keeping it listed in the prioritization, even if it's not <br /> 362 scoring well, right? <br /> 363 <br /> 364 Zachary Hallock: Yes. <br /> 365 <br /> 366 Alyson West: I'm just worried that some of these things not been in the plan are going to prolong their funding or being able <br /> 367 to move forward. <br /> 368 <br /> 369 Zachary Hallock: As it stands right now, there are no protected bike lanes anywhere on a NCDOT maintained road in the <br /> 370 state. I think the idea would hinge on Jones Ferry being successful and then saying; can we show all the protected bike <br /> 371 lanes that we are interested in? <br /> 372 <br /> 373 AGENDA ITEM 6: STAFF REPORTS/UPDATES <br /> 374 <br /> 375 AGENDA ITEM 7: INFORMATION ITEMS <br /> 376 <br /> 377 AGENDA ITEM 7A: CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT NORTH-SOUTH BUS RAPID TRANSIT LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (NISH <br /> 378 TRIVEDI) <br /> 7 <br />