Browse
Search
110420 Virtual Planning Board Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
110420 Virtual Planning Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 8:12:37 PM
Creation date
6/15/2021 8:11:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/4/2020
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
Planning Board - 110420 Agenda Packet
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2020
Planning Board - 110420 Attachment 1
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange County Planning Board\Agendas\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Approved 1/6/21 <br /> 169 the property owner and monitored by the County because it is a rezoning and we have to ensure that what was in that <br /> 170 master plan document continues in the future. <br /> 171 <br /> 172 Adam Beeman: The traffic analysis, has that taken into account all the residents that get off that exit every day to go home. <br /> 173 I'm one of those residents and I'm not feeling the shutdown of exit 160. You offer me no alternatives to get home other <br /> 174 than running through traffic lights that I don't have to do now. Why can't those driveways come out to the intersection <br /> 175 where you want to put lights? If you were to put a light at the intersection,why can't your driveways come out there and not <br /> 176 be on that ramp? I understand NCDOT's long-term plan but there's no way to address any of the residents that live north of <br /> 177 Hwy. 70, I'm of those thousands of residents that get off that exit every day and I know you've estimated 185 seconds but 1 <br /> 178 don't believe that, if I get caught at that light, I'm going to go up and over and get caught at another light so that adding at <br /> 179 least 3 or 4 minutes to my commute just to get off the ramp. I don't know why we have to have the right in/right out and lose <br /> 180 the 160 exit. Right now, a lot of us depend on getting off that exit and getting home, it's the only way for us to get home. <br /> 181 <br /> 182 Earl Lewellyn: The first and biggest concern is that with the additional increase in traffic,whether it from this project or <br /> 183 another,that the weaving area between the ramps combined with the speed of exiting traffic onto the service road whether <br /> 184 there's another ramp there or not, is in fact a problem from a capacity standpoint and a safety standpoint. It may not be <br /> 185 dramatic today but with increases in traffic,whether the accesses occur onto the service road or not,that traffic if it is going <br /> 186 westbound still has to use that facility to get east and west. That is the biggest criteria. We have struggled with trying to <br /> 187 find options as well that would satisfy DOT's criteria, maintaining access for the public through the existing path. The <br /> 188 reason we did the comparison is because we always hear people say they had to wait at a traffic signal. In these <br /> 189 operations,traffic signals probably along Mt.Willing Road, cycle lengths are going to be somewhere in the nature of 60 to <br /> 190 70 seconds. Cycle lengths along the US 70 connector and the interchange ramps along the US 70 connector are probably <br /> 191 going to be in the order of 90 seconds just given the volumes and the number of phases that have to be there. That is what <br /> 192 is driving the travel time that we mentioned. It's basically the delay at the signals and it depends on when you hit the signal <br /> 193 and that's why there is variation in those times from the simulations and simply just traveling along the street. We feel that <br /> 194 is very accurate and calibrated with current conditions. <br /> 195 <br /> 196 Adam Beeman: You are inserting two light into the equation that right now we don't have to contend with at all the biggest <br /> 197 contention is coming off the ramp and hitting the stop sign on Mt. Willing and hanging a right and going out into the country. <br /> 198 We will have to come of 161, hit a light,come back up over that ramp, hit another light and then continue on our route. If <br /> 199 there was the 70/85 connector that didn't force us into Hillsborough and you could make a left onto 70 then I would say <br /> 200 have at it and do what you have to do but that interjection of those two lights is going to make a huge difference on a lot of <br /> 201 people's lives in northern Orange County. There is no other way for us to get there. If we take the 85 connector it forces us <br /> 202 down 70 and you have to ride up 86 or you have to come back up. There is no good way. I think a lot of people aren't <br /> 203 going to be happy. I don't know the answer to it but I'm not happy about the lights. I understand the timing and the queues <br /> 204 and add Buc-ee's traffic now the commuters have to contend with all the traffic in and out of your store. It's going to be a <br /> 205 real turn off for the residents north of the County. 1,for one, I want the development but I'm not a fan of how you are going <br /> 206 to get this traffic flow. It is going to have a huge impact on a lot of people out in Northern Orange County. A lot of people <br /> 207 come from Virginia down Efland-Cedar Grove. I don't know why there are so many driveways. If you could stay away from <br /> 208 Mt.Willing at all costs,then it might negate some of the impact but there are a lot of people who travel out to the country to <br /> 209 go home and come to the highway to go to work every day. <br /> 210 <br /> 211 Earl Lewellyn: I respect what you are saying. I actually live not too far away and travel through this area myself. Most <br /> 212 often on the weekends, occasionally during the week. I certainly don't want this to be a problem area either. That is why we <br /> 213 did the comparison to quantify how much additional time will be spent just traveling whether it's that signal or traveling <br /> 214 through there. The other thing to keep in mind is these right in and out assess points,traffic on the service road will <br /> 215 continue moving through and there will be two lanes all the way through so we have to keep that in mind. The real reason <br /> 216 we're doing this is primarily safety and capacity that is related to the existing exit 160 configuration. <br /> 217 <br /> 218 Stan Beard: There is no getting around the aggravation that all the Efland folks feel about this situation. If I were part of <br /> 219 that, I would have that same aggravation.What we have strived to do all along,from the first day we met with the local DOT <br /> 220 engineer and moving through the various planning stages with those guys to figure out a way to make this work for <br /> 221 everybody. They were adamant that our development or any development at this tract,this 100 acres on 40/85, if any <br /> 222 development came along, it would trigger some fairly massive traffic changes. As we all know, no one likes to say it and no <br /> 223 one wants to hear it,with growth comes some shifts in traffic patterns and habits. Where we are here is that most <br /> 224 intersections east of here and plenty of intersections west of here are all lit. When you get down to the bottom of the ramp, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.