Browse
Search
OUTBoard Minutes - 081920
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Minutes
>
2020
>
OUTBoard Minutes - 081920
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 8:35:39 PM
Creation date
6/15/2021 8:33:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/19/2020
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
Document Relationships
OUTBoard Agenda Packet - 081920
(Attachment)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Agendas\2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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 9/16/20 <br /> 54 <br /> 55 Nish Trivedi: No, the first 13 are seeking your approval for complete street consideration so that they can have the <br /> 56 option for any multimodal improvements like sidewalk, side paths, and transit stops paid by NCDOT. Later, I will need <br /> 57 you to recommend we study US-70. <br /> 58 <br /> 59 Heidi Perry: Why wouldn't you say future projects should have Complete Street Policy applied? <br /> 60 <br /> 61 Nish Trivedi: I am getting push back from MPO and NCDOT. They are considering it, but they are not pushing this <br /> 62 forward. Right now I'm trying to get local support, your support and BOCC support. If I can show local support, <br /> 63 perhaps they will push this forward. I am also showing you the data that goes with them. In your attachment, the first <br /> 64 13 sheets include that data that goes with these projects already in the CTP. I don't want them to go ahead with their <br /> 65 amendment and these projects not get Complete Street consideration. <br /> 66 <br /> 67 Heidi Perry: Simply confused by the wording. If they will be considered for Complete Streets great,just use Complete <br /> 68 Streets. <br /> 69 <br /> 70 Heidi Perry: Can LOS be removed? <br /> 71 <br /> 72 Nish Trivedi: It is standard practice for NCDOT and MPO because it is used to measure capacity for a road. It is like <br /> 73 a letter grade on a road to see if it will fail in the future. It is simply the division of Future Volume over the total <br /> 74 Capacity of the road. Due to development, certain corridors in the County will fail in the future. <br /> 75 <br /> 76 Heidi Perry: I understand NCDOT's use but if we are going to have more people or destinations, we should be <br /> 77 thinking more about how we move them without more vehicles on the road. It is tied to road widening. <br /> 78 <br /> 79 Tony Blake: LOS is more about the quality of the road. It is also about how traffic backs up, delays, intersections, <br /> 80 signalization, it is used for lot of things. <br /> 81 <br /> 82 Eric Broo: Downtown Chapel Hill took out a couple lanes and driving there was great. Even though LOS has gone <br /> 83 down, my enjoyment has gone up. I understand Heidi Perry's point on LOS and widening. <br /> 84 <br /> 85 Nish Trivedi: Just to clarify. Staff is not recommending any widening.We are not using LOS to widen the road, <br /> 86 mainly to show the future failure of the road and something needs to be done about it. <br /> 87 <br /> 88 Eric Broo: When they consider LOS do they consider other modes or just vehicles? <br /> 89 <br /> 90 Nish Trivedi: NCDOT has gotten to use LOS to measure safety of the road. They are working on the data and <br /> 91 clarifying it but have not published it. It is supposed to include other users, not just vehicular. <br /> 92 <br /> 93 Eric Broo: NC-86 from Caswell to Chatham cuts through the heart of Chapel Hill. Do they see fright going through <br /> 94 the area? I hope truckers don't take their freight through the campus. <br /> 95 <br /> 96 Nish Trivedi: NC-86 is a strategic freight corridor and it does have some freight. The Chapel Hill has already <br /> 97 approved the Locally Preferred Alternative for the NS BRT. <br /> 98 <br /> 99 Nish provided a summary of Environmental Justice Report focusing on County Level analysis. <br /> 100 <br /> 101 Nish Trivedi: When a block group meets multiple county thresholds, it is a Community of Concern. The highlighted <br /> 102 areas are the block groups that meet 4 or more overlapping criteria and Communities of Concerns. These are areas <br /> 103 that need special focus on transportation improvements. Just to remind everyone, staff is not recommending <br /> 104 widening, adding additional lanes or addressing substandard conditions. We are mainly recommending regional <br /> 105 corridors like NC and US and part of Orange Grove Road and New Hope Church Road because they are school <br /> 106 areas. Like the Access Management Plan,we are recommending these corridors be considered for multimodal. <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.