04.15.2024 OUTboard - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the W Radio Station. N. Trivedi: I told our communications team who does all of the public engagement with news for Orange 102 County to use all available resources. S. Appel: If you provided a press release to the News of Orange and it’s clean and not too 103 long, they will run it verbatim. And you can do the same on Chapelboro’s website and the radio station. NN: Got it. 104 105 S. Appel: How many people so far have you had feedback from? NN: So far we’ve spoken to a lot of people at the pops-up, but 106 I’d have to ask our public engagement person how many people have responded to the survey so far. Closer to 100. There was 107 a question regarding using the Daily Tarheel for surveys. N. Trivedi explained that since Chapel Hill Transit was doing its own 108 SRTP, the County will participate when they do theirs. NN: explained that they want to get views from the whole County but be 109 careful of getting results from people in Chapel Hill who only take Chapel Hill Transit. 110 111 5.b. US 70 Multimodal Corridor Study 112 113 N. Trivedi presented the final study results. 114 115 G. Woloszczuk: Do we have any data on bike lane usage? I was almost run over on the sidewalk. N. Trivedi: Near misses don’t 116 get reported. Hillsborough and Mebane Bike-Ped data fed this plan. Orange County hasn’t done it yet but will be doing one next 117 year. This plan addresses our data gap. 118 119 R. Marshall: How is 70 classified, is it a thoroughfare or? N. Trivedi: Federal Highway. It is considered a Federal Highway like I-120 40. I can get you documentation on this. R. Marshall: So who officiates in terms of access? Are there Federal officials who 121 determine if you can add a business driveway or other things? N. Trivedi: NCDOT and federal agencies. 122 123 R. Marshall: Are we trying to be more of a Complete Streets project or get people from Durham to Mebane? N. Trivedi: I’m about 124 to cover that in the recommendations. Recommendations include reducing the speed in specific areas including the urbanized 125 areas. 126 127 G. Woloszczuk asked how reducing speed would reduce accidents. J. Mayo: Reduced speed and multilane seem like a tough 128 combination to work like in MLK, even with development on both sides, folks are going well over 35. I have concerns about the 129 lack of future demand shown in the document. I don’t think I saw anything in future traffic numbers that will justify four lanes. 130 131 S. Appel: The railroads own a lot of the rideway to the South of 70 from the last part of Hillsborough all along to Mebane; have 132 they been engaged in this process, this vision? N. Trivedi: Yes. NCDOT (IMD and Railroad) is part of the Core Technical Team and 133 has been from the beginning. We will forward these comments as part of the public engagement portion to the consultant. 134 135 J. Mayo: How does that play into the SRTP, especially given that the existing conditions highlight that the Oange-Alamance 136 Connector may be better served by demand response? N. Trivedi: Or reorganizing that fixed route for better service because this 137 plan’s transit recommendations will feed into that plan as this is locally adopted. J. Mayo: So, the 70 plan would feed the SRTP 138 recommendation? N. Trivedi : Yes. J. Mayo: Even though the Transit experts are on the SRTP? N. Trivedi: That’s something we can 139 discuss when we get to the SRTP recommendations as one document feeds the other. Further recommendation slides were 140 shown, and both Durham and GoTriangle SRTP informed this process. 141 142 A. Cole: You presented this last month, N. Trivedi. Last month we were asked to submit our comments. N. Trivedi : I presented 143 the recommendations, and I gave you the whole document, and you had a month to review this. A. Cole: If you weren’t here 144 that’s one thing, but we were given a presentation last month, and we were asked to provide comments. I also feel like you did 145 your due diligence, in giving us the time that we wanted to provide feedback. You provided last time where those heavy traffic 146 areas are, and I didn’t see that in this report today but what I’m not clear on is the true goal of widening 70 besides those five key 147 things we’re talking about at the beginning which are completely contradictory to the plan of 70. We talked about preserving 148 nature, and rural communities, and then we talked about what we want to do to widen roads but those are very contradictory to 149 me. So, I don’t understand what our true goal is. Whether or not it’s to get people off 70 or to make it easier for people to drive on 150 70. And we have a parallel road which is I-85 which is expected to be widened by the time frame of what we’re proposing to 151 widen 70. So, either our goal is to get people off of one, or off of the other. And if the goal is to get people off 70 and on to 85, then 152 I don’t think we need to widen it if we want to make it into a rural space with the bike-ped stuff. If you keep it as is and make it a 153