04.15.2024 OUTboard - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

rural area preserving nature and putting bike paths on there, people are more likely to use it for those means. But if you’re 154 widening it, I think you’re reducing the likelihood of that going to happen, and I just don’t understand why we’re trying to widen 155 both of those roads. I’m missing something. N. Trivedi: If you look at the existing conditions report, we reviewed it last year, it 156 showed streetlight and modeling data analysis, that 85 wasn't the commuting pattern for the corridor. A. Cole: But if it was 157 widened. N. Trivedi: Data analysis-wise, the study uses the adopted TRM, which includes I-85 widening. Future growth will 158 continue along the corridor itself, affecting local commuting between Mebane and Hillsborough and Durham. A. Cole: So, when 159 you analyzed the traffic density, do we have the parallel data to show how densely populated I-85 was at that same time? It’s 160 congested. If you’re a local person, you’re going to get off and take 70. Do we have the data that says 85 traffic is congested at 161 the same time as 70? N. Trivedi : It is the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) data that shows the future impact of population and 162 employment growth impact on the transportation infrastructure. This data is adopted with the MTP and used by all consultants 163 for all traffic studies. The triangle model showed that even with 85 widened, US 70 still needed to be widened because more 164 people and future businesses are going to keep using US 70. and the development on 70, whether it’s Mebane, Efland, 165 Hillsborough or west Durham, growth of 70 itself that will cause increased traffic on 70. As development grows, we want this 166 plan approved so we can use it as a locally adopted collector street plan to request developers address the impact their growth 167 will cause US 70. It’s not just that it will be a future State project, the developers themselves will be causing the growth and the 168 traffic. 169 170 S. Apple. What if the Orange County Commission does not approve this plan, can we still require developers to make 171 improvements? N. Trivedi: Without this locally adopted plan, there is no basis to require any improvement by Developers. S. 172 Apple: Even though this is a “Visionary Report”? N. Trivedi: It becomes a locally adopted plan. That local adoption gives us the 173 authority through the Unified Development Ordinance. Without adoption, there is no authority. 174 175 S. Appel: And it could also be that there are parts I would feel comfortable with, some parts that I think are good and are needed 176 for Orange County to be able to constrain Developers or require developers to do things but there are parts of it that I don’t feel 177 comfortable with. N. Trivedi : Please understand without approval, without it being a locally adopted plan, there is no imposing 178 on a Developer or asking a Developer or requesting a Developer-S. Appel: But can we take parts of this plan out, or is it all or 179 nothing? N. Trivedi : You can make the recommendations as you see fit. Staff and TAS have recommended approval. Mebane has 180 approved their portion and endorsed the plan. If you are piecemealing, and taking things away, such as suggesting the bike-ped 181 component without the highway component, you’re telling the County Commissioners to pay for it. Because if you’re saying the 182 bike -ped is good but the widening is not, then Complete Streets no longer applies. 183 184 G. Woloszczuk: To Amy’s point about the purpose, my daughter lives near New Bern, and you can go 70 miles an hour, and it is 185 restricted, so what’s the problem we’re trying to solve? The more I think about it, the more I’m unsure what problem we are 186 trying to solve. One minute it’s school traffic, then it’s nature walks. N. Trivedi: That is why the consultant is providing a 187 combination of short-, mid-, and long-term improvements for the full multimodal corridor. 188 189 J. Mayo : Looking at the Goals and Objectives that we’ve got up front, it serves Mobility, but I don’t think it serves placemaking, 190 for safety or natural environment to widen 70. I think especially in this part of Orange County and Alamance County 70 doesn’t 191 need to be the controlled access highway. That’s 85’s job and it’s right there. I think the goal should be to make the urban parts 192 of 70 in Hillsborough and Mebane safer and add some of that to Efland as well. The focus on mobility and adding lanes would 193 lead me to not approve this Study. 194 195 S. Appel: Regarding the environmental issues, I’ve been consciously looking at the rights-of-way and the trees along the corridor, 196 and heavily forested. She indicated that she was worried about the Federally contracted work/maintenance concerning 197 Stormwater control and the replacement of trees. She cited an example at the bridge at Riverside Drive. Overall concerned with 198 widening the roads would lead to a reduction in tree cover. 199 200 R. Marshall: Is it fair to say that there seem to be items in this plan that appear to be at cross purposes to each other? N. Trivedi: 201 advised starting at section 5.1.1.1 which addresses the goals and how they are mapped out. A. Cole requested that each item 202 be explained how it worked toward the goal with data from the consultant. Other members agreed that they needed the data 203 explained to support the mapping and to show the how. Members advised they needed the study to connect the dots for them. 204 Mortality rate concerns from road widening were mentioned. N. Trivedi advised that the AASHTO showed a four-lane divided 205