Browse
Search
04.15.2024 OUTboard
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Agendas
>
2024
>
04.15.2024 OUTboard
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2024 4:44:03 PM
Creation date
4/17/2024 4:43:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/15/2024
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
93
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
<br />ORANGE COUNTY GOVERNMENT <br />TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Issue Addressed <br />How do we know the Environmental Justices <br />communities (minorities, low-income, elderly, zero <br />car, etc.) would use the network? <br />EJ communities are identified along the corridor and <br />the plan does recommend multimodal transportation <br />improvements that will meet their needs. <br />Visually explain Peak Hour LOS/results for corridor Demonstrated in the Existing Conditions section of the <br />plan. <br />Crash Data Details Demonstrated in the Existing Conditions section of the <br />plan. <br />Travel time savings analysis SimTraffic simulation used in the analysis <br />Counter the idea that slower speeds will cause more <br />crashes (impatient drivers passing/being aggressive) <br />rear end crashes (prevalent in the data set) are shown <br />to be reduced when congestion is lessened <br />Add wording - this study/plan is a guidance document <br />for future widening and to inform other plans <br />Acknowledged <br />Add how goals are supported by data and OUTBoard <br />intro/closure <br />Acknowledged <br />What the highest-level goal for the corridor. Is it that <br />move more traffic through, or calming traffic <br />measures and feel like a community setting? <br />Two to four lanes is not a recommendation of the <br />study, and we did a lot of vehicular traffic <br />investigation of this project. The widening is an <br />impending situation. Verified by local (TRM) and state <br />modeling data. The recommendations balance <br />increased traffic with multimobility, transit amenities <br />or PEDs and bikes <br />Landscaping as growth occurs along the corridor Frontages along US 70 are redeveloped are held to <br />certain standards, local government enforces these <br />standards through the UDO. County is currently <br />updating its LUP 2050. <br />Local plans on landscaping Hillsborough has their own Connectivity Plan and <br />Comprehensive Sustainability Plan that addresses this. <br />Mebane and Orange County does this through their <br />UDO. <br />Getting traffic on the highway to 85 or 40 is <br />mentioned in the important sections about improving <br />the connectivity between the 70 corridor and the <br />interstates, correct. <br />Acknowledged <br />Moving all the traffic over to the interstates and 70 <br />not be a first choice and someone except for short <br />commutes within the area. <br />TRM and state model puts the traffic on the path of <br />least resistance from its origin to destination and gives <br />us the amount of traffic that is expected to be on US <br />70 in the future year. It includes all traffic moving to <br />40 and 85 based on the available capacity within the <br />network that was modeled. Even with the 40 and 85 <br />widening, the improvement on Churton Street and <br />other future completed projects, we're still seeing <br />levels of level service of E and F on US 70. Those are <br />failing levels of service. The plan builds upon what is <br />eventually going to be a base condition because the <br />models say it is warranted in the future, verified at <br />every update.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.