04.15.2024 OUTboard - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Model validation TRM and Statewide Model Both models say in 2050, even with traffic moved onto the widened I-85 and I-40, traffic on 70 is still going to require the need for widening 70. Do you have data to support the assumed need or demand in a couple of areas for low-income people to find non-automotive transportation to potential work along the corridor, and the other for the need or demand for non-automotive transportation to parks? They have the demand that they would use those non- automotive assets if they were available to them to go either to work or to recreation at the parks. No model can predict what mode of travel a person will use. Given a road with all modes, a person may use all options available throughout the course of a day. You showed us the level of service, what is the time of day for those? Are we building for the peak? Peak and daily as reported in the models. we've just come through two years where there was very little traffic. That was during covid, Existing Conditions report documents traffic has returned to pre-covid numbers and some areas increased, especially speeding. section 4.6.2 is the crash data and its narrative in there and it does not reflect over what period where those incidents were existing conditions report went a lot deeper into the crash analysis and you know it was taken over a 5-year period What was used for traffic projections State approved projection rate, and modeled data, with 2023 as base year. when was the model adopted 2022, When the 2050 MTP was completed, The model was adopted by DCHC MPO board by resolution along with the MTP. Currently being updated for 2055 MTP. The plan assumes that there will be a widening of 70 from 2 to 4 lanes and when that happens, the NCDOT can use this plan to guide its widening process. Is that correct? Yes. And the multimodal accommodations that would be included with that typical section Because the focus is non-highway, the outcome is the widening because it gives us leverage to DOT to say to them if you do widen this road, we want you to add bike-ped and transit as you do the widening because of complete streets. are recommendations on providing some protection of the environmental issues would also be that NCDOT would have to go by that Yes, because they would do it through the NEPA, which would be the first step that is required What about electric vehicles. According to the federal government, we are going to try to have majority of electric vehicles in 2050. Is there any combination or reference or will that affect any of the recommendations in this plan? As far as the recommendations of this project, an EV is going to function just like a gas vehicle as far as its presence on the road. And so, I think the sidewalks, the mixed-use pads, and things like that would stay the same from a recommendation standpoint. If this plan is approved, we will use it in coordination with County’s Climate Action Plan, Strategic Plan, LUP 2050 and other plans like Hillsborough Comprehensive Sustainability Plan and others. Is there a way that we can put in the opening statement something about the fact that we are that we hope, or we urge the DOT to use this as a guidance document? Can we say that explicitly? Yes, absolutely, And you can also extend this to ensuring consistency with the County's Climate Action Plan and other adopted policies. We had the core goals that we wanted to achieve. How can we speak to that with a little bit of data? What is the ROI? How do we explain that? travel time comparison from point A to point B, travel time savings, intersection queueing time reduction, etc. we can try to present this in April.