|
305 the traffic flow and say, oh, that's nice. Everybody always says that. How do we explain that?And I don't
<br /> 306 want to go into the deep, deep details because I trust you all as professionals have done the studies, but
<br /> 307 just the way that we can talk to it and understand it, right, that's really my comment.
<br /> 308
<br /> 309 L. Triebert: Yeah, I think some just not going deep into it, but just off the top of my head, it's just some
<br /> 310 sort of travel time comparison from point A to point B is maybe something that we could do. You know, if
<br /> 311 you're not queueing at a single lane stop light for as long, then even if you're limited to 35 miles an hour,
<br /> 312 you're not stopped in a single location. We can see about incorporating that kind of thing.
<br /> 313
<br /> 314 G. Woloszczuk: Exactly. I think that would help. And then how we incorporate, I think somebody else
<br /> 315 mentioned it like how we're incorporating some of the multimodal transport, make sure there's adoption.
<br /> 316 What I'm always concerned about, there's a lot of build it and they will come and there's a lot of stuff we
<br /> 317 built and no one's using it. So just a little bit, how would we see that? Do we have other communities
<br /> 318 nearby that we've seen have similar success in the improvements because there's, like I said, this is a
<br /> 319 big budget, I think that's going to be asked. I just want to make sure I feel comfortable saying that yeah,
<br /> 320 this makes sense, and we are going to hit the goals that we said we would hit.
<br /> 321
<br /> 322 L. Triebert: It looks like Michael is up.
<br /> 323
<br /> 324 M. Hughes: Thank you very much. Hey Lauren, I've appreciated the way you're handling all of this,
<br /> 325 particularly that last comment you made concerning Gregg's suggestion, with your time of travel idea,
<br /> 326 you showed an, excuse me, if you talked about this and I missed it. Or you showed the 2050 level services
<br /> 327 E and Fs. What does the current level of service look like?
<br /> 328
<br /> 329 L. Triebert: Yes, I can show you that too (sharing screen). I'm referencing back to our existing conditions
<br /> 330 report. So, this is figure 21 in that report showing that currently in the Mebane area, we're operating at a
<br /> 331 level service D. We're essentially A through C until we get down closer to the Durham line. Yeah, this is
<br /> 332 the corridor level of service today.
<br /> 333
<br /> 334 N. Trivedi: That's a separate document. I need to print out to you the existing conditions document. It was
<br /> 335 in the packet last year.
<br /> 336
<br /> 337 L. Triebert:And so, what we're seeing here is like if nothing was growing, if this area wasn't growing then
<br /> 338 it would, it's operating generally OK from a corridor level service with a couple of intersections that operate
<br /> 339 at your failing levels of service. And so, getting back to the 2020 intersection, we looked at specific key
<br /> 340 intersections along the corridor. Hopefully, that's big enough and so you can see we're, you know, A, B,
<br /> 341 and Cs with some E, some Ds in various places. But what we're saying is, if we keep the two lanes and
<br /> 342 the configurations as they are now, single lane approaches, maybe a left turn lane here or there and we
<br /> 343 layer on top of that the future your traffic that's when you get these E & F from both a corridor and an
<br /> 344 intersection levels of service so what I just showed you with the dots and again for the April meeting, we
<br /> 345 can make these graphics more consistent. So, it's more of an apples-to-apples conversation. I just kind
<br /> 346 of pulled together some things that we have on hand for today, but so this is the 2050 do nothing, versus
<br /> 347 widening to four lanes and putting in the intersection language improvements that were also part of the
<br /> 348 recommendations (speaker shared her screen and another graphic). So, you can see in 2050 everything
<br /> 349 red here, you know, 175 seconds of delay per vehicle is kind of what that means. And when we do the
<br /> 350 improvement, we go to 30 seconds of delay. Again, these are peak-hour analyses. Just as that as that
<br /> 351 design hour, but you can see the kind of red really improves once we do the vehicular improvements and
<br /> 352 that is the case of what 70 is going to do in the future to accommodate the traffic that is expected.
<br /> 353
<br />
|