|
354 M. Hughes: Nicely done. I put a question earlier in the chatjust to that point, but going back to the existing
<br /> 355 condition diagrams that you had, is there maybe more of a question for Nish but are there any things on
<br /> 356 the docket in the short term to improve what are the current delays?
<br /> 357
<br /> 358 N. Trivedi: Just to give you an example, Efland and Cedar Grove Rd-that where is says C, that's Efland
<br /> 359 Industrial development that's going on right now. If you drive in that area, you'll see this big gray building
<br /> 360 going up and construction going on and development going on for the industrial park that's been
<br /> 361 developed there.
<br /> 362
<br /> 363 M. Hughes: Yeah, I crossed that intersection a couple of times a week.
<br /> 364
<br /> 365 N. Trivedi: Yeah, well, that traffic caused by that is in their traffic impact analysis. That development
<br /> 366 predates this study. This is also showing that OK, you do nothing with 70 more traffic from developments
<br /> 367 like this is going to cause on that 70.
<br /> 368
<br /> 369 L. Triebert: And so, Michael, one thing I'd say to address the "anything on the docket" we are looking at
<br /> 370 this from a 21-plus mile corridor perspective if NCDOT or the county or the MPOs- if they want to elevate
<br /> 371 specific smaller projects then showing those problems in this and potential recommendations works the
<br /> 372 same way- as it kind of being an on the books recommendation for when DOT does a wider project. So,
<br /> 373 if you look at the NC 86 at US 70, we're currently at a level service C and when we've got their highlighted
<br /> 374 purple, which shows potential queuing issues, that's in the existing conditions. And so, if that's seen as
<br /> 375 an issue that someone, like the MPO, the county, or locals want to elevate in the NDOT prioritization
<br /> 376 process. Well, then, now they've got something here to start from as a recommendation for what could
<br /> 377 be done to improve that now, it would not include the four-lane widening yet, but you could set it up such
<br /> 378 that it doesn't preclude the four-lane widening, but maybe does some local widening to allow for dual left
<br /> 379 turn lanes or an exclusive right or something like that. And so, just like the on-the-docket intersection
<br /> 380 question,they can kind of individually be pulled out as location-specific recommendations if those projects
<br /> 381 want to be prioritized by the various agencies and are looking for funding from DOT in that way.
<br /> 382
<br /> 383 M. Hughes: Thanks, Lauren.
<br /> 384
<br /> 385 N. Trivedi: Great job with the DOT perspective and how this plan gives us leverage with the DOT and
<br /> 386 the state-recommended improvements on the road, but by locally adopted plan it gives us as planners
<br /> 387 as long as a darling and stuff through development review process to impose these recommendations
<br /> 388 on the developer. So if the developer, say, five years down the line, decides to put a hospital or some
<br /> 389 other industrial development or some other development or a subdivision in along the corridor or anything,
<br /> 390 or a shopping mall or something along the corridor, it gives us leverage to the development review
<br /> 391 process to say, hey developer, we have this adopted plan, you need to do XYZ because of a locally
<br /> 392 adopted plan.
<br /> 393
<br /> 394 L. Triebert: Either need to dedicate the land such that it can be built in the future, or if it's a product of a
<br /> 395 traffic impact analysis that they need to build one of those lanes or something like that. Again, this, as
<br /> 396 Nish said, gives you just the base leg to stand on to start requiring those things of developers.
<br /> 397
<br /> 398 M. Hughes: Cool. And I will say this, Nish probably knows that, but I've been on the other side of that
<br /> 399 conversation where I've brought something in and had that kind of feedback that we have to do some
<br /> 400 infrastructure improvement to get it through. But, Lauren, can you go back to the previous slide before
<br /> 401 this one that showed red dots at the intersection with 5th St, 4th St, and 3rd St?
<br /> 402
<br /> 403 L. Triebert: Yes, I can. So, this is the corridor level of service that those are just indicating that those are
<br /> 404 signalized intersections.
<br />
|