07.18.2024 OUTboard - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

OUTBoard Subcommittee—US 70 Question and Answer Session Monday, March 25, 2024,4:00 p.m. 606 NC 86, Hillsborough, NC 27278 1 Attendance: Members Present 2 3 Gregory Woloszczuk- Chapel Hill Township 4 Art Menius Little River Township 5 Michael Hughes At Large 6 Amy Cole At Large 7 Natalie Ziemba Cedar Grove Township 8 Sherry Appel At Large 9 Erik Legg Cheeks Township 10 Lauren Triebert, VHB 11 Darlene Weaver Transportation Planning Manager 12 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director 13 14 Introduction to Meeting Purpose 15 N. Trivedi: re-explained the planning process, plan importance, public engagement, reviewed OUTBoard 16 concerns, focused the meeting on solutions and best path forward. Consultant was introduced and the 17 floor is opened for discussion. 18 19 M. Hughes: I was unable to attend the meeting, so I'm going to go on mute, but paying close attention. 20 21 L. Triebert: Presented how they addressed some of the concerns and encouraged dialogue for the rest. 22 Anything unanswered at meeting will be addressed of the next formal OUTBoard meeting. 23 24 A. Cole: First of all, I just wanted to thank all of you. You put together an extremely thorough report. The 25 area that I was thinking about when I was reading the report as I took a look at what the goals and 26 objectives are, I think that that's spot on for what I would want as a member of this Community to see 27 that if that's how we're planning for, for growth in our city, in our town, in our county, that's what I want to 28 be able to see when I read how we would meet those goals and objectives. I think there's a misalignment 29 for me and some of those and so overarching what I think I'm not understanding is what the highest-level 30 goal for the 70 corridor is. Is it that we're trying to move more traffic through that space, or are we trying 31 to make it into a place where we're calming traffic measures and trying to create more of a feel of what 32 that looks like in a community setting? I'm looking at them and that sounds great, and I would promote 33 that. But then if I look at what is implemented that might conflict with that.And so I don't want to promote 34 something where people get an image of what we're saying is the goal and objective, but the actual 35 output doesn't align with that 36 37 L.Triebert: So, I can give a little bit of insight into that.And then if folks want to add on or take the question 38 further, we can, but I think what you are referencing is the two-lane to the four-lane widening. 39 40 A. Cole: Yeah, but I wouldn't say it's just about two to four. It's about, you know, we talk about preserving 41 nature, then you know the natural landscape and we talk about, you know, just some of those ideas of 42 what that looks like to me. And conflicting how are we addressing the fact that that current corridor is 43 lined with trees, and it's lined with a lot of other natural landscape. And then by expanding that when we 44 are taking that down, so how do we say we're kind of that's our goal and objective, but we're tearing down 45 the landscape to do that. 46 47 L. Triebert: So I think just first and foremost the idea just to address the two to four lanes because I want 48 to make it clear that's not a recommendation of the study to go from two to four, and we did a lot of 49 vehicular traffic investigation at the beginning of this project that indicated that the widening is an