Browse
Search
07.18.2024 OUTboard
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange Unified Transportation Board
>
Agendas
>
2024
>
07.18.2024 OUTboard
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/19/2024 5:05:42 PM
Creation date
7/19/2024 5:05:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
7/18/2024
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.
/
35
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
50 impending situation and, at some point will be called for based on the projected growth. And we used the <br /> 51 regional model statewide model to verify that. And So, what we were kind of faced with was, OK, if we <br /> 52 know ultimately this two-lane roadway that is you know that that was points for it feels very rural or when <br /> 53 it goes through you know a more populated area seems like the potential for great like maybe downtown <br /> 54 placemaking type feel like in Mebane. We were trying to figure out how to balance the need to move <br /> 55 traffic with providing for multimodal users whether that's transit amenities or PEDs and bikes. So, the <br /> 56 idea that we, you know, our quote, tearing down landscape, I think that's going to come from what <br /> 57 happens as frontages along US 70 are redeveloped, whether that's private development and those <br /> 58 developers are held to certain standards or whether that what goes into the complete street typical section <br /> 59 that would ultimately be implemented most likely by an NC DOT widening project. <br /> 60 <br /> 61 N. Trivedi: Laura, can I ask you a quick follow-up question to the issue of widening and landscaping? <br /> 62 Hillsborough has its landscaping plan for that whitening that landscaping to know he'll widening 70 is also <br /> 63 planning how the landscaping is preserved. This is in their connectivity plan. This is also in their <br /> 64 sustainability plan that fed into this US 70 Study. <br /> 65 <br /> 66 L. Triebert: Right. That's my understanding. <br /> 67 <br /> 68 N. Trivedi: This is how the land is preserved through landscaping or other improvements that would be <br /> 69 covered by complete streets or potentially be covered by complete streets and the landscaping would be <br /> 70 done by the developer, making their development improvements to accommodate and ensure <br /> 71 landscaping as the areas being as the road corridor evolves. <br /> 72 <br /> 73 L. Triebert: Right, as it's growing. Yes, that's my understanding.Art, is that you? <br /> 74 <br /> 75 N. Trivedi: Art, Sherry, and then Greg. <br /> 76 <br /> 77 A. Menius: yeah, the expansion from two to four lanes seemed inconsistent with most of the rest of the <br /> 78 goals of the project seemed an outlier compared to slowing traffic, making it more friendly for pedestrians <br /> 79 and bicyclists. And you know the many goals I agree with that appear in this plan, which is the vast <br /> 80 majority. Getting traffic on the highway to 85 or 40 is mentioned in the important sections about improving <br /> 81 the connectivity between the 70 corridor and the interstates, which is absolutely correct. And there's and <br /> 82 the suggestions there are very good, but to me it seems like a lot of these goals and important step in <br /> 83 that is moving all the traffic they can get moved over to the interstates and 70 not be a first choice and <br /> 84 someone except for short commutes within the area to make our goal to move every vehicle over to the <br /> 85 Interstate, we can move over to the Interstate and Off of 70. <br /> 86 <br /> 87 L. Triebert: The models that we use to project future roadway traffic, trucks and vehicles, not PEDs and <br /> 88 bikes, that's based on the current adopted statewide model, what that includes is a widened 40 and 85. <br /> 89 It includes all fiscally constrained projects in the comprehensive transportation plans, and looking at 2050, <br /> 90 the model puts the traffic on the path of least resistance from its origin to its destination and gives us the <br /> 91 amount of traffic that is expected to be on US 70 in the future year, and that accounts for all the traffic <br /> 92 moving to 40 and 85 based on the available capacity within the network that was modeled. And so, what <br /> 93 we see when that happens (speaker shared her screen) this service table (11) that we have for the <br /> 94 corridor and assuming a two-lane highway, even with the 40 and 85 widening and the improvement of <br /> 95 Church Street and improvements in the long-range plans, we're still seeing levels of level service of E <br /> 96 and F, which is just like a report card. Those are failing levels of service. That's why I wanted to make it <br /> 97 clear that's not a recommendation of the study. We're assuming that that is eventually going to be a base <br /> 98 condition because we can tell from the traffic projections that it's going to be warranted in the future and, <br /> 99 we did a lot of data analysis and collection and verification early in the process to make sure that we had <br /> 100 good estimates for those. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.