07.18.2024 OUTboard - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

101 N. Trivedi: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're verifying that when you did this analysis you considered 102 two models-the adopted triangle regional model and the statewide model, and both models say in 2050, 103 even with the 85 and 40 widening, even when the traffic moves onto 1-85 and 1-40, traffic on 70 is still 104 going to require the need for widening 70. 105 106 L. Triebert: Correct. 107 108 N. Trivedi: And this model is updated every four years, and the State's is updated every three years 109 because of the tip. 110 111 L. Triebert: yes, it is. 112 113 N. Trivedi: OK, so I think I think what we need to, I think it would help if we can present and show this 114 that even with the improvements in the future, the future horizon of this stuff, even with the widening of 115 80 widening of 40 traffic on local roads, the regional roads are still going to need widening. So, the report 116 card of E or F is critical in explaining why, even after all this, in the future, the 70 lane expansion needs 117 to happen. So, the data part of their scope of work is short-term, midterm, and long-term improvements 118 in different alternatives, but to no build, you're still going to have problems with 70 in the future. 119 120 A. Menius: Do you have data to support the assumed need or demand in a couple of areas for low income 121 people to find non-automotive transportation to potential work along the corridor, and the other for the 122 need or demand for non-automotive transportation to parks? 123 124 L. Triebert: So just to make sure I got the question right, do we have data to support that those 125 communities exist, or that they would have the demand for the types of recommendations we're making? 126 127 A. Menius:They have the demand that they would use those non-automotive assets if they were available 128 to them to go either to work or to recreation at the parks. 129 130 L. Triebert: That is not a straightforward answer. I think it's one of these if they currently don't have auto 131 access to a personal automobile and they're getting by with whatever transit usage they can find the idea 132 that if there was another alternative available such as a better sidewalk system or a better transit 133 operational system for forgetting to and from those places, I don't have like a model that says that they 134 would use that, that that, that demand would come, but, I would think it would follow that if the 135 infrastructure was there, it would get used, assuming the absence of personal vehicles is still base issue. 136 137 A. Menius: It's totally logical. It makes a completely sensible assumption; I just don't know that it's how 138 the real world is actually going to play out. 139 140 N. Trivedi: At the April meeting, we have another consultant, Nelson Nygaard, who's doing a short-range 141 transit plan which includes some of this analysis, called the Transit Density Index, that talks about how 142 Northern Orange County and areas around Hillsborough using environmental justice and transit density, 143 and addresses alternative modes along this corridor. In this study we are talking about today they also 144 recommended in this study that the U.S. 70 be a transit Infosys corridor because of currently slated transit 145 improvements. If those are implemented in these local areas within Hillsborough, Mebane, and so forth 146 they would use these alternative modes of transportation. 147 148 L. Triebert: 149 And that's where some of the more nitty gritty specific transit recommendations, like pairing the 150 bidirectional bus stops, is where we got down into the detail of things like that to make it so that it is a full 151 and complete system that is usable from point A to point B and back to point A, as opposed to some