OUTBoard Minutes - April 15, 2024

Browse Search

104 N.Trivedi advised that SPOT 6 had Orange County approve widening in 2019,so then it was submitted. However,Spot 6 105 was cancelled.Some members asked why the report suggested road widening, and it was explained again that the 106 widening was going to happen,and this was a study making best-case suggestions for when that inevitably happened.The 107 widening is going to happen with or without the Study being approved.The consultant advised that their recommendations 108 weren't intended to be primarily vehicular.They did have recommendations on larger intersections, but not all the finely 109 detailed ones, like University Station and US 70. 110 111 Figure 23 explains intersection improvements based on the data. For example,the University intersection is more rural and 112 that is why the consultant didn't focus on it;they focused on the larger intersection issues.Signage considerations are 113 outside the scope of this project-they should be added to mid-year STIP. 114 115 Slide 3 Level of Service(Future No Build Vs. Build)addressed corridor-level traffic time. 116 J. Mayo asked about the divided highway in Efland and if we had heard from them regarding the divided highway. N.Trivedi 117 responded that the TIA has recently been completed for future development.The consultant added that the NCDOT would 118 probably not allow left turns on a divided highway."Safe access for business"at the point where it's warranted and 119 implemented,and locals will have to make a right turn and then a U-turn if they live off of 70. N.Trivedi advised there 120 should be a single access point for a given area, not an individual one at each property.J. Mayo asked if the information was 121 shared with folks in Efland. Regarding Land Use,it was explained that Efland needs to update the 2019 Efland-Buckhorn 122 access plan.That plan fed into this study.The consultant stated that was a recommendation in the study. Mebane has also 123 advised this. 124 125 Crash and Speed Data Slide:if congestion is reduced in the future,the crashes should go down. From a speed perspective, 126 the slower the speed limit,the more time a driver has to react,and the lower likelihood of fatal and serious accidents. 127 From the federal highway perspective for a multimodal corridor,the speed limit should reflect that,especially the vehicles 128 and vulnerable users(pedestrians and bikes). 129 Comment from a member about lowering the speed of cyclists,as he found that valuable,and the plan for safety, nature, 130 and calm places aligns with the goals. 131 132 On the next slide[2019 speed data with run-off road crash severity]the speed correlates with the amount of runoff road 133 crash severity.S.Appel asked about accidents in no-passing zones;pg.74 of the existing conditions report shows lowering 134 the speed limit would help and it's also a general recommendation that would be helpful. 135 136 March 2024 SRT update by Nelson Nygaard shows we are in the heart of where transit is needed in Orange County.J. Mayo 137 advised that he didn't think there was that much demand. H. Pfau advised that based on conversations with numerous 138 County residents,we would have the demand throughout Orange County if there were additional access points and route 139 times that allowed the public to get where they needed to go when they needed to be there. 140 141 S.Appel asked about the conditions report and conservation and widening of 70 and runoff stormwater,etc.as she wants 142 specific recommendations for stormwater runoff.The consultant advised that the protection of environments falls under 143 land use or planning,it's not something that falls under multimodal study. N.Trivedi suggested we reference the Planning 144 Department through the UDO"in accordance with the UDO of the Planning Department"to protect the watershed.The 145 consultant advised that it wouldn't be enforceable because it's outside the scope of Transit, but that we could put a 146 statement in the study acknowledging that we would like for it to be a priority. 147 148 J. Mayo suggested that we put something in about greenspace in the medians,and the consultant said that would be a 149 buffer.S.Appel advised she was worried because,on other projects, NCDOT removed greenery and didn't replace it. M. 150 Hughes advised he didn't think the Cane Creek watershed extended that far North. N.Trivedi explained Wake County's 151 watershed protection process, based on their UDO. He again advised it has to do with the planning ordinances,not transit 152 requirements. 153 154 J. Mayo advised that since the study assumes there will be a widening,it is a good plan based on that. 155 156 A. Menius made a comment to move for approval because it will happen anyway whether we want the widening or not.