Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
47 J. Mayo:Yes and bring back to the OUTboard task A, back to the OUTboard before we proceed with tasks B, <br /> 48 C, and D. <br /> 49 <br /> 50 S.Appel: Question will this work be done by a consultant and if an offer is put out for bid would this be only <br /> 51 for task A or would this work be done by an outside or inside source? I think it would be beneficial to <br /> 52 separate. <br /> 53 <br /> 54 N.Trivedi:We can use our on-call consultant WSP, so you can have a professional product over an in-house <br /> 55 one.WSP can complete the analysis and compare the TIA and the town of Mebane, as they have already <br /> 56 approved the developments and WSP will provide us an analysis of the findings and recommendations. <br /> 57 <br /> 58 J. Mayo: It was enough for the consultant when it was framed in-house, and it would make sense.The <br /> 59 preference would be to do an analysis. Running a TIA is different from running a plan update.The plan <br /> 60 update is the goal. I don't know if you want to use your on-call for a TIA first. <br /> 61 <br /> 62 N.Trivedi: Have WSP complete task A and then present the findings to the OUTboard and then this <br /> 63 determines if we want to proceed with the rest. <br /> 64 <br /> 65 J. Mayo: Efland-Buckhorn Mebane Access would have the number of trips, so WSP doesn't have to present <br /> 66 its findings and see how those numbers align together. <br /> 67 <br /> 68 N.Trivedi:To clarify they may not align with each other. If you look at the original 2019 adopted plan the <br /> 69 pods were based on a geographic, not the parcel by parcel or development by development,they were <br /> 70 grouped together.The development that was approved may not be the full development.The overall total of <br /> 71 the development is either at the 2019 projections, below or above the requiring changes. <br /> 72 <br /> 73 A. Menius: Motion to analyze existing conditions will be undertaken for the Efland Buckhorn-Mebane <br /> 74 Access Management Plan updated and the results of the study will be used by the OUTboard to determine <br /> 75 whether to proceed with the plan update. <br /> 76 <br /> 77 Motion:Art Menius Second: Josh Mayo Vote: Unanimous <br /> 78 <br /> 79 5.c.2055 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update(MTP) <br /> 80 <br /> 81 N.Trivedi:The goal is to receive your feedback, comments, concerns or acceptance of the process, so I can <br /> 82 provide it to the DCHC MPO. In 2019, the model was adopted. I would like your feedback and once the <br /> 83 analyses and projections are complete the plan will come back to the OUTboard. More information is on <br /> 84 their website for the MTP. <br /> 85 <br /> 86 S.Appel:What is the MTP plan today? Is this just an FYI situation or when would address this again? <br /> 87 <br /> 88 N. Trivedi: More of looking for your feedback on the goals and objectives right now. The planning process is <br /> 89 two years and there is going to be more public engagement and more input from the public. <br /> 90 <br /> 91 A. Menius:Would like an updated link. <br /> 92 N.Trivedi: Made a note to provide the OUTBoard with the correct link. <br /> 93 <br /> 94 <br />