Outboard Minutes November 17 2025

Browse Search

50 from all platforms indicated that the infrastructure is limited and disconnected. Although there was 51 interest in creating connections between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, safety concerns 52 arose due to drivers' behaviors. 53 54 Stantec chose 10 project concept designs, eight of which came from the top 20 projects that came 55 from the prioritization criteria that they went through, along with a prioritization working group; the 56 last two projects came from engaging with the community. They determined the 10 by doing 10% of 57 10 58 projects. It was highlighted that safety concerns near Duke Forest on Whitfield Road, noting the lack 59 of sidewalks and shoulders, despite increased bicycle and pedestrian activity. It was also mentioned 60 that 61 the new I-40 entrance has shifted traffic patterns in the northwest Chapel Hill/unincorporated area. It 62 was suggested that we discuss traffic, safety, and speed because there is an allusion to that earlier 63 in 64 the plan. Any recommendations on roads like Old NC 86 or NC 86 would stop at the Hillsborough 65 town 66 limits because this plan does not cover facilities inside the town. One OUTboard member suggested 67 that the document clearly note that some proposed segments will not connect directly to 68 Hillsborough's existing bike and pedestrian network, since the town has limited space (e.g., on 69 Churton 70 Street), and the plan does not include their internal projects. Stantec said they discussed with 71 Hillsborough staff that their planned shared-use path on Churton Street would connect directly to the 72 shared-use path recommended in this plan. If the town chooses a different design, the connection 73 could shift from a shared-use path to a bike lane, but coordination between county and town staff 74 will ensure everything ties together. The OUTboard members would like to see more data, because 75 right now they don't have enough information. Stantec asked for feedback on how supportive the 76 board would be with recommendations to update the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to 77 align with current and future planning efforts. Yes, and UDO updates are already underway, and 78 aligning them with adopted plans would help ensure consistency, close network gaps, and require 79 developers to provide needed bicycle and pedestrian connections. It was suggested to use an 80 example that supports rural concepts. It was suggested that we use the type of facility that we want 81 in the plan and have the plan adopted as part of the county's plan. It was explained that Orange 82 County has a strong foundation of adopted plans that support biking and walking, such as the 83 Orange County Transportation Multimodal Plan, Orange County Trails plan, TWTPO Vision Action 84 Zero Plan, and Safe Routes for School Plan. The Bike-Ped plan is expected to go before the board 85 in January or February, and we have another meeting before presenting the packet to the Board of 86 County Commissioners (BOCC). 87 88 There were several questions: 89 ■ Can we have a list of the roads? Yes, they will be provided 90 ■ Is there a way to have a map with roads labeled online and in a spreadsheet? 91 ■ Did you remove the greenway and trail? Yes, because Parks and Recreation are doing a 92 separate plan. Stantec is only focusing on the bike-ped network that's on the road. 93 ■ When the plans are complete, will we be able to see how they are both connected? Yes, they 94 are being completed in a parallel process, and we are both prioritizing. Both plans will be 95 presented to the BOCC together so that they can see both plans at the same time. 96 ■ What is Stantec proposing for Old 86?The right of way is so very narrow. Stantec recommends 97 a 10-foot shared-use path along Old NC 86, separated from the roadway with a buffer, to