Agenda - 10-07-2008- 7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 10/1/08 328 a certain amount of traffic that may or may not be true. I'll just say as an example of why I have this, I guess, bias. 329 Smith Level road in Carrboro which leads a fairly short distance from 54 to 15-501 was for years targeted by DOT to 330 be four (4) lanes and for years both Chapel Hill and Carrboro fought that identification. It still possibly subject to that 331 but it a road that might be considered a corridor or might then be viewed as possibly more that just a lovely country 332 road through some lovely farms that are there of a certain scope. It's probably picky to select that out but that word 333 appears in the newer objectives and it's not mentioned in the other ones. I think there are some natural corridors 334 certainly, and I am willing to say 54, 40, 85, Airport Rd, to me those are corridors, already existing corridors. But to 335 say that NC 57 or old 86 or new 86 are corridors is not something I want to say. It doesn't in fact say that, but the 336 implication is that those roads might become that. I am saying I think we can work on all the same issues without 337 making that kind of specific or possible identification. My other comments are that Alice made some 338 recommendations for some rewriting of the objectives in the goals which I think capture my concerns. She doesn't 339 make any other comments about any of the other objectives. I think, my feeling would be, is there a way to leave the 340 original objectives and add to them the newer ones that have been suggested in some way, so that we don't lose 341 either. Some might be viewed a duplicative but in fact, the newer ones that have been proposed are different than in 342 characterization. 343 344 Larry Wright: It's my understanding that the reason that they are different is that they took and complied 345 Durham/Chapel Hill and the DOT and a variety of others to revise into this document. It was a big study and it was a 346 committee action. That's my understanding, that's where this comes from, it wasn't just a stand alone contract. It 347 was a study and this resulted from that. There was a lot of work into this. Members of the OUTBoard felt like it was 348 redundant considering other areas of the comprehensive plan. They took it out in response to that and Alice put it in 349 because she says it balances the plan that other municipalities have in the state. She would like to see it back in. I 350 can see why she wants it, so it's more like everybody else's. 351 352 Jay Bryan: We may not be able to resolve this, we may just have to pass along our discussion to the full Board. Its 353 really so many changes given the original proposal, then the OUTBoard's revised suggestions, and Alice's on top of 354 that. It's fairly complex. Also we don't have everybody here. 355 356 Larry Wright: On page 51, I don't understand, they have more 357 358 Bernadette Pelissier: Back in the May public hearing, from our August 25~ packet on page 94 and 95, there is a 359 comment made by Holly Reid. She and I served on the Special Transit Advisory Committee which a joint effort of the 360 two (2) MPOs looking at a regional master transit plan and she had asked to put in an objective to say that Orange 361 County will implement the recommendations of the Special Transit Advisory Committee. That may be too 362 controversial to add in but at the very least, and maybe it was said elsewhere, on our copy of the comprehensive plan 363 on page 925, the transportation chapter, are there key documents? I think we should at least reference that report 364 and then we do have an objective which talks about regional planning. Then we've acknowledged the existence of 365 that report and I don't recall if we have talked about that before. 366 367 Jay Bryan: I think that's an excellent point. The report where is that? 368 369 Bernadette Pelissier: I guess I can look it up, I can send you the link to that report. There's a whole website. 370 371 Jay Bryan: Sothis is an actual report. She just talks about recommendations. 372 373 Bernadette Pelissier: There is a report with recommendations that is then going to be going to the MPOs. 374 375 Renee Price: The website is www.dchcmpo.org. In fact they're having a public hearing tonight on transportation. 376 377 Craufurd Goodwin: I read it, it seems a big improvement. 378 379 Jay Bryan: Except the word corridor. The rewrites of the text I'm fine with, the things I have the problems with are 380 the goals and objectives. 381 382 Craufurd Goodwin: And that will betaken care of with Alice's proposals: 301