HomeMy WebLinkAboutNSN Aging/OPT - Transportation Development Plan Update for Orange County, NC for 1995-1999 P Ate' Ct 15
v_zr- .�
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1995-1999
Final Report
Jason Quan
Jon E. Burkhardt
December 1, 1995
Prepared for
Orange Public Transportation/
Orange County Department on Aging
and
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Public Transportation Division
4715 CORDELL AVENUE • BETHESDA,MARYLAND 20814-3016 301/652-2414,FAX:301/907-8952
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
1 -- INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
How This Plan was Prepared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Previous Planning Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Goals for Transportation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 -- EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN ORANGE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Public Transportation Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Human Services Transporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 -- SERVICE ALTERNATIVES FOR ORANGE COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Service Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Institutional Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 -- RECOMMENDED PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Service Design Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Private Sector Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Vehicle Replacement Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Implentation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Procedures for Evaluation, Monitoring & Updating Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5 -- COSTS AND FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Operating Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Operating Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Funding Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
APPENDIX A: Orange County Steering Committee
APPENDIX B: Orange County Human Services Agencies
APPENDIX C: Private Sector Letter to Transportation Management Firms
Along with the List of Those Firms
INTRODUCTION
In order to qualify for funds administered by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), Public Transportation Division (PTD), non-urbanized and urbanized counties must have a
current Transportation Development Plan (TDP) which is adopted by the County Commissioners and
approved by the PTD. If the county is to be competitive in obtaining the funds for new vehicles available
under Federal Transit Administration's Nonurbanized Area Formula Program (formaly Section 18),
implementation of the adopted TDP recommendations must be scheduled. A TDP is developed with a
four-year planning horizon, and requires an update at the end of that time.
Orange County completed and adopted their last TDP update in January 1991, therefore requiring
a 1995 TDP update. During the last four years, a number of the recommendations of the previous TDP
have been implemented.
In order to examine the potential for development of public transportation, review the current
availability of agency transportation,and remain eligible for state public transportation funding,the County
applied to the state for planning funds to update the TDP. Ecosometrics, Incorporated, of Bethesda,
Maryland, was chosen to prepare the plan under a contract with the NCDOT/PTD. The planning process
calls for guidance on the study from the Orange County TDP Steering Committee which is made up of
human service agency representatives, planning agencies, Orange Public Transportation (OPT)
representatives, and other local government officials from the County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. The
ultimate goal of this study is to develop an implementable plan that meets as many of Orange County's
transportation goals as possible, taking into account the identified operational and fiscal constraints.
HOW THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED
The information in this report was gathered through meetings with the current TDP Steering
Committee,on-site interviews, written and telephone surveys of providers and purchasers of service, and
collection of data from the Census Bureau Library, Chamber of Commerce, Orange Public Transit, Chapel
Hill Planning Department, and the NCDOT.
A-
Ecosometrics' project staff met with the Steering Committee three times: once to identify goals,
objectives and constraints,a second time to present alternative service designs and to discuss findings from
the survey, and a third time to review the draft final version of the TDP.
As part of this process,the NCDOT/PTD guidelines on private sector participation in the planning
process have been met by a joint effort of the NCDOT, the consultant and the OPT office. A letter
describing the process was drafted by OPT and sent to private sector operators within and out of the
county. The private operators, both for profit and non-profit, were invited to respond in writing or attend
a meeting with the Steering Committee,to present their qualifications,and indicate their interest in bidding
on any possible request for proposals issued by the county.
GOALS FOR IMPROVING TRANSPORTATION
The first step in developing the current plan was to establish a Steering Committee for the study,
as previously described. This Committee then met to determine County-wide goals for improving
transportation, and to determine the constraints on possible service designs. The goals were developed
to guide the consultants during the course of the study,and to allow the Committee to make informed and
intelligent decisions regarding the use of transportation resources in the County. The goals are also used
in the development and assessment of the alternative service designs in the later stages of the study.
Previously Established Goals and Objectives
Unlike most rural systems in North Carolina, OPT has had goals articulated in previous plans.
In the 1991 planning effort the goals of the study included:
• Analysis of all existing human service agency transportation providers in Orange County,
assessing both cost-effectiveness and quality of service.
• Assessment of the extent of unmet transportation needs among existing human service agency
clientele and the general public, providing recommendations to meet those needs.
• Development of a plan to meet State and Federal criteria so that the plan may be used to
support future requests for capital and/or operating assistance.
-2-
• Development of recommendations that are both politically and economically feasible that
provide for increased levels of efficiency and/or service delivery coordination.
In addition, an examination of the OPT system and its operation was a goal of that study. These study
goals also apply to this TDP update, based on the scope of work and the initial meeting with the Steering
Committee. In addition, this study has the following goals:
• Evaluate the current human service agency transportation delivery.
• Evaluate management alternatives, including a County transportation department, a non-profit
agency, Chapel Hill Transit, or contracted management by a private for-profit firm.
' Evaluate the feasibility of developing the system into a Section 18/9 supported general public
system, including various options for providing general public service.
While these objectives are quite comprehensive and should be considered in their entirety, in this
study particular note should be taken of the need for expanded services to serve both agency clients and
the general public, particularly low-income persons,and those in training programs. These needs include
transportation for out-of-county medical trips,fixed routes from county areas to Chapel Hill, Durham, and
the Research Triangle Park (and return trips), and upgraded equipment and facilities.
Goal Setting for this Transportation Development Plan
With this background on the goals that the county previously had for transportation, and the goals
statement of the current study, specific areas to be addressed in this study were established using 1) input
from the initial meeting with the Study Steering Committee,2)information from individual agencies about
unmet needs and transportation concerns,and 3)information on current transportation services in the area.
Goal Setting
Goal setting is the identification and specification of priority needs in a particular area or for a
particular design effort. For the purposes of this study, the goals were expressed in three categories:
• those that address the various needs for transportation services in the county that are not
currently being met,
-3-
• those that deal with the need to manage capital equipment replacement and maintenance, and
• those that address the need for intelligent and systematic use of existing transportation services
and resources in the County.
The first category addresses concerns that there are persons in the area who, for a variety of
reasons, have no means of making the trips they require. The second category deals with the need for
the County to plan for the replacement and maintenance of its vehicles and other capital equipment. The
third category addresses the concern that existing resources in the County should be used as efficiently
as possible.
Need for Public Transportation Services
One overall goal in developing the TDP is to target transportation services in the County toward
people most in need. In general, there appeared to be an overall need to provide transportation services
to low income, elderly, disabled, children, youth, and other transit-dependent persons (those who do not
have access to an automobile), particularly to social services, medical services, shopping and for paying
bills. There also appeared to be a need to provide for work trips for low-income persons with mobility
problems, for those who are being trained, and for handicapped persons. Priorities expressed by the
Steering Committee included the need to:
• Continue to seek to meet the needs of elderly and disabled persons,with a priority on medical
trips, and on social service agency clients.
• Develop expanded general public service to allow any person to reach employment, essential
shopping, business opportunities particularly for the economically disadvantaged.
• Provide service to persons living in the county outside Chapel Hill who are not part of the
limited agency client population. Current OPT services are available only to the general
public on a limited basis.
• Provide regular out-of-county medical trips, probably to Duke Hospital.
• Meet mobility needs of expanding populations of elderly and disabled persons who will need
transportation to medical services,to nutrition sites,for employment,for grocery shopping and
other essentials, for social and recreational purposes, and for other personal business needs. is
-4-
• Meet mobility needs of infant and youth who will need transportation to day care or after
school programs.
Capital Equipment Considerations
Capital equipment needs include:
• Provide for sufficient wheelchair-accessible equipment to meet current unmet demand for
services to the handicapped, as well as projected expansion needs.
• Provide for fleet replacement in a timely fashion to keep maintenance costs low and maintain
service quality.
• Provide sufficient vehicle capital to handle any planned expansion, particularly for general
public services that may require larger buses.
' Provide for adequate, compatible mobile radio equipment to facilitate efficient operation and
coordination of services.
• Ensure that the size and type of vehicles in the fleet is correct for the types of services
provided.
Need for Efficient Use of Existing Resources
The final set of goals(some are really constraints on the system to be designed)for transportation
in Orange County includes the need to make good use of existing resources, and to use any possible
additional resources wisely. They include the need to:
• Make best use of the available vehicle fleet to minimize the need for additional capital.
• Minimize additional operating costs while meeting as many needs as possible.
• Promote more ride-sharing of vehicle fleet especially among child care programs.
• Ensure that operations are provided safely, that all equipment is safe and in good working
order (including lifts), and that all personnel receive adequate training.
-5-
• Make sure that information about available resources is provided to all individuals and
agencies that are eligible.
Much has already been done to provide transportation in Orange County, and yet there remain
gaps in the services available, restrictions on availability, and unmet needs. Some of these issues can only
be fully addressed by additional resources, despite the possibility of obtaining additional service from
current expenditures through increased coordination and effectiveness.
SUMMARY
This chapter has presented background on recent efforts at planning for improved transportation
services in Orange County, outlined the current process that has led to the development of this TDP, and
presented both goals for and constraints upon future transportation options. The rest of this report will
detail the results of this process. The next chapter presents a profile of existing transportation services
in the County and discusses remaining transportation needs. Recommended alternatives are examined in
Chapter 3. The recommended plan for improvement and expansion of the system will be presented in
Chapter 4 and 5 along with a proposed capital replacement/expansion schedule, budget and funding plan,
and implementation process.
-6-
2
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Transportation services in Orange County include the Orange County Public Transportation(OPT)
formally called C.A.T.(Coordinated Agency Transportation)which provides human service transportation
services, and other providers such as various human service agencies, taxicab operators, and intercity bus
lines. The Chapel Hill Transit is the provider of public transportation services in Orange County, but
more specifically in Carrboro and Chapel Hill service area. This chapter examines the existing
transportation services in Orange County. During the winter of 1994, agencies and organizations that
either provide, purchase,or reimburse for transportation services and/or provide human services in Orange
County were surveyed. Information relating to each agency's services and operations was obtained
directly from each agency to be used in assessing the potential for improving transportation services in
the County. The remaining chapter will include information regarding vehicle fleet's and vehicle
utilization patterns including an assessment of the existing services and available resources in Orange
County.
One of the keys to improving transportation services in any given area is having a good
understanding of the services currently being provided, as well as the service area. This chapter describes
those services. Using the information supplied by each organization, an evaluation of the total level of
spending and service being supplied in the county will be made.
Currently, Orange Public Transportation(OPT)provides coordinated transportation for the clients
of ten human service agencies in Orange County and provide vehicles to four agencies to operate
according to agreed upon policy and procedures of the OPT Program. The agencies which currently
receive transportation from OPT are the Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action,Inc. (JOCCA),Orange
Enterprises,Inc.,Orange County Department of Social Services(OCDSS),Orange-Person-Chatham Mental
Health(OPC-ADTP)and Wake County Opportunities,Inc., Orange County Department on Aging,Orange
County Schools,Piedmont HIV Health Consortium,Piedmont Health Services,and Orange County Health
Department.
-7-
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS
This section briefly describes services provided by Chapel Hill Transit, which is the County's
provider of public transportation services (serving only Carrboro and Chapel Hill), and Triangle Transit
Authority(TTA), which provides regional bus service through Orange, Durham, and Wake County. Taxi
operators were to be included in this section, but due to the lack of response to our survey by the taxi
companies, no information on their services and fleet was available. The taxi companies surveyed were
the Airport/Intown Taxi, the Orange Cab Company, Tarheel Taxi, and Walton's Cab Company.
Triangle Transit Authority (TTA)
TTA provides fixed route service in the Research Triangle area. Service is provided between
Chapel Hill and the Research Triangle Park via TTA's Green Line. Hours of operation are approximately
6:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. TTA also sponsors"Blue Line"service between Chapel
Hill and Durham. Fares for the Green Line and Blue Line is $1.50 and $1.20 respectively. The Blue
Line is operated under contract by Chapel Hill Transit at a cost to TTA of$38.00 per hour. The Green
Line is now operated directly by TTA (Triangle Transit Authority). For the prior fiscal year, Chapel Hill
Transit provided 80,911 trips at a total cost of$240,017.
Chapel Hill Transit
Chapel Hill Transit provides public transportation services in the Chapel Hill and Carrboro areas.
At the present time, Chapel Hill Transit operates fixed-route arterial bus routes (A, C, CL, Carrboro Plaza
Express, D, Downtown Trolley Shuttle, F, G, J, N, P, S, T, North-South Express, and U, which is in
operation during the weekdays with the latest route operating till approximately 7:00 p.m.) The North-
South Express route is a relatively new route which connects the Park & Ride Lot at Eubanks Rd. and
the Park & Ride Lot at the 15-501 S via Highway 86. Evening service are offered on two routes, the C/D
route, and the T/G route. Chapel Hill Transit also operates limited fixed route weekend service. Six
routes operate on Saturday and two on Sunday. Saturday service consists of six arterial service(A/T, Blue
Line Shuttle, C, D/J, F, U). The U route along with the P route are the two fixed-route services provided
on Sundays.
Services are provided during the fiscal year under two schedules. During those times when the
University of North Carolina is in session, a full service schedule is operated. During holidays and
between sessions, Chapel Hill Transit reduces its services accordingly.
-8-
Chapel Hill Transit continues to pursue a peak period operating scheme for fixed route bus service.
During these peak periods, from approximately 6:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.,
additional buses are added to specific routes to reduce headways and increase efficiency. In addition,
tripper buses are added to individual routes to relieve overcrowding along specific segments during the
peak periods.
A special shared ride FEEDER service (weekdays) which is demand-responsive is also provided
by Chapel Hill Transit. Shared ride FEEDER is an extension of transit service to many areas of town
which do not receive regular bus service. It is available between 7:00 a.m. and 5:45 p.m. Trips are
provided between designated bus stops in the FEEDER zones and the nearest bus routes or to another
FEEDER zone.
HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES
Listed below are the human service agencies and governmental entities that were sent surveys in
the month of November, 1994. Following the list of humans service agencies and governmental entities
is a discussion of those agencies identified as either providing, planning, contracting or funding for
transportation services.
A. Human Service Agencies
• Cedar Grove Day Care Center'
• Joint-Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc.
• Orange Enterprises, Inc.
• Carrboro Community Health Center'
• Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health
• Wake-Orange-Chatham Head Start
• Orange County Health Department
• Orange County Recreation & Parks Department
• Orange County Department of Social Services
• Orange County Housing and Community Development
• Durham Technical Community College
• Orange County Cooperative Extension'
'Have not returned survey.
-9-
• Orange County Economic Development Commission'
• Orange County Dept. on Aging - Transportation Advisory Board/Orange Public
Transportation
• Piedmont Health Services (formally OCCHS)
B. Governmental Entities
• Town of Hillsborough
• Orange Congregations in Mission'
• Orange County Manager's Office'
• Orange County Planning Department
• Town of Carrboro'
• Town of Chapel Hill'
• Triangle J Council of Governments'
• Orange County Schools'
• SmartStart - Orange County Partnership for Young People
• Chapel Hill Transit
• Triangle Transit Authority.
Orange County Department on Aging - Orange County Public Transportation (OPT)
The Department on Aging (DOA), which is responsible for administering the Orange County
Public Transportation (formerly known as Orange County Coordinated Agency Transportation Program
or CAT), is a public agency providing demand-responsive, subscription, "charter", and route or point
deviation service to all eligible county residents through OPT. Eligibility requirements are based on age,
disability, and income. Services are available to the public on existing routes on a seat-available basis and
on the new public shuttle. Services are available to the entire county, excluding the CHT (Chapel Hill
Transit) service area. Although OPT does not have any transportation services in the Chapel Hill Transit
service area, OPT does offer bus passes to the low income elderly residing in Chapel Hill to utilize the
Chapel Hill Transit service. In the Chapel Hill Transit service area, DOA-OPT uses taxi companies to
service the area. DOA-OPT serves approximately 725 unduplicated clients each year. Of the 725 clients,
164 are transportation handicapped, with 130 needing specialized assistance or equipment. Service is
provided to adult day care, child day care, congregate nutrition, counseling,education/training, Head Start,
medical/dental,mental health,recreational/social, senior center, sheltered employment,and social services.
-10-
DOA-OPT operates 21 vans and 10 buses, using four full-time drivers, 8 part-time drivers, and
volunteers. Clients must request demand-responsive service at least three working days in advance.
Service is provided Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., year round. Routine maintenance of
the vehicles is done by a County Motor Pool,with additional repair work provided by a local repair shop.
An estimated 345,238 miles of client transportation were provided in FY93-94 making 82,648 one-way
passenger trips during the past fiscal year. The total cost of providing client transportation was$461,828
(including administrative and operating expenses). The agency neither reimburses staff, volunteers or
clients,but does purchase service from other organizations. Organizations which participate in the Orange
County Public Transportation Program on an agreement basis includes the following:
• JOCCA,
• Piedmont Health Services, Inc.,
' Orange Enterprises, Inc.,
' OPC Mental Health - Adult Day Treatment Program, and Children's Learning Center
• Wake Opportunities (Head Start Program),
• Orange County Health Department,
• Orange County Department of Social Services (Medicaid, JOBS and Adult Parenting
Program),
• Cedar Grove Day Care Center.
• Orange County Schools (after school program)
• Orange County Cooperative Extension Service
• Orange County Parks and Recreation
• Orange County Department on Aging
• Orange County Partnership for Young Children (Smart Start Program) and,
• Piedmont HN Health Consortium.
DOA-OPT has some vehicles which are available to be leased on a case-by-case periodic basis;
interested agencies must meet the eligibility requirements to lease vehicles:
• To qualify for leasing vehicles, organizations must be either
-- departments within the Orange County government,
-- other governmental agencies,
-- agencies operating vehicles as members of the OPT program,
organizations funded by Orange County, or
agencies which have a direct relationship to a county department.
-11-
• Vehicles can only be leased to provide short term human services, education, and leisure
transportation.
• Vehicles cannot be leased to provide
-- political, religious, private, or profit-making endeavors,
-- scheduled weekly trips over an extended period,
-- overnight excursion trips,
-- trips with more than a 50-mile radius of Orange County unless approved by the
Department on Aging director.
Short term leasing community organizations who have been served over the past two years (1993-1995)
are as follows:
• American Association for Retired Persons
• Town of Chapel Hill - Recreation and Parks
• Orange Water and Sewer Authorities
• Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce
• Hillsborough Historical Society
• Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce
• U.S. Postal Service - Hillsborough
• Friends of the Chapel Hill Senior Center
• Brooks Day CAre Center - Hillsborough
• Meadowbrook Rest Home
• Community School for People under six- Chapel Hill
• Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Center
• UNC Association of Hospital Volunteers
• Orange County Economic Development Commission
• Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)
• Frank Porter Graham Day Care Center
• Orange County Visitors Bureau
• Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools
• Victory Village Day Care
• Chapel Hill Cooperative Pre-School
• Holy Family Day Care
• O.W.A.S.A.
• N.C. Division for the Blind
• Charles House Adult Day Care
Additional transportation service is purchased from Chapel Hill Transit, taxi services (Walton's,
Airport Intown, Tarheel, Canaday's, and Orange Cab), and McBroom Coach. Total cost for services
purchased during the past fiscal year was $46,029. Table 2-1 lists the taxi companies and presents
information about the amount and type of service purchased by DOA-OPT.
-12-
Federal and state funding used for client transportation, excluding capital purchases, is provided
under Section 18, Title III B, E&DTAP, and MTAP. It should be noted that as of FYI 995-96, there will
no longer be any MTAP funds available. Local funding is provided principally by Orange County and
revenue from contracted service, with a small portion coming from donations/contributions and fares.
Table 2-1:
TAXI COMPANIES IN ORANGE COUNTY
FY 1994
Name of Description of Fares Total Total One-
Organization Service Cost Way Trips
Walton's Taxi Demand-Responsive $1.50/mile $15,735 1,363
Airport Intown Demand-Responsive $1.50/mile $7,805 1,024
Tarheel Taxi Demand-Responsive $1.50/mile $6,304 875
Canaday's Cab Demand-Responsive $1.50/mile $2,305 157
Orange Cab Demand-Responsive $1.50/mile $3,663 197
Performance Indicators
Calculated measures of efficiency and effectiveness are presented in Table 4-7 for the providers
that furnished the information. In general, OPT's efficiency and effectiveness measures are within the
range of expected values for predominantly demand-responsive systems in North Carolina. The
performance measures for the single Wake County Opportunities vehicle suggest that either our estimates
of its output are incorrect, or that it is used sporadically with few passengers on each trip.
Wheelchair Accessibility
OPT's fleet of 30 contains nine vehicles equipped with lifts or ramps. Based on the PT&RD
guidelines which recommend that one in every five vehicles should be lift-equipped, OPT does have an
adequate number of vehicles equipped to transport handicapped individuals.
-13-
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that all new vehicles purchased for use on
fixed-route services be accessible, and that paratransit services offer equivalent service. It may be that
additional accessible vehicles would need to be included in the OPT capital plan in order to be sure of
offering accessible fixed-route and equivalent paratransit service in the future. This will depend on the
service plan developed for the next four-year period.
Oranee County Housing/Community Development Department (OCHCDD)
OCHCDD is a private non-profit agency providing housing assistance to eligible county residents.
Eligibility requirements are based on age(over 18) and income (below 50% of area median). Currently,
services are provided to approximately 700 clients per year. Services are provided at two locations -
Hillsborough and Carrboro - all year round. The time of operation is from 8:00 a.m. and to 5:00 p.m.,
five days per week.
Because the agency neither operates vehicles nor purchases service from another organization,
transportation to the center is provided by the clients themselves,family or friends,volunteers, Chapel Hill
Transit (CHT) and OPT. Approximately 75 percent of the clients are unable to drive themselves or do
not have a car available to them, and thus are dependent upon some sort of transportation assistance.
Currently, there are five clients who use a wheelchair, and therefore need a specially equipped vehicle
(such as a lift-equipped van with wheelchair tie-downs), which the CHT handicapped accessible van
provides in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area.
Orange County Recreation and Parks (OCRP)
OCRP is a public agency providing service to the entire county with minimal eligibility
requirements for all residents. Services provided by OCRP include: education/training services,
recreational/social services, and volunteer opportunities. The program's eligibility requirement is based
on age. The age requirement varies depending on the program offered (summer day camp, youth sports,
and senior citizen activities). The agency provides services year round and is currently serving over 5,000
clients per year. The hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., five days a week, plus some
weekends. Services are provided at the following locations: Hillsborough, Cedar Grove, Efland,
Homestead Road, and Chapel Hill.
-14-
Since the agency does not provide transportation to the centers, the majority of the clients drive
themselves(approximately 90%). Others either ride with family or friends, or use OPT or the Department
of Aging (DOA). Less than one percent of the clients use wheelchairs. Those that do use wheelchairs
who need specially equipped vehicles are assisted by OPT.
Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc. (JOCCA)
JOCCA is a private, non-profit agency providing services for approximately 1,779 clients each
year. Services provided by the agency include: congregate nutrition, counseling, education/training,
home-delivered meals,job placement, rehabilitation, volunteer opportunities and information & referral
comprehensive housing services. JOCCA's eligibility requirement is based on income. The agency is in
operation year round, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. five days per week.
Since the agency does not provide its own transportation to the centers, access to the sites is
provided by having the clients drive themselves,or ride with family or friends, volunteers, car pool, staff,
CHT and OPT. Out of the total client population, 154 are unable to drive themselves or do not have a
car available. JOCCA does make some transportation provisions(provide,purchase or reimburse for client
transportation)for getting clients to certain activities. During the past fiscal year, JOCCA reimbursed staff
a total of$2,505 at a rate of$.24 per mile. An estimated 52 one-way passenger trips were made with
staff members. JOCCA also reimbursed clients during the last fiscal year for 17,117 miles at a rate of
$.24 per mile. The total amount spent on client reimbursement during the past fiscal year was $4,108.
Also, the purchase of service from OPT cost JOCCA $154 during the past fiscal year. The total
administrative expense of providing client transportation to the different activities for the past fiscal year
was $5,200. Federal and state funding used for the administrative and indirect expenses in providing
client transportation is provided under the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) programs.
Orange Enterprises Inc.
Orange Enterprises is a private non-profit agency providing service to all eligible county residents.
Orange Enterprises provides job placement,Medicaid,mental health,rehabilitation,sheltered employment,
supported employment, transportation, and volunteer opportunities. The eligibility requirements for
Orange Enterprises are based on age (16 or older) and having a disability (any documented disability).
-15-
Currently, Orange Enterprises serves 185 clients,and is in service year round with hours 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. five days per week.
In order to access the agency's facility, clients either drive themselves,ride with family or friends,
are picked up by staff, take a taxi, use OPT, or, if living in a group home, are transported by the group
home's vehicle. Eighty percent of the clients are unable to drive themselves or do not have a car available
to them. Transportation to different activities are provided, purchased, or reimbursed for all clients.
During the past fiscal year, an estimated 3,448 miles of client transportation were provided with a
reimbursement of$.29 per mile. The total amount spent on the purchase of transportation services from
other operators during the past fiscal year was $21,569. Federal and state funding used for client
transportation, excluding capital purchases, is provided under the Workshop Revenue Fund.
Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health - Adult Day Treatment Program (OPC-ADTP)
OPC-ADTP is a public agency which provides demand-responsive,subscription,and route or point
deviation service to all eligible residents. Eligibility requirements are based on age and disability. The
transportation service listed above are provided through the OPT system, with the use of two vans.
Approximately 43 clients were served in the fiscal year 1993-1994. Also, within that fiscal year, an
estimated 30,000 vehicle miles were used, along with 1,560 vehicle hours and 1,000 one-way passenger
trips. Client transportation on different occasions was provided through the use of staff members or
volunteers. An estimated $130 was spent on staff/volunteer reimbursement at a reimbursement rate of
$.26 per mile.
Total administrative and operating costs, along with federal and state funding were not readily
available.
Orange County Department of Social Services (OCDSS)
OCDSS is a public agency which provides demand-responsive service to all eligible residents.
Eligibility requirements are based on age, disability and income. OCDSS does not provide its own client
transportation, with the exception of staff or.volunteers transporting clients. The reimbursement rate for
those staff/volunteers is $.28 per mile, and the total cost was $28,000. The agency does purchase
medicaid transportation for the clients from OPT, costing $69,000 in the last fiscal year.
-16-
In the fiscal year 93-94, the total cost for providing client transportation was $107,600. Federal
and state funding is provided under Day Care, Title XIX, Title XX, and JOBS. Local funding is provided
through the County and Contracted Service - Medicaid Transportation Match.
Wake County Opportunities, Inc.
Wake County Opportunities is a private, non-profit agency that operates the Head Start program
in Orange County. It provides demand-responsive and fixed route service to all eligible residents.
Eligibility requirements are based on age (three years old by Oct. 16), income (according to federal
income guidelines), and residence(located in target areas). Approximately 589 clients(unduplicated) are
served each year. Service is provided to Head Start, medical/dental, and recreational/social services.
The agency operates one van using one full-time staff person with other primary job functions
(coordinator). This service is available 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Approximately
16,000 miles of client transportation were operated to provide 200 one-way passenger trips. The total cost
of providing these trips was $10,784 (including administrative and operating expenses). Client
transportation is also provided through the purchase of services from OPT, with an estimated total cost
of$2,000.
Federal and state funding used for client transportation, excluding capital purchases, is provided
under Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Inventory of Resources Used for Client Transportation
Vehicle Fleet
Table 2-2 presents an inventory of the total Orange County fleet (not including CHT), including
OPT and Wake County Opportunities, Inc. Orange County's vehicle fleet consists of 30 vehicles(buses
and vans). Twenty-eight vehicles belonging to OPT, and two belong to Wake County Opportunities.
Currently, OPT vehicle fleet numbers 5, 13, and 23 are out of service awaiting replacement. Of the
vehicles in service, including those on back-up (vehicle fleet numbers 1, 3, 17, 18, and 26), the fleet seats
approximately 430 clients and is equipped with eight lifts which are used when transporting disabled
clients. As a result, there appears to be an adequate number of vehicles equipped to transport disabled
individuals because PTD recommends that one in every five vehicles should be lift-equipped. It should
-17-
3k O c
N y N
U !� OO ,O h 06 n
3 0 3 3 N N n a N M n o a o0 3
00 .�+ C R C C .N•, 10 r n DD a0 vl � C
cd ce0 "••� = VI N
c o'0 C
Q =°- E cc a
e
d
c� � M S f��1 N W R
y d n S N b v n OIL r W u b U u a O O� M � M•� N b
Q 'tai l- l� �O ..+ V1 .Rr .�•i .�-� "" C C G N N N
d `G
�T 3ai N O w M N N v N h n OO N ,O O 0, a, u y
C G C C G
o " °' a c ,o M `0 00 `O 0 o M ,o v, M 7 of n 10 t M 3
G d v y O N � S a v, p p vii. v u rn O N in O M N O
z O. n O\ n .nr M .•+ N+ n h C .Mr G G N N .--i N cpM-i .fir n C
Qj
o S a a a r°i N , 3 e^ 3 3 N in C, ^ °v v o v 'o Zn
t: E 3
N N C 01 O N O y V . u b v, r n R v' R M y
'O O H � N-� O M .Mr M N C b C G ,O 7 N 00, M N .�., M 06 G
O a M N N
F o
Wo v a •W u 000 po`p 3 0 0 °0 0 0 °0 3 $ ° ° °
G 00 too 0 00 C 00 d 6 6. C OO 00 OO 00 4 OO G ""' 00 00 00 00 00 °' 00
U
►,V C y ..ENO N N N N N
O a 00 Q1 O, ti•-� "O 00 �O 00 �D 00 'O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 6
S — — — — — — —
W C 0 y y C C G G G C C C C C G O C C C C C C 10-
C C C G C
w V ,fl O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
V U U
',y U ) u V u a> a) A n N N U N N
t V a U G C C u O O O O O y y y y O O O O O O
3 ••� 3 T >' G T T C C C C T >` a, T T T C C G C C T C
H a v
00
�Fj• g •�
O U N .O .O N N N N • N .�-i .�•� N-i � �. .7. .�i �..� ,�.� .�.� ,�. �.•.
.. .. ,-.
U
C C C C C C
,p �p ,p N A N O
y E a a a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .A
'a td r 10 N 00 [{ ,n v, n O, ii v, O 1 VI M N Cl N N O N O, V•1
,O 00 00 O� OD O� 00 00 r n O, O, 01 01 O, 00 O, O, 00 O, U U O1 T 00 O,
M Y1 tt:O 'C mw n 9 CO
C i-. M N b N M .Mi A .r.� N O, M '7 v, N N 7 v1 O ,O C N
N O, ,O O, M d V1 O, .�-. M O O a0 ,O .M. .M•, M a0
M
m n� oo N e o0 o v, `�n e M M ao M n it
7 •°_ v V tv cG vN vv R � -S 'x^ .7 � Z a �G SG L J aE vii w c in m z d m n o m C7 m 1
en M y c N l� On t� t�_ t� t z��� z N rn N v o
0. = M M fp�1
,O ,O 7 . m M CO M M �n M co
3 3 3 3
o- tr. " m m w m m m m m m m m v. m
^ ^ U U N N N N N m m N N N N N N N •--� G y
� V
U O A A
N N N N
�y z .p N
E
0
N ^ c u
N U O N N cn oq
W a
d
� � d
F �
pOp pbo N v^i
`
y a; y C n Ono nOr
F > c0 O •." O �
C
T
e0 M N
N
00 1 r-
5 h � N N
N
N �d
N N O N N
V ON
C
w.i
fl m C
w
4) O o a O 0 �a a vi a0
N � n O
n N N ONO b
Q C N N N N
C
N N [ O a r vn
'O
ID N to N
b
�w C
a+ O
n $ 0 0 0 00 °o
m m m
F U
W
W
.a
G4 c co a o'o ao a-o
IS 0 0 0 0
.." w y cn y cm fn
N w w
F U
Z >
Wto ..
Cd
� a
� ea
Z .............
U n' eCe A a A A O
/W a
O a a a a ; u
G7
N
O P a o ono 0o y cc m E
eq
y •� C b b b n r c90
a x ^� to
s
Z Z
N O OD N m
> C Z N � .N. C:
a G E e
m m
x 3 v
m m m m m m •o
O E N N N
fi z
o °
`o u
E x
n' ❑a
-19-
be noted, however, that under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all expansion and replacement
vehicles may be required to be lift-equipped. Keeping this in mind,the cost of replacement and expansion
vehicles would increase as the costs of lifts would need to be added. According to the PTD, the
recommended number of spares for a fleet of 25 vehicles is four; this suggests that OPT's fleet is right
at the cut off if the vehicles currently out of service are not included in the ratio of four spares for every
25 vehicles. Although there are four vehicles officially out of service, approximately four of the vehicles
that are in service are expecting replacement. (Table 2-3.)
Vehicle Utilization
Table 2-3 illustrates the current usage of the vehicle fleet. Wake County Opportunities, Inc. and
OPT were asked to report hours of operation and this information can be found in Table 2-3. As shown,
vehicles used five days per week are represented by solid bars and represents high usage. Vehicles used
one to three days per week are shown as having low usage.
In terms of actual mileage, a general rule of thumb is that such vehicles should be operating
between 15,000 and 20,000 miles per year on average. Table 2-2 also presents the mileage operated by
each vehicle in each of the two agencies during the past year. By examining the column "average annual
mileage" for each vehicle in Table 2-2 some vehicles were operated under 20,000 miles, but this finding
alone does not suggest vehicle underutilization. Naturally, backup vehicles will be operated much less,
so the vehicles that have been recently acquired should be operated more in order to achieve this level of
utilization. This standard cannot be applied as a requirement, however, because vehicles operated in urban
service at low speeds may not achieve this level of mileage, and because peak hour requirements may call
for additional vehicles that are not heavily used at other times. OPT vehicles operated under 20,000 miles
are described below:
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 5, 13, and 23 are in poor condition and are out-of-service awaiting
replacement.
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 1, 3, 17, and 18 are used as back up vehicles. Vehicle 3, which is
equipped with lift equipment, is scheduled to be assigned to public route in the near future.
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 22 are new vehicles just recieved in the summer of 1995.
• OPT Vehicle No. 4 is used for demand responsive Monday through Friday year round. Usual
number of riders per trip is approximately 30.
-20-
MMEMNOMMOMMEMM i iiiMMMMOMrii■iOMiiMM■
■M MEM MEMO MM TM EMMMMMMMM■EM■MMMMM■
EE iii NOME No -WOMEN MEMMO■OENM EEM
E ONE MEE M M NONE EOMEE MM MME
E ME■NO■M no M MMEM EMMEM OE ONE
E MM■ME■MMMMEM MMMEME ME■■M NM EM■M
M NONE EMMMMMM iM ENE N ■EMMErMN MENEM
on METE M■ME■EM E■ MM MENEM M ■M■■■MONO
■M EWEN MM■MEMO iM ■■ MENEM E OEMMM■EMi
ME MEMO M■■■M■E ME NO MENEM ■ MMEM■EMMN
EE ErMMMMMMMMMM EM OO MENEM E MNMMMMMMM
- ME MMEMEMEM■NMM ■M iMri■riiMMi■EiMM■MEi
■E MMMOME■EMMMM M MOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOiraM
ME rEEOEMM■MEMO ■ MMMMMNMMMM MEMMME■Mri
- EE rENMOEMM■EEE M MEM■MMEMME E■E■MMME■M
■E NONE BEEN ME ONE M OEM ■ ■MEM MEME
■■ E■■E MOEN ME EME M -■M■ M MEMO EEO
M MEMO MME EM MEMO ME ■ ME MEN
M MEMO MOM ON OEM= M EE M ON O MMM
■ MEE N■EE E MM■OEMEE M WOMEN ME NOMEM
E ONE MME= E MEEMOMEM N ■MMMEOE■ MENEM
■OMMO■ MMOMMO MMOO■r■iEMir■OrriOr■irMMrr■
mill 11111111111111 111
��®■1111111811111111111111111111111111�
- ���100101000110000 - - _
100101100001101011101
��10010100011000010010110000110101110
- i
S
f -
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 15, 22, and 24 are used for the Head Start Program. Vehicle number 15
serves the Northern Orange County region year round Monday through Friday along with the
summer camp trips Monday through Thursday from June to August. Vehicle number 22
provides transportation for Head Start in the Efland area year round. Vehicle number 24
provides transportation for Head Start in the Hillsboro area along summer camp trips in the
county. Head Start trips are provided from September to May, Monday through Friday, and
summer camp trips June to August, Monday through Thursday.
• OPT Vehicle No. 25 operates in the Hillsboro area providing transportation to the senior
centers Monday through Friday year round.
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 27 and 28 are relatively new vehicles and will be for the Smart Start
program.
• OPT Vehicle Nos. 2, 7, 14, 20, and 21 are heavily used. Vehicle No. 2 serves both Orange
Enterprises and South Orange Senior Center.
Administrative and Operating Costs
A summary of the reported provider administrative and operating costs is presented in Table 2-4.
Included in operating expenditures are costs for purchased services along with costs for staff and client
reimbursements. Many agencies do not realize that administrative costs are incurred when client
transportation is provided, but these agencies have staff who arrange transportation for clients.
Administrative costs include labor hours and related office expenditures such as telephones, rent, etc. that
are incurred when client transportation is arranged. It seems highly unlikely that the majority of the
agencies, which did not report administrative costs, are operating without such costs. It should therefore
be kept in mind that the cost data supplied by each agency are not necessarily complete.
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IDENTIFIED
Many areas, destinations,and activities within Orange County are currently unreachable by human
service clients and other residents due to a lack of mobility. Reasons for this lack of mobility include
limited general public transportation, and the limited transportation resources of many human service
agencies. The lack of mobility has lead to many unmet needs particularly in the outlying areas. Survey
respondents were asked to identify unmet needs including operational and geographical, underserved
activities and destinations, duplication of services, possibilities for coordination, and what the most
-22-
important thing that could be done to improve transportation services. The responses are summarized
below.
Geographical Areas of the County
Some of the comments received with regard to the areas of the county viewed as needing
additional client transportation services included those listed below. The agencies which made the
comments are shown in parentheses.
• There needs to be service between the rural areas, like Mebane,Efland,etc. and Hillsborough,
and between these areas and Chapel Hill, where public services are located. For job
accessibility, linkage to Durham and RTP would be beneficial. (Orange County Partnership
for Young Children).
• Need bus service between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and service from Hillsborough to
RTP and Durham. (Durham Technical Community College).
• Need more transportation services in Rural areas: Efland, Cedar Grove, Little River, and
White Cross/Orange Grove. (Orange County Recreation and Parks).
• Need more services in Cedar Grove, Efland, and Perry Hills. (Orange County
Housing/Community Development Department).
• There are children who live outside the target area for our center, Cedar Grove Day Care
Center and OCIM, whom we have not been able to accept because we do not have the
resources to reach them. (Wake County Opportunities, Inc.)
• Need more client transportation services operated in Northern Orange County- Cedar Grove,
Caldwell, etc. (Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc.)
• From outlying areas (Mebane, Efland, etc.) into Chapel Hill for work. (Orange Enterprises,
Inc.)
• Mebane, Efland, northern Orange County -- transportation between sites in Chapel Hill and
Carrboro. (Orange County Health Department).
• Need more services operated in Little River, Eno, Bingham, (to Durham). (Orange County
Department on Aging - OPT).
As seen,the common areas identified as being in need of additional transportation services include
the North and Northwestern sectors of Orange County, particularly in Efland, Cedar Grove, Mebane, and
-23-
As seen,the common areas identified as being in need of additional transportation services include
the North and Northwestern sectors of Orange County, particularly in Efland, Cedar Grove, Mebane, and
outlying rural areas. Areas outside of the county identified as potential destinations for additional client
transportation services include Durham County and Alamance County (Burlington).
Key Destinations and Activities
A number of key destinations and activities were identified as being in need of additional
transportation services. These included the following:
• To Duke University - from southern Orange County, employment, human services. (Orange
County Department on Aging - OPT).
• Northern Orange needs public transportation to day care centers and afternoon appointments.
(Orange County Health Department).
• Youth programs - after school and evenings. County-wide, recreation centers and schools.
(Orange County Recreation and Parks).
• Child care and programs serving pre-school age children throughout Orange County do not
have transportation services available for families to bring their children to and from schools.
Transportation needs to be made available similar to the public schools. (Orange County
Partnership for Young Children).
Potential for Additional Coordination Efforts
Respondents of the survey identified agencies and services which they have observed to be
duplicative and those agencies which they view as being able to coordinate services. A summary of the
services, and agencies which are observed to be duplicating services are presented below along with the
agencies which they view as needing more coordination.
• Perhaps the Chapel Hill City bus lines duplicate some routes or could be organized to cover
some areas that OPT and others now serve. CHT, OPT, school system buses, child care
centers, Smart Start vehicles and any other agencies that provide client transportation can use
more coordination. Someone needs to take a look at transportation from a holistic, family
perspective. (Orange County Partnership for Young Children).
• More coordination between OPT, CHT, UNC Transit, TTA, and DATA. (Orange County
Department of Planning).
-24-
• Would like to see more coordination among OPT, CHT, and schools. (Orange County
Recreation and Parks).
• Would like to see more coordination among Department of Aging, Department of Social
Services, and Orange County Housing/Community Development. (Orange County
Housing/Community Development).
• Duplication of services exists between Cedar Grove Day Care and Wake Opportunities. Bus
routes are in some of the same communities - Hillsboro, Efland, Cedar Grove - and AM
routes (PM routes are run earlier by Head Start than Day Care). And more coordination is
needed at other area child care centers in northern Orange County. (Wake Opportunities,Inc.)
• More coordination is needed between day care, Smartstart, and JOBS. (Orange County
Department on Aging - OPT).
• Would like to see more coordination among the Health Department, Schools, Senior Centers,
Social Services, Hospitals, and Dental School. (Orange County Health Department).
Improving Transportation Services
Human service agencies surveyed were asked to identify the most important action that could be
done to improve transportation services for their agency clients. Although there were varying answers,
there were still common issues expressed by the respondents that would be important in improving
transportation services. Improvements identified by the survey respondents included the following:
• A larger vehicle to accommodate more children. (Wake County Opportunities, Inc.)
• More frequent routes or bus runs - some services only operate once in the morning and once
in the afternoon. (Orange County Housing/Community Development Department).
• Increased marketing and advertising. (Orange County Department on Aging - OPT).
• A public transportation system with special emphasis on critical locations for clients (social
service agencies, day care centers, major work sites,health provides, retail centers). (Orange
County Health Department).
• Public transportation in Northern Orange that provides linkages throughout the County.
Increase the amount of transportation available at peak hours. There is also a need for more
bus line scheduling, more stops at many sites. Waiting time is too long for working parents
if you miss a bus to get to your destination on time.
• Connections to smaller outlying communities. (Durham Technical Community College).
• Provide and promote service between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro. Service must
be structured to take people in both areas to and from jobs in both areas. Mid-day trips
-25-
should also be run for those who don't work full time or only have short term businesses in
the other area. (Town of Hillsborough).
• Provide the service providers with better ridership forecasts. Develop a computer simulation
model(QRSII) for the county or region. (Orange County Department of Planning).
• Provide afternoon, evening, weekend transit to rural areas. (Orange County Recreation and
Parks).
• More availability in Hillsborough outlying areas, and between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill.
(Orange Enterprises, Inc.)
SUNEM ARY
This chapter has presented information on current transit services and needs in Orange County.
The following chapter discusses possible improvements, and the next chapter presents the changes that
are recommended from among the possibilities.
-26-
3
SERVICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
One fact stands out when considering the problem of developing service alternatives for OPT over
the next four years, and it is the difficulty of projecting into the future any particular agency-related
service. Because of the close linkage between the contract services and the availability of general public
service, the provision of any general public service is closely related to the schedule and location of
contracts to cover or share the costs of putting a vehicle and driver in a particular place at a particular
time. While many of OPT's contracts are stable in the short- medium-term, new programs can arise
during the life of this plan with little notice to start services(and sometimes even less regarding cessation
of service). The previous plan did not address Smart Start, and barely anticipated the JOBS program. The
abilities of agencies to contract is dependent on their funds and programming, and few (if any) human
service agencies have four-year program plans that could be relied upon to show transportation needs and
available funding. Agencies have identified service needs as part of this study, and those can be
identified, but funding is not assured. A realistic four-year plan that recognized the volatility of this
environment would have to focus on developing alternatives to meet identified needs or demands while
directing system management to continue to have the capacity and flexibility to respond to changing needs
by client agencies and the general public.
In developing service alternatives for Orange County, the following major submarkets are
discussed, each with its own alternatives:
• General Public Services/Section 18 Program,
• E&DTAP (Elderly & Disabled Transportation Assistance Program),
• Agency Contracts, and
o Ridesharing/Commuter Services.
-27-
In each of these areas one or more service options is described; an estimate of costs, revenues or
ridership is provided; and an assessment of the advantages or disadvantages is presented.
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES
In developing general public service alternatives, consideration was given to the results of the
needs analysis, including the survey of agencies, and the Advisory Committee input. At the same time,
it was recognized that these services have to dovetail with agency-related services to be economically
feasible. Nothing developed in the needs analysis or analysis of current services suggests that current
services need to be discontinued, but in some cases ridership is below what might be expected and would
benefit from marketing and other public information efforts.
Alternative 1: Additional Scheduled General Public Service, Chapel Hill to Hillsborough
Description of Proposed Service
o An additional scheduled route open to the general public would be operated from
Hillsborough to Chapel Hill, departing at 6:30 a.m., arriving in Chapel Hill at 7:00 a.m. to
take employees from the Hillsborough area to Chapel Hill. The vehicle would then pick up
the Orange Enterprises southern route riders, plus general public riders, and travel back to
Hillsborough in time to be at Orange Enterprises at 8:00 a.m.. Additional stops would
include the Court House/County offices, and any major employers. In the afternoon the
return route would be run from Orange Enterprises in Hillsborough to Chapel Hill, departing
at 3:00 p.m. The bus would hold in Chapel Hill long enough to allow the 7:30 a.m. arrivals
to work a full day, departing Chapel Hill northbound at 4:30 p.m.. If there is southbound
work trip ridership from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill, the bus would depart Hillsborough at
5:00 p.m., arriving at Chapel Hill at 5:30 p.m., and returning back to Hillsborough with a last
trip arriving at 6:00 p.m. This service would build upon the Orange Enterprises route,
offering a schedule to permit full day work trips in either Chapel Hill or Hillsborough.
o OPT recognizes that TTA has the regional authority for city-to-city public transportation,
particularly for work trips. To the extent possible, OPT would like to coordinate this service
with TTA,jointly publicizing the service. TTA support would be sought in identifying riders
(through the Ridesharing program), and in support for operation of the additional late
afternoon trip (the other trips would be opening doors on the Orange Enterprises route).
Estimated Ridership and Revenue
o Estimation of ridership is problematic. Coordination with UNC,the Hospital,Orange County
Economic Development and TTA Ridesharing would be needed to identify riders. The last
round trip of the day might well be optional until there are identified work trips from Chapel
Hill to Hillsborough requiring a late p.m. return. No location in this area has a parking
problem, and transit dependent persons in the Hillsborough area itself would be served by the
expanded senior transportation (see Alternative 2).
-28-
o OPT is aware of needs by Chapel Hill area residents with mobility problems to access the
Court House and County offices, and they would also be a focus of the northbound "reverse
commute" service.
Estimated Additional Costs
o There are no additional operating costs for the morning round-trip and one p.m. round-trip,
but the additional hours between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and the one additional round trip
in miles would result in additional costs. At 30 miles per round-trip, 260 work days per
year, and two hours per day, the incremental costs of the late afternoon round-trip would be
$10,010 per year for a small bus costing $11.00 per service hour plus $0.55/per mile. To
achieve a 25 percent farebox recovery with a $1.00 fare (comparable to other TTA regional
services), an average of 9-10 regular riders from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough returning on the
5:00 p.m. bus would be needed. This may well be achievable.
Advantages
o Provides a schedule from Hillsborough area to Chapel Hill that allows a full workday, and
a schedule from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough that serves key destinations such as the Court
House and Orange Enterprises, and allows a full work day.
o Complements mid-day Hillsborough to Chapel Hill services, which offer the possibility of
mid-day return trips to employees concerned about having no way home but the single
evening schedule.
o Links Hillsborough area employers to Chapel Hill area labor pool.
o Could link with other public services such as Chapel Hill Transit at the new Park and Ride
lot, and Chapel Hill Transit and TTA at Franklin Street.
o Potentially serves a much broader public than seniors and agency clients, could introduce a
broader population to OPT.
Disadvantages
• Potentially low demand for the last round-trip out of Hillsborough, as it depends on persons
who live in Chapel Hill and work in Hillsborough. This service may grow with time as the
Economic Development Districts develop additional employment.
• Depends to some extent on TTA's cooperation in having OPT operate a work-trip related
regional service. OPT would like to have TTA support the service with some funding for the
incremental costs of the additional service and perhaps eventually takeover the commuter
based route.
-29-
Alternative 2: General Public Demand-Responsive Service in the Hillsborough Area
Description of Proposed Service
• A lift-equipped minibus would provide a variety of services in the Hillsborough area,
including general public demand-responsive service and senior transportation services. The
service would be demand-responsive by advance reservation, deviating from a general route
between designated checkpoints at key origins and destinations.
• This service would be provided during late mornings and early afternoons around mid-day
services coordinated with the Senior Center nutrition trips.
• The vehicle would be available to provide service to the seniors at the Hillsborough Senior
Center for local errands and would be open to provide rides for a fare as a general public
service.
• The vehicle and driver would be based in the Hillsborough area, so there would be no
deadheading costs,and the service could be provided with resources that are currently unused
in the mid-day period.
• To the extent possible,the timing and service arrangements would be developed to coordinate
with and meet the needs of the seniors. This means that initially the OPT service might
supplement current services, and later be available to meet more transportation needs when
demand increases.
Estimated Ridership and Revenue
o In addition to any agency client trips that could be provided under contract, the estimated
general public ridership can be expected to be similar to that in other small towns,accounting
for the difference in population. At a trip rate of .50 trips per person per year, the
Hillsborough area could generate 2,188 trips per year, given its estimated 1992 population of
4,376.
o At an average fare of$0.50 (the current OPT local public fare) the projected revenue would
be $1,094.
Estimated Additional Costs
o Additional service hours for an additional vehicle: 20 hours per week, or 1,040 hours per
year. At the current driver salary of$11.00 per hour, this is$11,400 per year in new general
public/Title III costs.
-30-
• Additional miles of operational costs: 12,500 (at 12 miles per hour--reflecting the village
nature of most trips). At $0.35 per mile (mileage costs for a minibus), this is an additional
$5,616 in mileage costs for this combined general public/Title III service.
• No additional vehicle is required, as this would utilize a vehicle already available in
Hillsborough in the mid-day period.
• Marketing costs, including a folder describing the service, newspaper advertisements
(repeated), take-one racks/poster displays at key locations, staff time for participation in local
fairs/events, and signs for the scheduled stops. The direct costs are likely to be at least
$1,000 in the first year, with additional staff/management time to arrange these items and
promote the system.
Advantages
• There is currently a base of agency service in the senior center route in this area. This is the
basis upon which to build this service.
• This service would offer additional service to an area identified as having additional need and
potential based on the population characteristics. General public service would become
available for persons without an agency affiliation, and trip purpose restrictions would not be
present. Seniors would have additional service available for purposes other than nutrition
trips.
o It would allow connections with OPT service from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill for
connections to Chapel Hill Transit or TTA services.
• It would provide OPT general public service locally in Hillsborough, demonstrating to
potential agency clients and County residents that there is some (limited) general public
service available in this area, and that OPT is capable of offering a service package similar
to that offered in other areas of the County with public transit (though at a service level
appropriate to the population, needs and density of the Hillsborough area).
• It would offer a local service for medical trips in this area, available to E&DTAP, and
Medicaid trip clients.
• It would position OPT for future linkages from Hillsborough to TTA regional services, and
to the designated Economic Development Districts along the 1-85 corridor.
Disadvantages
o Additional ridership depends to a large extent on creating a public awareness that there is an
OPT, and it does offer services in this area during this time period. A catchy name for the
service type would help.
-31-
o The cost of attempting a new service and marketing it well enough to be sure that there is a
fair trial must be considered.
COMMUTER SERVICES
This alternative was developed primarily to deal with the commuter transportation market from
Orange County to the rest of the region, addressing the fact that TTA's (Triangle Transit Authority)
Ridesharing program has the primary responsibility for such service. Given the multitude of employment
destinations, and the continued growth of Orange County outside Chapel Hill in low-density residential
patterns, ridesharing will be a major means of addressing regional commuter needs in the near-term future.
However, development of transitional modes between carpooling/ridematching and fixed-route, fixed-
schedule regional transit can be an initial step during the coming four-year planning period.
Alternative 3: TTA "Buspool" Services
Description of the Proposed Service
o TTA's Ridesharing program would focus on finding vanpool drivers and riders from Orange
County to regional destinations, including the RTP, Durham, Raleigh, etc. (wherever the
demand exists). TTA would provide the vehicle, and would pay the driver for actual driving
and related time. Regular riders would pay a monthly fare, and seats would be available for
short-term or daily riders would make a reservation and pay a daily fare. TTA would use the
ridesharing database and work with employers to develop the core ridership. TTA is calling
this concept a "buspool" and is developing a pilot program in eastern Wake County. This
alternative for Orange is intended to have Orange County be the next implementation site,
probably in a year or two, after eastern Wake has shown the way to go.
o OPT's role would be that of the local entity working with TTA to provide any assistance in
implementation. OPT would also be an alternative first point of contact for potential riders,
and would refer potential riders to TTA. OPT would not own or operate the vehicles, or pay
drivers.
o TTA could use OPT taxi contractors, or perhaps even OPT itself to offer the "Guaranteed
Ride Home" for persons who had a personal emergency. Experience shows that this program
makes ridesharing much more attractive, and that the emergency service is not often used.
Estimated Ridership and Revenue
o Ridership depends on finding the riders -- and the TTA Ridesharing program will have to
utilize its database and employer contacts to develop ridership. It is often the case that riders
-32-
The major issues or concerns for agency services to be addressed in the TDP include:
Alternative 4: Implement Smart Start/ Orange County Partnership for Young Children
Transportation
NCDOT has provided OPT with two vans for provision of transportation services to children
under the state's Smart Start initiative. In Orange County, the Smart Start program is operated through
the Orange County Partnership for Young Children (OCPYC). There is currently no operating plan for
these vehicles. There are two key issues:
-- OCPYC is providing Smart Start scholarships to low-income families to access child care,
providing the family with the option of which child care service, its location, and
schedule. While this provides maximum choice to the parents, it makes the development
of routes to carry children to centers very difficult, since any kind of group transportation
is based on the ridership having destinations and schedules in common. It is likely that
the two vans would have to be used to provide service from particular communities to
particular centers on schedules to begin to be cost-effective.
-- Pre-school children riding without parents need to have a monitor or escort in addition
to the driver. Head Start transportation services operated by OPT have such a
requirement, and the monitors are provided by Head Start. OPT has suggested the same
arrangement to OCPYC, and OCPYC has suggested that some parents might be willing
to volunteer as monitors. OCPYC has committed to provide the monitors, if a service
arrangement can be worked out.
Parent choice for child care provision is a basic part of the child care program, and based on the
OCPYC comments on this issue, neither OPT or OCPYC can (or should) dictate which center a parent
should choose. However, without changing that requirement, there are at least two ways to go forward
that would be more productive than letting the vehicles sit idle:
• Alternative A: Identify one or two subscription routes and offer service on a
subscription basis: It is likely that transportation services can only be offered on particular
routes and schedules which could be developed to provide Smart Start transportation routes
in areas with higher numbers of high-risk children at the times that a number of families
could use. It will require some detailed route planning. This would not involve dictating to
parents where to take their children, but would simply say that transportation is only available
in a certain area at a certain time to certain centers. OPT could operate the service as
originally proposed, with OCPYC paying the operating costs. OCPYC would provide the
monitors, and would work with OPT to develop the subscription routes. Implementation
would begin with a small base.
• Alternative B: The Smart Start vehicles could be operated by a third agency on behalf
of OPCYC: There are already some agencies that provide transportation to special needs
children to centers. OPCYC could decide to focus the transportation program on special needs
-34-
children in its population who are attending these programs, and provide the vehicles to those
agencies under an agreement. OPT would not operate the vehicles, but would be involved in
the maintenance, and the dispatch system could be used. This is one of the options used in
the past, when agencies joined the OPT system but wanted to have their own driver. In the
past, OPT would make sure that the drivers were acceptable to be driving a County vehicle
(licensing,training, etc.). Routing,monitoring, etc.would all be the responsibility of OPCYC
and its third party special needs centers.
Given the limited amount of available transportation and parent choice, it simply means that
transportation cannot be offered to all at all times. Other options are possible, but it is important to go
forward and implement some service, and plan for future service provision.
Alternative 5: Revise the E&DTAP Program Policies
NCDOT funding for Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance(E&DTAP) is dedicated to
providing additional services to the elderly and disabled persons, without any state-imposed limitation
regarding trip purpose. In Orange County this funding has been dedicated to medical transportation.
Though restricted by trip purpose, Orange County has opened these programs by offering the service as
County-wide demand-responsive service. Demand for this service has been high, reflecting the unmet
need. This has exceeded the available funding, leading to a need to modify or replace the current
E&DTAP policies. There is a short-run problem that needs to be dealt with immediately, but in the
planning period covered by the TDP there should be consideration given to additional policy changes.
Demand for E&DTAP trips is shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1:
DEMAND FOR E&DTAP TRIPS
Year Ridership Percent
Actual/Projected* Growth
1992 4,050
1993 4,826 19.2%
1994 6,088 26.2%
1995 7,300* 19.9%
1996 8,760* 20.0%
1997 10,512* 20.0%
1998 12,614* 20.0%
1999 18,921* 20.0%
-35-
As can be seen, without policy changes the demand (if it continues to grow at current rates) is
likely to be well in excess of any potential growth in funding. This means that either 1) additional
funding will be needed, 2) demand will have to be restricted, and/or 3) the services type will need to be
changed to lower per trip costs. Two options currently being considered for the short-run include:
1) Requiring a co-payment (fare) from the passenger of$1.00 or $2.50, which would possibly
reduce demand somewhat but would also raise some funding; and/or
2) Capping the number of trips a particular individual could receive. This is in response to the
fact that a relatively small number of persons take many of the trips, primarily for kidney
dialysis or cancer treatments. However, capping the number of trips available to such
individuals could seriously compromise their health care.
The OPT Board will decide on one or the other of these, or both, as a short-term solution.
However,the TDP should consider whether or not additional long-term options should be pursued. These
could include:
o Changing from Demand-Responsive Service to a More Restricted Service jpe:
Rather than offering strictly demand-responsive service,this option would offer service from
one section of the County to medical offices each day of the week on a set schedule,
essentially a route deviation subscription route. It would be less convenient and therefore
decrease demand (usage), but would increase productivity. Users would have to set their
appointments up on the day the bus was serving their area, and would likely have to wait both
before and after appointments.
o Changing the Focus of the Program: Medical trips were identified as the priority in the last
TDP and subsequently by the Board and OPT. E&DTAP could be used by other programs
to serve the elderly and disabled for other purposes, and the Board might wish to revisit this
issue. Clearly the medical need is there, but many more group trips (senior shopping, or
nutrition routes, etc.) can be provided for a dollar of E&DTAP funding.
This should be a topic of discussion for the County Transportation Advisory Board, who, in turn
will make recommendations to the County Manager and the Board of County Commissioners. Compared
to other counties in the state, Orange County's E&DTAP program appears to have a high cost per trip,
but this is a result of policy choices favoring a high level of service (county-wide demand-response)
targeted on a small group with high needs. The program could offer a lower level of service to a broader
group, but this is a County policy decision.
-36-
INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES
One of the tasks of the TDP is to examine how OPT is structured institutionally and how it may
benefit from alternative institutional arrangements.
Current Structure
OPT is a County agency,within the Department on Aging. Its employees are County employees.
It currently has 8.5 Full-Time Equivalent Employees (FTE). It has a policy advisory board, but ultimate
decision-making is in hands of the County Commissioners. The system has grown considerably, and now
represents a major portion of the Department on Aging. The Department head is responsible for both
programs (OPT and Department on Aging), and allocates his time between them.
In interviews for this TDP, organizational issues have addressed the question of whether the
program has grown sufficiently to become a separate County department. Conversations with the County
Manager reflect a County desire to not create any additional departments, and reflect a realization that the
current organization appears to be providing the desired services in a cost-effective manner.
Administrative expenses (not including vehicle insurance) amount to about 16 percent of the total
operating and administrative costs, which is not excessive. Options could include 1) turning the system
over to TTA to be operated as part of the regional transit system, or 2) contracting with a private
management company to operate the OPT system,including dispatch,vehicle operation, and maintenance.
TTA Operation: TTA was formed primarily to operate regional public transit and ridesharing,
not coordinated human service transportation. If the County requested that TTA take over OPT, it might
be open to the possibility (TTA was asked by Wake County to operate its coordinated system, but the
system has recently been rebid). TTA would likely want the same level of continued County funding
($138,400), and means would have to be devised to insure continued responsiveness to Orange County
needs and issues. An alternative possibility might involve turning the scheduled public routes over to
TTA at some future point, while retaining agency-related services within the County. This would likely
involve the loss of the Section 18 funding for OPT ($92,349 in operating and administrative funding,
varying capital amounts that are equally significant) because it would no longer have general public
service. Many of the advantages of the coordinated system in sharing administration and vehicles with
the general public service would be lost.
10
-37-
Contract Operation: Many human service and rural systems in North Carolina are operated by
private management firms under contract to public or private non-profit entities. Often this is done when
there is no local agency with the capability of operating a coordinated system. It also has low-cost as a
primary benefit. The low costs are partially from the use of low-wage drivers who do not have much if
anything in the way of benefits, and partly from operating efficiencies. There is no way to know if OPT
could be operated more cheaply by a private firm without going through a bid process, but it should be
noted that the County would still require a transportation administrator to oversee the contracting process,
monitor performance, work out service coordination agreements, prepare grants, etc. If one assumes that
these administrative costs would be about $50,000 per year, OPT's current cost for the remaining part of
the budget is about $1.19 per mile, which is in line with the mileage rate on Durham's DATALink
paratransit service. Durham has projected that the rates would increase to $1.40 per mile by 1997.
Because Orange County has been an FTA Section 18 and Section 9 recipient, the Section 13(c) labor
protection provisions apply, so contracting out would involve making sure that current OPT employees
did not have their conditions of employment deteriorate as a result. In the short term, this would likely
mean that a contractor would have to offer current employees comparable wages and benefits, or the
County would have to offer similar jobs in other departments. Cost savings from lower cost employees
with fewer or no benefits would not be immediately apparent, but might follow after turnover among the
contractor's staff. It should be noted that higher turnover is often related to lower service quality.
Either of these institutional options can be explored further if the County or the Steering
Committee desires it.
SUMMARY
A number of alternatives were suggested for improving and expanding public transportation
services in Orange County. They include:
Additional General Public Services
1. Open round trip Orange Enterprise route to the general public, which departs at 7:00 a.m.
from Hillsborough to Chapel Hill and extend schedule hours to 6:00 p.m.
2. Create general public demand-responsive service during late mornings and early afternoon in
Hillsborough in conjunction with Senior Center nutrition trips.
-- demand-responsive by advance reservation, deviating from a general route.
3. Create Ridesharing program through TTA " Buspool " services.
-38-
New Human Service Agency Opportunities
1. Provide transportation for high-risk children to centers through subscription routes.
2. Revise the E&DTAP program policies confront the increasing demand for E&DTAP services.
3. Work closely with DSS to explore opportunities to provide transportation services for
emerging welfare programs, such as Work First.
It should be noted that during the development of the TDP, talks between OPT and the Orange
County Partnership for Young Children(OCPYC)took place in an attempt to coordinate the transportation
of high risk children. An agreement was worked out so that OPT would operate the two vans supplied
by NCDOT under the state's Smart Start initiative and OCPYC would supply the monitors. Presently,
OCPYC is having a difficult time recruiting the monitors.
It should also be noted regarding the revision of policies for the E&DTAP program that an effort
by OPT to deal with the increasing cost of providing the service as a result of the increasing demand and
limited funds was postponed. A new policy will likely be to implement a $1.00 - $2.50 fare for each
passenger, but has not been approved by the County at this time. Currently, OPT is researching different
policy options to reduce the financial burden of E&DTAP funds for the transportation program.
The alternatives that was selected by the Committee to be developed in the TDP was the additional
general public services for the Orange Enterprise route and senior center nutrition route. The two
alternatives will be developed in Chapters 4 and 5.
The cost implications of making these changes are included in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2:
SUMMARY OF COST IMPLICATIONS OF NEW SERVICES
Additional General Public Service
Open Orange Enterprise route to the general public $10,010
Create general public demand-responsive route in Hillsborough $18,016
The additional transportation services cost approximately $26,500 per year. These changes will
provide additional links between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, and from rural areas in the County to
-39-
employment sites. Such services could potentially serve a much broader public than seniors and agency
clients. However, the NCDOT has made available Rural General Public (RGP) funds to assist in public
rider promotion. Orange County's RGP allocation for FY95-96 is $15,111.
-40-
4
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
This chapter presents the service improvements recommended for the OPT Transportation system.
Based on the discussions of the Orange County TDP Steering Committee and OPT,the alternatives chosen
for full development in the 1995 Transportation Development Plan call for an additional scheduled general
public service from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough and the creation of a general public demand-responsive
service in the Hillsborough area. This chapter presents a detailed description of the recommended plan,
including route structuring, capital replacement, and a timetable for implementation.
SERVICE DESIGN CHANGES
Additional Scheduled General Public Service from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough
This additional scheduled service(see Figure 4-1)would build upon the current Orange Enterprise
route, offering a schedule to permit full day work trips in either Chapel Hill or Hillsborough. This new
service would open up the current Orange Enterprise route to the general public. Therefore, the Orange
Enterprise route which leaves Hillsborough for Chapel Hill at 6:45 a.m.would allow any persons working
in the Chapel Hill area to be in Chapel Hill by 7:30 a.m. The vehicle would then pick up the Orange
Enterprises southern route riders, plus general public riders, and travel back to Hillsborough in time to
be at Hillsborough at 8:00 a.m. In the afternoon, the return route would be run from Orange Enterprises
in Hillsborough to Chapel Hill, dropping of Orange Enterprise riders which departs at 3:00 p.m. Upon
arrival, the bus would hold in Chapel Hill long enough to allow the 7:30 a.m. travelers to work a full day,
departing Chapel Hill northbound at 4:30 p.m. If there is southbound work trip ridership from
Hillsborough to Chapel Hill, the bus would depart Hillsborough at 5:00 p.m., arriving at Chapel Hill at
5:30 p.m., and returning back to Hillsborough with a last trip arriving at 6:00 p.m.
-41-
�,4 J
LEY
Proposed Additional f gal 157
Work Trip 5
r �$ LAWS!TORE RD
Manufacturing
Sites
8 NER CNURCMRO
yw•SS
5 ��
4
8 5 "°
7
7 7 a
85 1 ROU
7 1
7
40
R
•"� 8 Chapel Hill
Park and Ride
-�� 40
TEER RO.
P
5 49 Q
y EfTEiW
8 g
5 I
54 L
O RO. O 1
VVV ORE OR / Miles
�� a I a �• p �qe
0 2 4
Figure 4-1: ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION-
Proposed Additional Work Trip
-42-
General Public Demand-Responsive Service in Hillsborough Area
The current service on which this alternative will be built upon is the Senior Center nutrition trip
serving the Hillsborough area. The new service (see Figure 4-2) will still coordinate with and meet the
needs of the seniors. The service would be open to the general public during service hours, and would
also be demand-responsive by advance reservation, at least 24 hour in advance, deviating from a general
route. The vehicle and driver would be based in the Hillsborough area to minimize deadheading costs.
System Operation
The chosen service alternative does not necessitate any changes in OPT's operating and
administrative procedures.
Marketin¢
OPT recognizes that Triangle Transit Authority(TTA) has the regional authority for city-to-city
public transportation, particularly for work trips. To the extent possible, OPT would coordinate this
service with TTA, jointly publicizing the service. TTA support would be sought in identifying riders
(through the Ridersharing Program). OPT should be develop and display flyers, promoting the new
service.
PRIVATE SECTOR PROCESS
On July 8, 1995 a number of private sector firms were contacted about the TDP process and
invited to present information about their experience and qualifications to the Committee. ( A copy of
the letter (prepared by the PTD) and the list of fines receiving the letter is included in Appendix B.)
Three private operators responded to the solicitation (Laidlaw Transit, Inc., Silvertrans, Inc./Airport
Express, and Mayflower/Laidlaw.) An oral presentation to the Committee for the private operators was
held on August 15, 1995. Of the three private operators, Michael Silvennan of Silvertrans, Inc./Airport
Express, was present to make an oral presentation to the Committee. The Committee also reviewed a
written presentation submitted by Laidlaw Transit, Inc.
-43-
KEY
Proposed General Public �g7 ` 1
Demand-Responsive Service ' d \g UWa STORE RD 5
.MAR.. RNER CHURCH RD
C 1
5 ��
� W
7
�. 7 7 8
85 ROU
a 7 l�
° 7
e
41 g 7
+o
ds \ $ J
40
g 8
E
a 40
LEER RD.
e
5 '
5 �` C ' L
4 �
8 O RD O 1
ORE R ,
\V/ es
0 2 4
Figure 4-2: ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Proposed General Public Demand-Responsive Service
-44-
Quality of Service and Responsiveness to Agency/Client Needs
The major factors considered by the Steering Committee in discussing possible private sector
management and operation was the question of whether or not a private contractor would be more cost
effective, and can assure quality while retaining control for the County. At this point, based upon the
combination of a low per-mile operating cost, the loss of benefits should drivers be employed by a for-
profit firm, and the loss of quality control when management is subcontracted, the consensus of the
Committee was to continue with the current management arrangement. The Committee does recommend,
however, that a study of the feasibility of establishing a non-profit management fine or a separate County
Department of Transportation be included in the next Transportation Development Plan Update.
Summary of Private Sector Process Results
To summarize,the Steering Committee considered using private contractors to mange and operate
OPT/agency services, mainly looking at cost savings as a rationale for changing. The results were as
follows:
' Oran e Public Transportation will continue its existing management arrangements.
• Private sector operators will be utilized as part of the OPT program in two ways:
-- For out-of-county trips or routes, and
-- To supplement OPT operations with local taxi service,primarily for intra-County demand-
responsive service.
CAPITAL PLAN
In order to operate the existing and planned services, vehicles will need to be replaced but no
additional vehicles will be needed. This section presents a plan for vehicle replacement for the next four
years. In Chapter 2, Table 2-2 presented an inventory of the vehicles currently in use in Orange County,
including each vehicle's mileage, condition, and average annual mileage. This information has been used
to determine the present and future vehicle needs for Orange Public Transportation.
As shown in Chapter 2, there are four vehicles which are expected to be replaced within the next
12 months,with four of those vehicles already out of service. The four-year vehicle replacement schedule
shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Table 4-1 do not include those eight vehicles expected to be replaced in
the next year.
-45-
to 0 0 0 0 to
79 � � o
'b cd 0 N M M N N Q
w v
�, o g $ ° 8 8 8 s o (C=4 0
oN 0%
v 14")
69 64 641P 69 69 69 69 60a 69 601).
8 8 r- o Cf) g g o en 0 o to
v = v 0 Cf) N M en N
� N
69 6R 69 64 69 613 64 64 69 69
ton
M � N M en N N N
W 69 64 69 69 69 EfA 6M? 69 69
l N 0 cd cd
.. � � ai 3 3 N N .-. .•. u a�i
ccz 3 3 cc N
a cn
W a (4 W a cn a a cn ra a w co e
a
>
O U
U
N y^ N
a H > a
W � z � •s'
a, rt.~ W) O0 s
N W OO N u1 00 N M CD
� � 000 M V aCi b CO) >
'Z' ~ z `- a
.s
cNy � V
b N N X OOG N z W ° °
$ ., Cq W) ., cn N v
M M Mcq M�q M tn a
U F
a t7XaCC7 a� 3 43 °
L. w m a a a m m O Y v
> D N N V N N N N N N F
Y
N
T
•p C
3 a, a, � Off+ Obi a, � 3 v
0 �
4°.
VI
L.I H
_ V
O w Z N N Q oN >
z
-46-
Table 4-2:
ORANGE COUNTY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
Fleet Vehicle Vehicle Type Current Average Number of Anticipated
Number Identification Year Mileage Annual Years Until Year of
Mileage Replacement Replacement
1 FDKE30G2NHB49121 1992 Bus 12,244 6,122
2 GBG6PIBXJV107961 1988 Bus 109392 18232 2.23 1997
3 IFDKE30GIRHB51545 1994 Bus 3,059 1,600 ***** *****
4 1GBK6P1B4FV215638 1985 Bus 48,905 5,434 18.60 2014
5 IGBKP32M3F33149 1985 Bus 132,539 14,727 ** **
6 2B7KB31Z95K570517 1995 Van new new new new
7 2B7KB31Z6LK787928 1990 Van 62,437 15609 3.69 1999
8 1FDKE30G3SHB2199 1995 Van new new new new
9 2B5WB35Z3SK561638 1995 Van new new new new
10 1FTJS35GXDHB87342 1983 Van 263,278 23934 1 1996
11 2B7KB31Z5NK167056 1992 Van 46,659 23330 3.14 1998
12 2B7KB31Z6RK55502 1994 Van 29,590 29590 3.06 1998
13 CPL3273325257 1977 Bus 336,927 19,819 ** **
14 2B7KB31Z5KK376826 1989 Van 98,163 19633 2.00 1997
15 1GBG6PIB4HV100143 1987 Bus 54,208 7,744 12.37 2007
16 2B5WB34Z3MK456696 1991 Van 35,740 11913 7.07 2002
17 2B5W34Z5NK143134 1992 Van 22,742 11371 8.55 2004
18 2B5W35Z7NK143135 1992 Van 19,403 9702 10.37 2005
19 2B5WB35Z1LK780101 1990 Van 60,548 15137 3.93 1999
20 2B5W35Z9NK143136 1992 Van 38,467 19234 4.24 1999
21 2B7KB3127KK376827 1989 Van 98,359 19672 1.10 1996
22 IFDKE30GXSHB06397 1995 Van new new new new
23 CPL3293324589 1979 Bus 221,774 14,785 ** **
24 1GBG6PI7GV114623 1986 Bus 56,006 7,001 13.43 2008
25 2B7KB3128NK166922 1992 Van 13,602 6801 15.64 2011
26 2B7KB312XNK166923 1992 Van 11,249 5625 **** ****
27 2B5WB35ZORK163099 1994 Van 355 355 *** ***
28 1FDKE30G5RHB93135 1994 Bus 1,804 1,804 *** ***
A8 2B4GK45RONR774816 1992 Van 51,257 25629 2.68 1998
M6 2B4GK45R2NR77487 1992 Van 45,476 22738 3.28 1998
** Vehicle expected to be replaced within the next 12 months
**'Vehicle used for Smart Start program but had zero miles in the last 12 months
***'Vehicle currently used as back-up
'**•"Vehicle currently is back-up with lift equipment waiting for assignment to public route
-47-
Year One — Fiscal Year 1995-1996
Within the first year, new vehicles already approved should be arriving for use by OPT. The
vehicles should be used to replace the vehicles with the highest mileage. During the first year, an
application for two more replacement vans should be filed. Both the 14-passenger van and the 20
passenger cutaway van will be equipped with a wheelchair lift. These two vehicles should be used to
replace vehicle numbers 14 and 21. As shown in Table 4-1, the total first year capital cost is $76,000,
with a local share of$7,600, a state share of$15,200, and a federal share of$52,200.
Year Two — Fiscal Year 1996-1997
In the second year of the plan, only one vehicle needs to be replaced, vehicle number 2. The
replacement vehicle will be a 24-passenger van cutaway (small bus) equipped with a wheelchair lift. It
will be utilized to run nutrition and workshop trips for senior in Northern Orange County and Chapel Hill.
Year Three— Fiscal Year 1997-1998
In the third year of the plan, four vehicles will need to be replaced by OPT. These vehicles will
consist of two 6-passenger mini-vans and two 14-passenger van equipped with wheelchair lifts. The
replacement vehicles will take the place of vehicles numbered M6, A8, 11, and 12 respectively.
At current funding levels and current pricing, the total cost would be $104,600, with a local share(10%)
of$10,460, a state share (20%) of$20,920, and a federal share (70%) of$73,220.
Year Four — Fiscal 1998-1999
In year four, two vans will need replacement. They should be replaced by two 14-passenger
center aisle vans which will not need to be wheelchair equipped.
Summary of Vehicle Replacement Plans
The objective of the vehicle replacement plan is to maintain and improve the vehicle fleet by
replacing all of the high mileage vehicles. The selected alternatives in the 1995 Transportation
Development Plan does not necessitate any fleet expansion.
-48-
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A schedule for implementation of the planned service changes and subsequent reviews and updates
during the four-year horizon is presented in Tables 4-3 through 4-6. The schedule is organized on a Fiscal
Year basis and the months for suggested tasks are approximate.
Under each of task outlined in the implementation schedule, there are many subtasks involved in
accomplishing the various activities. It is not possible to specify all of the subtasks in the scope available
for this study, but a general timetable for Orange County for the next four years has been presented.
The next busy period for the Steering Committee will be the third year of the plan when it will
be necessary to develop a scope of work for the next Transportation Development Plan. The NCDOT
planning guidelines and process should be consulted at that time to determine how much lead time is
required to make sure that Orange County continues to have appropriate plans in effect. Following those
guidelines and procedures will also be a required implementation step in order to maintain eligibility for
funding; therefore, care should be taken to ensure that this process is begun on time.
PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION,MONITORING AND UPDATING THE PLAN
The implementation plan includes annual reviews and evaluation of the transportation system.
These reviews are important to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the system, obtain good
performance, and deal with changed situations. These reviews will be the responsibility of Orange
County.
Data on several key measures will be developed to examine the overall trends in efficiency and
effectiveness. The key measures are:
• Efficiency:
-- Cost per trip
-- Cost per hour of operation
-- Cost per mile of operation
• Effectiveness:
-- Trips per mile
-- Trips per hour.
These measures will be used to compare trends in the operation of the system over time and to
develop accurate contract pricing rates.
-49-
Table 4-3:
ORANGE COUNTY EWPLEMENTATION PLAN
FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN: 1995-96
Immediate Activities
October 1995
• Review the draft final report of the Transportation Development Plan by the Steering
Committee and the NCDOT.
• Upon receipt of comments from the Steering Committee and the NCDOT, the draft final
report will be revised by the consultant.
• Submission of the final report to the Steering Committee and the NCDOT.
December 1995
• Prepare Section 18 application for FY1996-97
Remainder of 1995-96 Fiscal Year
December 1995
• Transportation Advisory Board appointed as on-going oversight committee.
• Begin developing appropriations to cover the cost of vehicle insurance and any drug &
alcohol testing which will not be covered by Section 18 funds beginning July 1, 1996.
• Submit Section 18 application (due January).
January 1996
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of Transportation Advisory Board.
• Develop and submit performance and operating statistics.
• Meetings between OPT and Orange County Partnership for Young Children (OCPYC)
should be held concerning the Smart Start initiative.
April 1996
• Review services provided under the E&DTAP funding program to determine what policies
must be changed so that costs and demand does not too far exceed funding.
• Begin preparation of E&DTAP funding request for FY1996-97 (due July).
-50-
Table 4-4:
ORANGE COUNTY EWPLEMENTATION PLAN
SECOND YEAR ACTION PLAN: 1996-97
First Quarter (July - September 1996)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board.
• Renew social service contracts with the different agencies.
• Review quantitative goals and objectives using reports on performance measures by the
Steering Committee.
Second Quarter (October - December 1996)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board.
• Review vehicle replacement plan, make changes if necessary.
• Prepare and submit Section 18 application (due January).
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by
January to NCDOT.
Third Quarter (January - March 1997)
• Hold-regular quarterly meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board.
Fourth Quarter (April - June 1997)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board.
• Review services under the E&DTAP funding program.
• Develop E&DTAP application for FY1997-98.
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by July
to NCDOT.
• Prepare and submit Title III (B) application by May.
-51-
Table 4-5:
ORANGE COUNTY E%IPLEMENTATION PLAN
THIRD YEAR ACTION PLAN: 1997-98
First Quarter (July - September 1997)
• Hold regular quarterly Transportation Advisory Board meeting.
• Committee review of performance; make changes needed, if any.
• Renew social service contracts.
• Hold meetings between OPT, Transportation Advisory Board, and NCDOT/PTD to discuss
the development of a East/West link.
Second Quarter (October - December 1997)
• Hold regular quarterly Transportation Advisory Board meeting.
• Review capital plan outlined, update plan if necessary.
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by
January to NCDOT.
• Prepare and submit Section 18 application (due January).
Third Ouarter (January - March 1998)
• Hold regular quarterly Transportation Advisory Board meeting.
• Develop East/West link to connect with existing North/South link.
Fourth Quarter (April - June 1998)
• Hold regular quarterly Transportation Advisory Board meeting.
• Review services provided under the E&DTAP funding program.
• Develop E&DTAP application for FY1998-99 funding.
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by July
to NCDOT.
• Prepare and submit Title III (B) application by May.
• Begin developing scope for next Transportation Development Plan, anticipating issues,
private sector contracting, and available funding.
• Conduct driver training refresher course for demand-responsive operators.
-52-
Table 4-6:
ORANGE COUNTY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOURTH YEAR PLAN: 1998-99 FISCAL YEAR
First Quarter (July - September 1998)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of Transportation Advisory Board.
• Renew social service contracts with the different agencies.
• Transportation Advisory Board review of performance; and changes needed, if any.
Second Quarter (October - December 1998)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting of Transportation Advisory Board.
• Review capital plan outlined in Plan for adequacy.
• Review coordination potential with non-participating agencies.
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by
January to NCDOT.
• Prepare and submit Section 18 application (due January).
Third Quarter (January - March 1999
)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting Transportation Advisory Board.
Fourth Quarter (April - June 1999)
• Hold regular quarterly meeting Transportation Advisory Board.
• Review services provided under the E&DTAP funding program.
• Develop E&DTAP application for FY2000-2001.
• Conduct driver training refresher course for demand-responsive operators.
• Prepare report on operating statistics for the previous six months to be submitted by July
to NCDOT.
• Prepare and submit Title III (B) application by May.
-53-
Orange County should adopt standards for these measures based on improving OPT performance
over time. These statistics should be monitored closely and often over time by the Orange County
Transportation Advisory Board to assess overall performance. Table 4-7 presents an example of
performance measures from other transportation systems in North Carolina. The acceptable range of
values for performance measures are also included. When comparing OPT to other systems, it is
necessary to keep in mind the nature of the area OPT serves (large area, few residents), and the large
number of long distance medical trips provided by OPT. Long distance medical trips tend to be quite
costly per passenger. The most important concept for OPT to concentrate on is improvement in efficiency
and effectiveness over OPT's own measures over time. Favorable performance in comparison to other
systems is less important than favorable performance over OPT's current measures. OPT should focus
it efforts on reducing its hourly costs by offering more hours of service or by administrative cost savings.
Other areas for periodic review include:
• Transportation Operations
-- Service Delivery
-- Safety and Training
• Maintenance
-- Vehicle Effectiveness
-- Maintenance Activity Effectiveness
-- Maintenance Activity Efficiency
-- Non-vehicle Maintenance
• Planning and Marketing
-- Service Planning
-- Schedule/Service Planning
-- Public Relations and Client/Agency Information
-- Budgeting and Financial Planning
• Management and Organization
-- Organizational Effectiveness
-- Management/Decision-Making Process
-- Coordination with other agencies not currently participating
-54-
Table 4-7:
EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES WHICH COULD BE
USED TO EVALUATE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Performance Measures Range of Values(1) OPT FY94
Performance
Service Effectiveness
Trips per mile 0.22-0.40(2) 0.23
Trips per hour 1.76-4.74(2) 4.26
Cost Effectiveness
Cost per trip $2.51 -$4.17(3) $4.80
Resource Efficiency
Cost per hour $6.32-$15.16(4) $20.43
Cost per mile $0.71 -$ 1.29(4) $1.09
(1) Based on FY90 statistics from 14 other North Carolina transportation systems.
The range is essentially one standard deviation for all measures.
(2) The higher the number,the higher the effectiveness.
(3) The higher the cost,the lower the effectiveness.
(4) The higher the cost,the lower the efficiency.
(5) Based upon costs,trips,miles,and hours for OPT.
Note: OPTS costs per trip,and costs per hour are higher than the
comparison group;these discrepancies are mainly due to the large number
of costly long distance medical trips which are unique to OPT.
-55-
In the annual review, these areas do not all need to be addressed. Only changes in conditions or
activities in these areas need review, or reviews could be initiated if there is a perceived need by the
Committee to improve performance in one or more of these areas.
-56-
COSTS AND FUNDING
This chapter presents the operating costs and funding sources for Orange Public Transportation
in Orange County over the next four years. It is assumed that existing funding levels will be maintained
(with the exception to Section 18) and costs to provide existing levels of service will remain stable, with
some adjustments for the new services as well as inflation. If services or funding levels change
significantly over the course of the four years, an updated budget will be necessary.
ADDITIONAL ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Costs for the additional scheduled route from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough that will be open to the
general public is approximately $10,010. Since this is built on the Orange Enterprise route, there is no
additional morning round-trip, but the additional hours between 4:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m. and the additional
round trip in miles would result in additional costs. The $10,010 figure is based on 30 miles per round-
trip, 260 work days per year and two hours per day at a rate of$11.00 per service hour plus $0.55 per
mile.
Funding will have to come from three sources: fares, local, and state. A 25 percent farebox
recovery could be achieved with a$1.00 fare (comparable to other TTA regional services), and an average
of 9-10 regular riders would be needed. Since this will be serving the general public, the other 75 percent
of the costs will have to be made up with state and local funds. The amount of funding needed by the
state and local governments would be approximately $3,500 each.
The general public demand-responsive service in Hillsborough will cost approximately $17,016
in general public/Title III service, plus $1,000 for direct costs of marketing. The total cost is based on
a cost of$11.00 per hour(20 hours per week, 1,040 hours per year), operating at$0.35 per mile(12 miles
per hour -- reflecting the village nature of most trips).
In addition to any agency client trips that could be provided under contract, the estimated general
public ridership can be expected to be similar to that in other small towns, accounting for the difference
in population. At a trip rate of.50 trips per person per year, the Hillsborough area could generate 2,188
-57-
trips per year, given its estimated 1992 population of 4,376. At an average fare of$.50 (the current OPT
local public fare), the projected revenue would be $1,094.
OPERATING EXPENSES
The operating costs for OPT to provide current transit services in Orange County over the next
four years are presented this section. Table 5-1 presents the estimated operating budget for current
services over the next four fiscal years based on current operating costs. Total operating expenses in
FY1994-95 were $351,360. For the next four fiscal years, from FY1995-96, each item in the budget has
been increased five percent per year to reflect inflation. The capital budget for the next four years was
presented in Chapter 4.
OPERATING REVENUES
The Overall Revenue Picture
Table 5-1 also details the anticipated revenue sources for the County over the next four years.
Revenues are expected to equal expenditures during this time period. The revenue estimates are based
on actual receipts from current funding sources with adjustments for inflation. (As operating expenses
are projected to increase due to inflation, revenues must also increase to maintain a consistent level of
services. If revenues from existing sources do not keep pace with expenses, service levels will need to
be reduced or additional revenue sources will need to be found.)
Current Funding Sources
Federal Transportation Administration
FTA, one of the modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, administers
programs that provide Federal financial assistance to operate public transit services and to purchase
vehicles that are used for such services. Orange County, as a non-urbanized area, is eligible for funds
from FTA's Section 18 program.
Orange County received$457,376 in Section 18 funds in the 1994-95 fiscal year. Currently, there
-58-
000 o C = v, O o v o o�o a
O,
00 n kn — en o en oo 00 C-• kn
cFa O N N kn 64 M 00 M ' 00 00 N ' to
64 4Ij 69 69 � 69 i 69 � 69 i 69
•
M
N �o W) qt 00 .-• i o0 ON as
N O N — M W) M ; 00 t- �Nq ; N
91 kA 69 69 6H 64 ' &S 69 #
y) O O t-
oo
e
ei
cC 000 O — M � M ' w r--i ' O
z O\ b9 en 69 6R — 6R i 69 6A 61N9
z w
G7
G7 z
z v o
F aoi � c
00 to tn 1�0 O N
e_
Q �O N
Z V1 a O� M C� N n N N d
00 .-.
d W W --� �O 000 M N M i 000 664 i 000
W > Z ? w 69 660- 6A 69 69 619 ' 69 69 ' b�A
w w
z > x H s �
0 O t- ; o
wl Vim, Co ( , 'lc �3 = o
kn ON to N m Ch O
V)
64 64 64 M_ M 6A 00 d' 69 N m O
M 69
!} 64 ' q �-
O W U ., 69 6i9 69 69 6A U c O O
� fYgF o y
g
Z � U aZ
I�1 N Vii G �C V
W O wQa �y c
Z w?
N
W W 00 00 to M 00 � N O, O1 IC O1 E F y
00 N C1 .-. 00 O1 00 N 10 00 ON In x C G. 0•.
F o� M --� N -•• � � oo .� �n v -� 6A N o O u
W O N N 64 cn O N 69 a, tn 69 N m C� rn O
69 69 'a O
a w s 00
a
U ti C M O
U a d e a o c
O U C
VJ
oo y E
OD U
GI
En
c •
F-
« x ,
w F w F
-59-
are some changes in Section 18 that will effect the amount of funds for fiscal year 1995-96 and years
thereafter. For FY1995-96 and years thereafter, Section 18 will no longer fund the cost of vehicle
insurance, and the cost of drug and alcohol testing. As a result, Orange Public Transportation will have
to seek local funds to compensate.
The Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program
E&DTAP, available to each county in North Carolina,provides funds to be used to operate service
for the elderly and disabled in a manner consistent with the TDP. The amount of the award varies from
county to county depending upon the county's elderly and disabled population. Eligibility to receive the
award(the county is the recipient)depends on a currently adopted and approved TDP and implementation
of all the TDP's critical tasks as outlined in the implementation schedule. The program requires that the
increased mobility of the elderly and disabled be the primary objective of the program.
In the FY94-95, Orange County received$32,440 in E&DTAP funds. The demand for E&DTAP
services is ever increasing, due to limited Transportation Assistance Funds. For the FY95-96 OPT faces
a dilemma of providing approximately 2,812 trips above the E&DTAP state funding level. One option
being reviewed is implementing an appropriate co-payment in an attempt to offset some of the deficit.
Medicaid Transportation Assistance Funds
MTAP funds are no longer available to the county. Past funding levels have been $3,189 and
$3,017 for FY93-94 and FY94-95 respectively.
Title III(B)
Title III is an Administration on Aging (AOA) program of formula grants to finance state and
community programs for older persons. It funds trips for older persons to nutrition sites, medical center,
shopping centers and other locations. Funding level for FY94-95 was$42,181. OPT should look to Title
III for additional funding for the additional general public demand responsive service in the Hillsborough
area.
CONTINUAL BUDGETARY REVIEWS NEEDED
Budget estimates of this type should always be used as a planning tool and a basis for comparison
-60-
with annual budget proposals. In recent years, price changes in such areas as fuel, insurance, etc. have
been unpredictable, as have changes in state and federal funding. Such changes are not included in this
budget projection, but the projections can be used to see the impact of funding or cost changes as they
arise. Adjustments to the budget may need to be made over the four-year period.
CONCLUSION
This plan recommends opening up several existing service routes to the general public in Orange
County. This plan also provides a capital plan and recommendations for other implementation activities
over the next four years. The Steering Committee should undertake an annual review of this plan's
recommendations to see if amendments are needed. Changes in service (such as the provision of
employment-related trips), operations,vehicle utilization,agency programs, and other factors can all result
in the need to change the plan. If changes are needed, these changes should be formally adopted by the
Steering Committee and transmitted to NCDOT in a timely fashion. It is very important that the annual
plan review be undertaken, because NCDOT uses the degree of plan implementation as a major criterion
in the evaluation of capital grant applications and for determining ongoing funding eligibility.
-61-
APPENDIX A
ORANGE COUNTY STEERING COMMITTEE
TDP STEERING COMMTTEE
Ms. Nancy Tapp Ms. Sharon Freeland (Christine Green)
Cedar Grove Day Care Center Orange Congregations in Mission
Ms. Gloria Williams (Sheila White) Mr. John Link (Albert Kittrell)
Joint-Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc. Orange County Manager's Office
Ms. Kathy Bryan (Judy Stroupe) Mr. Marvin Collins (Gene Bell)
Orange Enterprises, Inc. Orange County Planning Department
Mr. Moses Carey (Mike Eyster) Mayor Eleanor Kinnaird (Frances Shetley)
Piedmont Health Services, Inc. Town of Carrboro
Mr. Tom Maynard (Gretchen Reuter) Mayor Kenneth Broun (Joyce Brown)
Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Town of Chapel Hill
Ms. Ethel Perkins Mr. David Moser
Wake-Orange-Chatham Head Start Triangle J Council of Governments
Mr. Daniel Reimer Mr. Millicent Rainey
Orange County Health Department Interim Superintendent Orange Co. Schools
Mr. Robert Jones(Wilma Tinney) Ms. Michelle Rivest(John Walker)
Orange County Recreation & Parks SmartStart-Orange Co. Partnership for
Young People
Ms. Martha Pryor-Cook (Patty Clarke/Gwen Price) Ms. Tara Fikes
Orange County Department of Social Services Orange County Housing and Community
Development
Mayor Horace Johnson (Eric Swanson) Ms. Janice Stuart (Beatrice Muhammad)
Town of Hillsborough Durham Technical Community College
Mr. Fletcher Barber Ms. Kathy Lewis
Orange County Cooperative Extension Orange County Department on Aging
Mr. Jerry Passmore (George Snowden) Mr. Ted Abernathy
Orange County Department on Aging Orange County Economic Development
Commission
Mr. Ray Boylston
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Planning Consultant
() Representatives 0
APPENDIX B
ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES
HUMAN SERVICE AGENCIES
Joint Orange-Chatham Community Action, Inc. Orange Congregations in Mission
P.O. Box 27 P.O. Box 866
Pittsboro, NC 27312 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Ms. Gloria Williams Ms. Sharon Freeland
(919) 542-4781 (919)732-6194
Orange Enterprises, Inc. Orange County Department on Aging
500 Valley Forge Road P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Ms. Kathy Bryan Mr. Jerry Passmore
(919) 732-8124 (919) 732-8181
Piedmont Health Services, Inc. Orange County Cooperative Extension
301 Lloyd Street P.O. Box 8181
Carrboro, NC 27510 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mr. Moses Carey Mr. Fletcher Barber
(919) 942-8741 (919) 721-8181
Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health Orange Co. Housing & Comm. Dev.
333 McMaster's Street P.O. Box 8181
Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mr. Tom Maynard Ms. Tara Fikes
(919) 929-0471 (919) 732-8181
Wake-Orange-Chatham Head Start Orange Co. Dept. of Social Services
568 E. Lenoir Street P.O. Box 8181
Raleigh, NC 27601 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Ethel Perkins Ms. Martha Pryor-Cook
(919) 856-5220 (919) 732-8181
Orange County Health Department Orange Co. Recreation & Parks Dept.
P.O. Box 8181 P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278 Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mr. Daniel Reimer Mr. Bob Jones
(919) 732-8181 (919) 732-8181
APPENDIX C
PRIVATE SECTOR LETTER TO
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT FIRMS
ALONG WITH A LIST OF THOSE FIRMS
L �I
ORANGE COUNTY DEPAR'TMEN'T ON AGING
v
x,.
�"to c-ol' 300 West Tryon Street Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Jerry M. Passmore FAX: 644-3044
July 8. 1995
Director
Dear Private Operator:
In accordance with requirements implemented by the N.C. Department of Transportation,
Public Transportation Division, a Transportation Development Plan (TDP) will be
prepared for Orange County during FY 1995/96. The purpose of this correspondence is
to provide you and other private transportation operators with an opportunity to
participate in the planning and provision of local transportation services currently being
provided by Orange County, This Ietter serves as the means by which to initiate your
company's involvement in the preparation of Orange County's TDP and potential
subsequent provision of services.
A Brief history of Orange County's transportation system and a description of the
current operations is enclosed for your information.
Under the TDP private sector process, any private operators who have expressed an
interest by responding to this letter will have the opportunity to present their capabilities in
oral and/or written form to the TDP Steering Committee. This will not need to be a
detailed proposal, but rather more of an indication of the operator's credentials and related
operating experiences. It is an opportunity to market your company locally in an effort to
convince the Steering Committee that the private sector is a viable service alternative.
Following the presentation, the Steering Committee will decide whether to recommend the
issuance of a formal RFP to the Orange County Board of Commissioners using the general
criteria for making public/private service decisions which may include but need not be
limited to:
1. Comparative cost of private versus public services in similar situations;
2. Perceived quality and reliability of service;
3. Local control of services;
4. Responsiveness/flexibility of operators; and
5. Private operator financial stability.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners will make the final decision regarding the
issuance of the RFP.
If you are interested in this system, we request that you mail or fax the attached form by
July 18, 1995, indicating your interest in participating in the TDP inventory phase, and/or
your interest in possibly providing all or part of the transportation services to be operated
subsequent to the endorsement of the TDP.
Page 1 of 2
732-SISI Flilkborou,�h 968--1 501 • Chapel dill 6SS-7331 • Durham (9 10) 227-2031 Nfebanc
In accordance with NCDOT guidelines, please note that your response to this letter
of interest is your only opportunity to participate in this process. Those operators
who either respond as not being interested or fail to respond at all will not be
contacted for further participation in this process including any solicitation for
proposals.
t
Should you indicate an interest in this service, you will be notified at least two weeks prior
to the date of the steering committee meeting during which you can make your
presentation. Written information must also be received by this date. It is anticipated this
will be in about five weeks.
If you have further questions concerning Orange County s TDP process, please contact
J 8 If ery Pass„ore at (919) 732- 181, e�. A. you have questions about tl.e process for
ensuring private sector participation in the TDP planning process, please contact Ray
Boylston, NCDOT, Public Transportation Division, at (919) 733-4713.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Je /M."Passmore, Director
cc: Ray Boylston, Transportation Program Consultant, NCDOT-PTD
John Burchhart, President, Ecosometrics, Inc. ✓
S1V. TDP-OPiB.D Jv
Page 2 of 2
MANAGEMENT/OPERATING FIRMS
Mayflower/Laidlaw, Inc. Trailways-Carolina Coach Co.
P.O. Box 138 1201 S. Blount Street
Sudlersville, MD 21668 Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Paul Comfor Mr. William C. Steele
(410) 438-3385 (919) 833-3601
American Transit Corp./VANCOM Southern Coach Company
One Mid America Plaza, Suite 401 P.O. Box 11345
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Durham, NC 27705
Mr. Paul J. Ballard Mr. Everette Bugg
(708) 571-7070 (919) 688-1230
U.S. Transportation Systems, Inc. Laidlaw Traniit, Inc.
1 Keeshin Drive 723 West Hargett Street
Toledo, Ohio 43612 Raleigh, NC 27603
Mr. George P. McDonough Mr. Gary Shaw
(419) 476-9600 (919) 821-2111
ATE Management Young Transportation
49 E. 4th Street, Suite 700 943 Riverside Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Asheville, NC 28802
Ms. Laura Wilson (704) 258-0084
(513) 381-7424
Transportation Management Svcs. American Contract Mgmt., Inc.
901 North Washington Street, Suite 401 5904 Richmond Highway, Suite 403
Alexandria, VA 22314 Alexandria, VA 22303
Mr. Joseph ZaVisca Mr. James J. McLary
(703) 684-8674 (703) 960-2264
Silvertrans, Inc.
Airport Express, Inc.
P.O. Box 20233
Winston-Salem, NC 27120
Mr. Michael E. Silverman
(910) 722-7228