Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 0219141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Approved 4/16/14 MINUTES ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD FEBRUARY19,2014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Alex Castro, Bingham Township; Donald Wollum, Eno Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Gary Saunders, CFE Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, Planning Board Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; MEMBERS ABSENT: Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate - Vacant; Cheeks Township - Vacant; Economic Development Advocate - Vacant STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Bret Martin, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Lance Hendrix, Mobility Manager, Orange County Department on Aging AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 18, 2013 Jeff Charles: I had a couple of minor grammatical word changes that I have given to Tina. They did not change the meaning in any way. Paul Guthrie: On line 183, there is an "and includes curb cuts that were never put back in place ". I don't remember saying that. Tina Love: I will go back and check that. The December 18, 2013 OUTBoard Minutes were approved with corrections by consensus. AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Jeff Charles: I would like to give an update on the Chapel Hill Committees that advise the Town Council; they are creating a much larger transportation board. Abigaile Pittman: Can we put that in the section of the upcoming agenda items on other regional transit? Jeff Charles: That will be fine. AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA Draft OPT System Goals Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Program Recommendations OUTBoard Action: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the Draft OPT System Goals Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Program Recommendations Abigaile Pittman reviewed the background. Approved 4/16/14 Paul Guthrie: Could we put a footnote on those maps? I think it is important in the long run for your equitable argument and that it is known that it excludes areas in parts of the southwest and southeast county that are not being addressed by Chapel Hill. Abigaile Pittman: When you have limited funds you have to choose which area you will start with. Paul Guthrie: Let's not forget that those areas in the southwest and southeast are a major county concern but not necessarily under the jurisdiction. Jeff Charles: How much money are they projecting to come in? Aren't they spending $30 million dollars to do the initial research for the light rail system and Orange County's share of that is $5 to $8 million dollars? I want to understand the cash flow over that period of time and how much is available for buses. Abigaile Pittman: We were going to work on the goals and then get into the program details. Continued presentation. Sam Lasris: In my experience with destinations and services that lots of people are taking public transit are using it to get to other transportation systems. Jeff Charles: Have they considered the new development that is supposedly going to overwhelm Pittsboro? All of those people will come through Orange County. They are talking 60,000 people, which is equivalent to what we have in the county. Paul Guthrie: I think the short answer is that it is so far on the horizon it hasn't really been calculated in. Bret Martin: Continued presentation. Don Wollum: Is there a mile limit? Bret Martin: Not with this. This is rural general public demand response service. There will be buses for 12 to 18 passengers. Sam Lasris: The destinations are fixed. Where is there a pick -up to get to the RDU airport? Bret Martin: One of the connections is the US 70 mid -day route that will continue on to Durham. There will be other routes that connect to where this is going. Amy Cole: Is there a route where they can connect to a TTA route? Why do you never include a stop on Eubanks Road where people can connect to a TTA route? Bret Martin: Eubanks Road is served by Chapel Hill Transit. Amy Cole: My point is that people could connect to the TTA. Paul Guthrie: Is there a way to build more on the interlinked places to feed that abundance of transit that you showed on the Chapel Hill - Carrboro planning area? Bret Martin: If people are using transit on Eubanks Road, their ultimate destination is not going to be Eubanks Road. Gary Saunders: The TTA at Eubanks Road is limited to the CRX and that runs in the morning and afternoon, so there is no mid -day service on Eubanks Road. Bret Martin: We are going to a lot of the same destinations but they are not serving the same origins. (Continued presentation). Approved 4/16/14 Lance Hendrix: Are these fixed stops or a door -to -door service? Bret Martin: The concept is for it to be curb -to -curb. My recommendation will be curb -to -curb. Alex Castro: These figures are just operating cost? Bret Martin: Yes. Capital is not factored into this budget because Triangle Transit is handling it differently. I have been working through the MPO, TARPO and NCDOT to get the necessary capital to make this happen. Jeff Charles: What percentage of the sales tax that is being collected annually in 2015 is going to this bus service for Orange County versus our share of the $6 million dollars for the studies necessary for light rail? Bret Martin: Of the amount being made available OPT is getting 12 %. How much of that is the total that is coming in? I don't have the budget, but I would estimate 15 %. Paul Guthrie: You can get a good idea on the first chart by the number of transit miles. I would suggest you send that information via email. Jeff Charles: I am going back to the population chart without the students; there are more people in Orange County than Chapel Hill. Bret Martin: Part of the revenue is not even sales tax but vehicle registration fees. There is more vehicle registration in unincorporated Orange County than there is in Chapel Hill. Ted Triebel: Does the fare -free idea come from the top down? Jeff Charles: They are paying for it with the half -cent sales tax. Bret Martin: Also, the scale of service being provided costs more to manage than it is worth to collect fares. It also slows down service. The BOCC has leaned in that direction because we are serving transit - dependent populations, which are typically lower income household without vehicles. Jeff Charles: Are the expansions limited by the amount of access the county has to the percentage of the half -cent sales tax? Would you be adding more if you were given more money? Bret Martin: On Attachment 4, in the far right column a certain amount of money available is noted. In time, more money will be made available. Jeff Charles: Because you are collecting more revenue, or the percentage of the revenue that is going to buses is increasing? Bret Martin: The latter. Jeff Charles: So we have to pay the $6 million dollar share on the chance that we get federal funding and if we don't because the density is not there to support a light rail system, that $30 million dollars goes down the drain. Paul Guthrie: One of the problems with your analysis is that all transit at some in time needs advanced planning. Under the analysis you just gave, you would not do that until you have the money in your hand ready to build the whole system. Your point is well taken with regard to whether it is an appropriate sharing of funds, but I don't think it is a good idea to say we will never share funds if we have to front -end the cost. Jeff Charles: I am not saying that. Alex Castro: I agree with Jeff. The money has to be expended in order to get to the approval stage but if you look at what has happened to Raleigh and Washington, the likelihood of the LRT, which has failed in the past, is a lot less Approved 4/16/14 than it was when it previously failed. The state has changed their prioritization of projects for transportation money with Strategic Transportation investments. It is a new strategic approach geared to economic development, not what the LRT would do. State money is not likely. If Federal money is also not likely, the project is probably a no -go. If they are both not likely, which I think is going to be the case, then it is definitely a no -go. We are going to throw this money out and my perspective, coming from the senior population; we will not see a single rider until the whole system is built out. Bret Martin: There is a whole lot of upfront cost that goes into project development and planning before you even know if the project is going to get funded, so if it doesn't get funded that was a waste and that is true. Jeff Charles: I want to see a light rail here eventually but I am wondering whether the timetable that has been established, that front loads the $30 million, if that could be made 20 or 30 percent longer to free up additional funds for what we really need now, which is this stuff (bus routes). Bret Martin: I am working with what I have got. Abigaile Pittman: We are a tied to this implementation agreement that was agreed to by all the parties. We have to implement what is under the agreement. Jeff Charles: We are being asked to approve a resolution. Does the plan you presented provide an equitable use of the half -cent sales tax mentioned two paragraphs above? And the seven - dollar registration tax? Bret Martin: The OC BRIP is the financial plan per the law. Alex Castro: Is it stipulated that it has to be distributed according to the formula and TTA cannot apply them for something else? Jeff Charles: They have already planned to fund the $6 million dollars over x number of years. One hundred percent of excess funds accumulated should be passed through to the county for the bus system or other uses. Bret Martin: The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is the overarching policy guide for all this and this bus expansion program is specific to OPT implementation details. It is true that the assumption was changed that the revenue projections would not grow by 3.6% per year. It was revised upward to 4.4% per year, which creates additional revenue beyond what was originally projected. That difference creates a total of $60 million extra funds. On the other side the expenditures have changed. The plan originally called for the capital purchases of buses, amenities, park and rides, etc. and for there to be an 80% federal share and 10% state share. That was a dangerous assumption. That figure has been revised to 30% federal and 5% state. The idea is that the additional revenue would be soaked up by the fact that more local expenditures would be used to pay for the capital purchases. I calculated the capital purchases will only cost (with the 30% federal 5% state shares) about $18 million dollars. There is $42 million dollars unaccounted for by TTA. We need to know where the rest of the money will be spent. Jeff Charles: Don't we need that information to talk about this resolution. Abigail Pittman: This is the initial years with the initial money. Paul Guthrie: Why do you need this resolution now? Bret Martin: The BOCC will see this in March and will be asked to approve the program in April or early May and they would like a recommendation. Paul Guthrie: I have many of the same questions about the resolution. On one hand, I think we could come to agreement on the concept of these routes. Whether that is an equitable distribution of the proceeds to TTA or not, I am not sure we have enough information to know that and yet this resolution basically slams the door on that discussion. Approved 4/16/14 Bret Martin: You are reading that in a recital of the resolution? Abigaile Pittman: You need to read the rest of that sentence and the use of the word equitable as applied to transit dependent populations, not in the sense of the TTA funding and sales tax. Jeff Charles: I still think the outstanding issue is what percentage of that funding is going to Orange County versus Chapel Hill. I am uncomfortable. Bret; I think you have done a wonderful job with the amount of the funding you have been given. As an advisory committee we have to be careful what we are recommending. I am not comfortable with this resolution at all as written. Bret Martin: My intent for being here is to get a recommendation on the program. Paul Guthrie: What would be the ability to put a simple resolution together that says something about this program you have just described telling the BOCC what we think about it. It is a good thing we can support. And then put a paragraph about the other issues that have come up that need further study and examination and then come back to what you think is absolutely necessary to move this forward. Alex Castro: The point I am concerned about is the changed parameters. You told us the assumptions that were made about Federal and State funding percentages have changed. I suggest to the Board we see if we have any problems with what we have been briefed on and say we agree with this part but we feel that we need to point out the changes and our concerns. Bret Martin: This resolution is only working within what resources are being made available through OPT. This resolution is not changing anything at a policy level, at the OC BRIP level, as to what will happen with the money. Alex Castro: I think it is important that we show concerns about changes in the parameters on the Federal and State level and to point out the parameters outlined in these new directions that come from Washington and Raleigh and that the funding that comes from them will be allocated differently, and to point out to the BOCC that this needs to be reviewed. Bret Martin: The BOCC is getting this because they are a party to the implementation plan. Jeff Charles: We represent the community. The reason we are part of an advisory committee is because they want to hear from their constituents and this is a focus group of that and we need to get that opinion across to them if the majority feels that way. Paul Guthrie: What do you need from us tonight? Abigaile Pittman: I'd like to get a decision from the Board on the goals first and then you could vote on recommended bus expansion program, either by considering each individual route or by considering the whole package. You don't have to do anything with the resolution. Sam Lasris: We can resolve to support the goals but be skeptical of the funding. Alex Castro: I would put it in the context that, whereas the federal government has implemented Map 21 and the State of North Carolina has implemented Strategic Mobility Formula plan, and indicate the changes from the prior assumed funding percentages, that this has great implications for the county. We have concerns that what is proposed will not get the allocations from the State or Federal government that were anticipated. Paul Guthrie: I am going to have to leave so I am asking Jeff (Charles) to begin chairing. My suggestion is that we don't' deal with the resolution as a whole but look at the goals and then get a strategy how we can get some of these other issues to the front and center. Abigaile Pittman: I would like the Board to consider the goals first, then the proposed bus routes, and then you can provide statement(s) on your other issues of concern. Approved 4/16/14 Bret Martin: (Continued presentation). Alex Castro: The Advisory Board on Aging has provided recommendations on bus service expansion routes in a written letter to the BOCC. Bret Martin: (Continued presentation). Abigaile Pittman: I need to know if you support these goals and address the order because the order reflects priority. Amy Cole: I am in support of all the goals because they have come directly from the evidence of the surveys, indicating what we are in need of. As far the order of the goals, I would like to know percentage -wise which would serve the most people and then order these according to the greatest population being served. Ted Triebel: I am on the same track as Amy. I would suggest we swap number one and two. The number one priority, when you look at page 17, this is where most of the people are being affected. We didn't mention environmental concerns. This is the greatest volume of people and that is why I would be in favor of Amy's objective. Motion made by Ted Triebel that the OUTBoard supports the four goals with prioritization being goal #2 and then #1, then the remainder in the order they are presented. Sam Lasris seconded. Vote: 9:1 (Gary Saunders) (Gary Saunders did not provide a reason for his vote in opposition.) Amy Cole: I am suggesting that we serve the majority of the population that needs to be served first and working our way down the list. Abigaile Pittman: That comes in the next vote. Jeff Charles: Attachments 3, 4 and 5. Abigaile Pittman: Amy's concern is that Later Senior Routes are being implemented too late. Amy Cole: I thought it should be higher on the list. Alex Castro: That service is not scheduled to come on until July, 2016 and the Department on Aging feels that it should be brought into service much sooner. Abigaile Pittman: We are entering into the county's budget discussion for the next fiscal year. There might also be a discussion of additional funds to go toward something else but that is unknown at this time. Bret Martin: Going through the budget process, the only thing changing is to get rid of $3 co pay for medical appointments and to stop collecting fares on the 420 route. Jeff Charles: There is not a clear swap. For the first year, it is basically $56,000 so where will you get the funds to swap it out to have it occur in 2016 instead of 2017? Bret Martin: What would naturally come out would be northern zone routes that could be implemented later. The US 70 route could possibly be pushed back because it will be sensitive to when Triangle Transit begins service. Alex Castro: The 420 route is a midday substitution by OPT of what TTA runs rush hour morning and evening. TTA charges for that route and are we saying we want OPT to run the same route but because they are doing it midday we are not going to charge? I don't see the trade -off. Bret Martin: Triangle Transit is trying to focus on employment commuters. OPT service is primarily local. Approved 4/16/14 Jeff Charles: If you are concerned about seniors they are the least likely to be able to pay that fee so I think it would be important to not charge. Could we go with a recommendation to bring it back to Bret and you reorganize it and do what Amy is suggesting? Bret Martin: I would move it earlier and keep everything else in the same order and it would be presented to the BOCC as the OUTBoard's recommendation. Ted Triebel: In the Attachments 3, 4 and 5, I don't see any statement that we should be gathering data on ridership so that there will be a re- examination of routes that should be made and not just this is the way it is. Shouldn't there be something in there that after a certain period we should rearrange a route or two? That would be a worthwhile comment to make. Bret Martin: That will be in the program and we have already developed service standards. Ted Triebel: I only like this if at the one year mark, we will take a look at it and make sure we have what we need. Bret Martin: There will be service standards in the program that will address that. Jeff Charles: Can I get a motion to approve Attachments 3, 4 and 5 with the changes of the senior service getting a higher priority and including a footnote comment that Ted is suggesting? Motion made by Alex Castro to approve Attachments 3, 4 and 5 with changes that the senior services get higher priority and include a footnote that that new bus routes be reviewed annually according to program service standards. Seconded by Don. Vote: Unanimous Abigaile Pittman: In March and April the program will be presented to the BOCC with your recommendation and comments. In April and May they will approve some type of bus program for the first five years, and in May and June there is a group looking at making revisions to the OC BRIP because facts have changed with regard to funding and project timing. Jeff Charles: We need one more motion with respect to the equitable use of funding. Alex Castro: Our concern is that prior transportation planning and allocation of funding has been adversely impacted by the newly implemented Federal Map 21 program and the State Strategic Mobility Funding Plan, and that the changes in Washington DC and Raleigh have changed priorities and the allocation of funding. Bret Martin: Nothing changed in Washington DC. Triangle Transit changed the percentages because the assumptions they made originally were not correct. Alex Castro: There needs to be a correction to the planning allocations of funding made by Triangle Transit which were not correct as to Federal funding, and then there needs to be an assessment of the impact of the new thrust from Raleigh under the Strategic Mobility Formula plan which has changed the methodology for the prioritization and funding of projects. Jeff Charles: The OUTBoard is asking for additional information to assist them in understanding the procedure with respect to changes to the OCbRIP (potentially, as Alex discussed), and also how the increased revenue is going to be split. Tell the BOCC that If you want the OUTBoard to be able to continue to comment they need additional information. The OUTBoard has concerns about its understanding of the revenue stream in light of the changing landscape. Ted Triebel: The OUTBoard does not have the appropriate data. Abigaile Pittman: Our BOCC also does not yet have clarity regarding the most current funding projections from Triangle Transit. Approved 4/16/14 384 385 Jeff Charles: Abigaile, could you draft the language for this comment and send it to Paul and I for approval? 386 387 Abigaile Pittman: Yes. I can refine what you have said and make sure it reflects what you have discussed. 388 (The comment appears in the Abstract for the April 15, 2014 BOCC meeting.) 389 390 Alex Castro: I think we should institute that as a process. 391 392 Abigaile Pittman: Due to the late hour, the remainder of the agenda will be deferred to the Board's March 1911 393 meeting. 394 395 396 AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES 397 a. Work Group for Outlining Rural and Central Orange Public Transit Needs 398 b. Status of State, RPO and MPO Project Prioritization 399 c. DCHC MPO, BG MPO, and TARPO activities 400 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates 401 402 403 AGENDA ITEM VI: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 404 BOARD AGENDAS 405 OUTBoard Action: Receive information 406 407 408 AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS 409 OUTBoard Action: Receive comments 410 411 412 AGENDA ITEM Vill: ADJOURNMENT 413 414 The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 415 Paul Guthrie, Chair