HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 081915AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
August 19, 2015
7:00 p.m.
You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them.
Conference Room 004 (Lower Floor) Orange County West Campus
131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:00 1.Call to Order and Roll Call
7:05
7:20
7:35
7:55
2.
3.
4.
4.a.
4.b.
4.c.
4.d.
Approval of Minutes from May 20, 2015
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Transit Services/Orange Public Transportation (OPT)
This section of the agenda is addressed jointly by the OUTBoard and supplemental
staff from other County departments (Aging; DSS; Housing, Human Rights and
Community Development; Health; Child Support Enforcement; and the Library) to
address transit services.
Proposed OPT Fare Structure (Bret Martin) – Public hearing for the review of
proposed fare structure for fixed-route services.
OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Open the public hearing; receive any comments
from the public; close the public hearing; and forward and recommend for adoption
the proposed OPT fixed-route fare structure and any modifications to the BOCC.
Status Report (Peter Murphy):
i.New buses for expansion services
ii.New employees for expansion services
iii.Start date for new expansion services/routes
OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide
comments.
Prioritization of Transit Related Technologies (Peter Murphy) – Prioritization of
transit related technologies reviewed at the May 20, 2015 OUTBoard/Transportation
Services meeting, for funding purposes.
OUTBoard/Transit Services Action: Receive and review information, provide
comments, recommend prioritization of transit related technologies.
Transit Services Board (TSB) Comments/Questions (Peter Murphy) – Opportunity
for TSB members to offer transit related comments and ask questions.
OUTBoard/Transit Services Action:Provide comments and questions, receive
feedback.
1
8:10
8:30
8:35
5.
6.
7.
8.
Regular Agenda (Action Items)
Staff Updates
a.Orange County Transportation Project Priority List (Bret Martin) – Ranking of
the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) transportation projects for the
Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO), Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO, and the Triangle Area Rural Planning
Organization (TARPO), to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the
2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The un-
ranked list was approved at the Board’s May 20 meeting and approved by the
BOCC at its June 2nd meeting.
b.Orange County Resurfacing Program (Bret Martin, Abigaile Pittman)
c.Draft Bicycle Safety Plan (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive information, provide comments.
Board Comments
Adjournment
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
1.The OUT Board is charged with advising the Board of County Commissioners on the
planning and programming of transportation infrastructure improvements and other
County transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board.
2.From time to time the OUT Board may be directedto provide input on regulations on
which the Planning Board has primary statutory and local ordinance advisory duties. In
such instances, the OUT Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to thePlanning
Board.
Meetings (from Section IV, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings
3.Regular meetings of the OUT Board shall be held as needed to address items that
require Board action consistent with its Charge and Duties identified herein. Meetings are
held on the third Wednesday of the month. The start time and location of the meeting
shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 7:00 p.m. at the Orange County
West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The
OUT Board Chair, in consultation with staff, shall have the authority to change the start
time and location of a regular meeting to meet any special circumstances, provided the
information is included on the distributed agenda.
2
1
2
MINUTES 3
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD4
MAY 20,2015 5
6
7
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chair and Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alex Castro, Vice-Chair and 8
Bingham Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Heidi Perry, At-9
Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative;10
Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, 11
At-Large Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative, Tom Magnuson, At-Large Representative, John 12
Rubin, At-Large Representative 13
14
MEMBERS ABSENT:Eno Township Representative - Vacant; 15
16
17
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Bret Martin, 18
Transportation Planner; Peter Murphy, OPT Transportation Administrator; Erica Gray, Administrative Assistant II; 19
Debra Graham, Administrative Assistant III. 20
21
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES/OPTREPRESENTATIVES PRESENT:Lucina Munger (Library Dept.), Janice Tyler 22
(Child Support Services Dept.), Donna King (Health Dept.), Robert Gilmore (Dept. of Social Services)23
24
OTHERS PRESENT:Matt Day, Triangle Area Regional Planning Organization (TARPO), Gail Alberti, Bonnie 25
Hauser, Clifford Leath, Jeff Charles, John Rees 26
27
28
AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL;INTRODUCTIONS29
30
31
AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH18,2015 AND APRIL 15,2015 32
33
March 18, 2015 Minutes 34
35
Bret Martin: Line 171 should read, The NCDOT State Management Plan they developed to tell the FTA…”. 36
37
MOTION made to approve March 18, 2015 minutes by Art Menius. Seconded by Alex Castro. 38
Vote: Unanimous 39
40
April 15, 2015 Minutes 41
42
Alex Castro: Line 53 should read,” We have a group of expert bicyclists which include Heidi, Jeff, John, Cliff, 43
Tom and another lady.” Line 184 should read, “On Martin Luther King, north of Estes”. 44
45
David Laudicina: Line 128 should read, “Aren’t most car dealers in Durham County?” 46
47
MOTION made to approve April 15, 2015 minutes with corrections by Alex Castro. Seconded by Heidi Perry. 48
Vote: Unanimous 49
50
51
52
53
3
AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS OF THE AGENDA54
55
No additions to the Agenda were made. 56
57
58
AGENDA ITEM IV: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT)59
A.TRANSPORTATION RELATED TECHNOLOGIES – Review of new transportation 60
related technologies for promoting public transportation commuting alternative 61
(Peter Murphy)62
63
Peter Murphy: Reviewed Power Point presentation on Transportation Related Technologies: Passenger 64
callback systems; Mobile data terminals; Automated passenger counts; AVL route prediction software. 65
66
Alex Castro: Do you have money for implementing new technologies or would you request additional funds? 67
68
Peter Murphy: We would need to put in a request for additional funds. Continued presentation. 69
70
Tom Magnuson: I suggest that you have the cost savings of these technologies as another aspect of the 71
presentation. 72
73
Alex Castro: Can these technologies tie into the trip planner? I understand that would cost an additional fee, is 74
that right? 75
76
Peter Murphy: I don’t recall the numbers but we can certainly look into it. 77
78
Art Menius: The interactive voice response and mobile data terminals, both on functionality and savings, seem 79
like the top two priorities. 80
81
Ted Triebel: Data for data sake is somewhat of information overload. I think you should be looking at what data 82
is most usable for efficiency and effectiveness; i.e., how best do you use the resources that you have. 83
84
Paul Guthrie: Find out what would build a platform of information so you can improve the system. You have to 85
decide what will help you now and build a platform for the future. 86
87
Robert Gilmore: From a perspective of a citizen, the data and transit systems are good, but what I have found is 88
that they are not convenient for people who need to use it before 7:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. We also need be 89
able to move people more quickly. 90
91
Peter Murphy: We are talking about technology here. As far as the growth plan for OPT, absolutely, we are 92
going to look at starting routes earlier in the morning. 93
94
Robert Gilmore: With the transit system in our rural areas, it is not unusual for people to have to walk several 95
miles to get to a bus stop. If a person is walking a long way, that is not really helpful. Will that change? Also, will 96
shelters be provided? 97
98
Heidi Perry: When they are ready to expand, perhaps there is some way to identify the places this would make 99
the most sense. If they were living in higher density neighborhoods and working in high density places, we 100
should make a list so that when the bus is ready to expand, you will know where it should expand. 101
102
Bret Martin: Many of the services we have identified funding for that will be rolled out were designed to fill gaps. 103
Most of our fixed route services are concentrated in the central part of the county where you have a lot more 104
density. There are also services being extended to the rural services. 105
106
4
Tom Magnuson: Could staff do layers from the GIS software showing where the low income housing, schools, 107
the retirement homes and all the potential users? If we can get that information then the ridership would 108
improve? 109
110
Bret Martin: For transit, we did that by Census Block, and that went into the development of the routes to make 111
sure we are targeting the correct places. 112
113
Janice T: The passenger callback technology would be great for seniors. The mobile data terminals would be 114
helpful but if we are looking to access the boomers and others, the trip planner is a key piece of technology. 115
116
Janice T: I want to put in a plug for the volunteer driver program which would complement the OPT system. 117
118
Gail Alberti: Asked if people who don’t have smart phones are taken into account. 119
120
Robert Gilmore: Thanked OPT for having been very supportive in working with DSS on employment job fairs for 121
Orange County. They have helped provide services to our community. 122
123
OUTBoard Action:Received and reviewed information, provided comments. 124
125
126
AGENDA ITEM 5: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS)127
128
A.ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST– The Board of 129
County Commissioners (BOCC) transportation projects for the Burlington-130
Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO), Durham-Chapel Hill-131
Carrboro (DCHC) MPO, and the Triangle Rural Planning organization (TARPO to 132
be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide 133
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). (Bret Martin).134
135
OUTBoard Action:Staff recommends that the Board consider and recommend 136
to the BOCC the list of priority transportation projects for each MPO/RPO to be 137
submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 State Transportation 138
Improvement Program (STIP). 139
140
BGMPO List 141
142
Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. 143
144
Heidi Perry: Questioned rationale for submitting projects. 145
146
Bret Martin: Explained submission selection and prioritization. BGMPO and TARPO each get 12 new projects, 147
and DCHC MPO get 14 new projects. The funding decisions are up to NCDOT scoring of the projects. 148
149
Paul Guthrie: Even if we know they will score low, it is better to submit such projects so that we can have it on 150
the public record that they are a local priority. 151
152
Bret Martin: It is true that if you don’t submit a project because it doesn’t currently score well, it might be difficult 153
to include it in later years if it has not been previously included and it doesn’t get carried forward. 154
155
Paul Guthrie: Also, there may be a tactical advantage because these low scoring projects are much less 156
expensive than most of the ones that scored well and are prioritized on the STIP. So if some of the expensive 157
ones don’t happen for some reason, there could be an argument for letting one of these less expensive ones go 158
forward. 159
5
160
Bret Martin: Answered general questions about the proposed BGMPO projects. He explained how the 161
proposed Mattress Factory Road interchange is related to the planned improvements for Mebane Oaks Road to 162
the west in Mebane. He explained that the focus of all the projects was economic development. 163
164
MOTION made) by Alex Castro to approve the recommended BGMPO list to the BOCC to submit to the MPOs 165
and RPOs for consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 166
(STIP). Seconded by Art Menius. 167
Vote: Unanimous 168
169
TARPO List 170
171
Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. 172
173
Bonnie Hauser: Asked whether consideration has been given to improving the connection of Efland-Cedar 174
Grove Road to US 70 and the interstate, which would improve economic development in Efland. 175
176
Heidi Perry: Asked about making adjustments to the scoring methodology to improve prioritization of bike and 177
pedestrian projects. 178
179
Bret Martin: Explained that for SPOT 3.0 it had been allowed that Divisions and Regions come up with their own 180
highway scoring criteria, which improved the scoring of some widening projects and allowed for bike lanes. This 181
was done in the eastern portion of the state, but here we have to get 6 different MPOs and RPOs to approve 182
this. It is possible but strategically complex. 183
184
Heidi Perry: I don’t think I can support the NC 54 widening or alternative operational improvements project 185
unless you take out the word’ widening’ and use ‘alternative operational improvements’ because I feel like a four-186
lane divided highway is excessive. 187
188
Alex Castro: I agree. The simple answer for improvements on NC 54 in Carrboro is signals. 189
190
Bret Martin: The Town of Carrboro is support of that. That is the direction we are looking to see if we can 191
address the problem with signals first. DOT is looking at the problem for a long term solution. If you add storage 192
for left and right lanes, you have pretty much added a lane so that is an issue as well. 193
194
Paul Guthrie: One of the problems is the conflict between having this process where you put things on a list a 195
long time in advance so they will be done, and the fact that in a very high growth area, that is not good enough. 196
That road is in a high growth area. This process we have here hurts the ability to do long range planning in the 197
sense you have to force this thing and you usually build the wrong thing as a temporary fix. The idea of traffic 198
lights will work. 199
200
Art Menius: I’m not as confident that the growth is going to continue due to the land locked nature of Chapel Hill 201
and Carrboro, considering the rural buffer. More importantly I am doubtful given the tenor of the state university 202
that the university or hospital will be adding jobs at the rate they have in the last 20 years. 203
204
205 MOTION madeby Alex Castro to approve recommendation with changesto 1 and 2 with no ‘widening’andonly
206 alternative operational improvements’on theNC 54 projects. Seconded byArt Menius.
207 Vote: 1 opposed (DavidLaudicina .
208
MOTION made by Heidi Perry to validate the discussion about scoring with regard to highway projects in order 209
to improve the scoring for bike/ped projects. Seconded by Amy Cole. 210
Vote: Unanimous. 211
212
6
Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro MPO list 213
214
Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. 215
216
Paul Guthrie: Does the STIP process allow you to articulate one of the reasons why there is such a problem 217
right above 15/501 on I-40 westbound? Namely, they lose a lane, it drops to two lanes and it backs up for miles. 218
I realize in this scoring game that doesn’t play out, but that road is not adequate to receive the traffic coming into 219
it.220
221
Bret Martin: Safety is a component of the scoring but that is only along the segment of the road that is 222
considered, not a segment remote from the project. 223
224
Heidi Perry: You said I-85’s widening was taken off the STIP because traffic had not increased the way NCDOT 225
had predicted it would, so why do we expect the traffic on I-40 to increase? And NCDOT doesn’t think the 226
building of the light rail will alleviate the traffic on I-40? 227
228
Bret Martin: Because traffic on I-40 has increased. On I-85, the traffic hasn’t really increased. Who uses I-40? 229
It is Alamance County commuters, and on NC 54 it’s Alamance County commuters and Western Orange County 230
going to Chapel Hill. They are using I-40 to go to RTP and south Durham, etc. Look at the major employment 231
destinations and look at the origins and growing residential origins in Orange County, explains a lot of it. 232
Downtown Durham and Duke are big employment hubs, and I-85 is the connection to that, but the traffic is not 233
really growing, but on I-40 it is. I-40 is pretty much at capacity from NC 86 to 15/501. 234
235
Heidi Perry: When you add more lanes, don’t you bring more cars? 236
237
Bret Martin: That is something what happens. This is usually assessed with the cumulative impacts assessment 238
of NEPA environmental impact assessment for a STIP project. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are not accepting the 239
growth they were expected to accept but maybe should accept in order to bring people closer to their jobs. 240
Alamance County’s growth is exploding, with a very strong commuting relationship with the Triangle. Some of 241
this has been absorbed by Chatham County, and north of Pittsboro. 242
243
Heidi Perry: When I read this, I see that the main scoring thing is that you are improving the level of service, and 244
the cost benefit looks good because you are improving the level of service, but you are really not, you’re just 245
bringing more cars into the service and spreading it out more. It seems you are double scoring. 246
247
Bret Martin: But if it costs in congestion scores, it basically double counts congestion as a score. 248
249
Paul Guthrie: If a road becomes less usable, what happens? They go to another road. That puts pressure on 250
mass transit, utility systems, and all kinds of things that come off this. We are next door to one of the fastest 251
growing cities in America. We are at the crisis point of how we handle the future in transportation. 252
253
Amy Cole: I want to make sure I get my plug in for these projects. Numbers 13, 14 and 16. Numbers 13 and 16 254
are tied together as projects to help out with the Safe Routes to School program and scoring seems significantly 255
different. Item 14, this project was scoring much higher. I want to ensure that stays on the list so that at some 256
point it happens. 257
258
Alex Castro: I agree. I don’t understand why 13, 14 and 16, particularly 13 and 14 which are in the Orange 259
County Safe Routes Action Plan aren’t higher priority. They have higher scoring. 260
261
Bret Martin: This is not a scoring list, just a list that will be submitted to the BOCC. Because we are so limited 262
on the projects we can submit for scoring, we might be in the position of needing to prioritize before we submit 263
so that we can tell them which ones are more important to us locally. If the SPOT 4.0 committee determines that 264
7
pre-prioritization of projects will be necessary, we will return to the OUTBoard in August so that we can then 265
make the BOCC’s calendar in September. 266
267
268 MOTION madeby Art Meniusto recommendthe DCHC MPO project list. Seconded by Ed Vaughn.
269 Vote: Unanimous.
270
AGENDA ITEM 5,CONTINUED271
B.BICYCLE SAFETY – Continuation of the Board’s April 15 discussion regarding the 272
plan to address the Board of County Commissioners petition related to bicycle 273
safety (Attachment 1). The Draft Bicycle Plan is provided as Attachment 2. 274
(Heidi Perov, Abigaile Pittman).275
276
OUTBoard Action:Receive and review information, provide comments, and forward 277
to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) with, or without a recommendation of 278
endorsement. 279
280
Heidi Perry: Stated that the goal is to have a draft document/resolution at the end of the meeting to present to 281
the BOCC. 282
283
Art Menius: I appreciate both Bonnie Hauser’s concerns and the official report which does a wonderful job of 284
balancing the interest of bicyclists and motorists sharing safe driving responsibilities. 285
286
Heidi Perry: Reviewed the document, several minor edits. 287
288
Bonnie Hauser: Submitted a written statement regarding the Report (copy attached to Minutes). She stated she 289
met with Lauren Blackburn, NCDOT, Bike/Pedestrian Division and discussed: 290
x Vocabulary for bikers and motorist and it being more urban based; 291
x Urban centers are the biggest problems; 292
x Secondary roads have higher speed with no bike lanes; 293
x Road designs or laws that support sharing the road safely and it will take a long time to fix. 294
295
She stated that the bike problem has not been solved which is why this work has been done, to provide insight. 296
It is important for Commissioners understand the problem, and understand that if it is addressed just as a 297
Bike/Ped thing we will not fix the problem. It takes $500,000/mile to add bike lanes and there are 900 miles of 298
road in rural Orange County. Much of this is not in county jurisdiction it is state jurisdiction. She stated that she 299
would like the OUTBoard to acknowledge rural roads separately from things done in urban areas and that rural 300
roads need special attention. 301
302
Paul Guthrie: Asked what kinds of things on rural roads would be useful short of barring bicycles. 303
304
Bonnie Hauser: 1) 2-foot shoulders are not helping. It is adding bicyclists to the road and not allowing motorists 305
to pass safely; 2) Many of the lines are not properly/evenly drawn and this really needs to be looked at; 3) Her 306
group asked Chuck Edwards, NCDOT, to look at five dangerous hills and curves, and he is going to consider 4-6 307
foot wide safety shoulders on the road where there is a poor line of sight and where motorists can pass safely 308
and bicyclists have somewhere to go; and 4) We could pilot a concept for a new kind of complete streets model 309
for secondary roads. 310
311
Alex Castro: Referred to page 34, item 15 of the Draft Plan which specifically addresses this. 312
313
MOTION made by Ted Triebel to approve this report, with the edits, and to forward it to the BOCC for their 314
information and endorsement. Seconded by Alex Castro. 315
Vote: Unanimous 316
317
8
318
AGENDA ITEM VI:STAFF UPDATES319
320
A.MOUNTAINS TO SEA NORTH CAROLINA STATE TRAIL DRAFT MASTER PLAN321
HTTP://WWW.NCMOUNTAINSTSEA.ORG/322
323
Abigaile Pittman: Comments are being accepted on the Draft Master Plan for the Mountains to Sea North 324
Carolina State Trail. They are accepting comments. I have provided a link but can also send a PDF file if any of 325
you would like. There are approximately 600 miles already constructed with 400 in final planning stages to go to 326
construction. Public meetings will continue until June. 327
328
B.ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY329
330
Abigaile Pittman: Staff undertook a feasibility study via a consultant for a connectivity problem on Eno Mountain 331
Road. The road is a connector between the south and western Hillsborough and carries about 3400 vehicles a 332
day and intersects with Orange Grove Road. 333
334
335
AGENDA ITEM VII:BOARD COMMENTS336
337
AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT.THERE IS NO MEETING IN JUNE OR JULY.338
339
340
MOTION was made by Alex Castro. Heidi Perry seconded.341
342
VOTE: Unanimous 343
344
345
_________________________________________ 346
Paul Guthrie, Chair 347
348
9
AttachmenttoMay20,2015OUTBoardMinutes
StatementtoOUTBoardonBicycleSafetyPlan
May20th,2015
ǡ
ǡǡ Ȃ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
ǡDzdzǤ
ǯ
Ǥ Ȃ
Dz dz Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǤDz dz
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ
ǯǤ
ǯǡ
Ǥ ǡ
Ͷͷ ǤǤ
Passingsafelyisthekeyissue. Ȃ
Ǥ ʹ
Ȃ
Ǥ ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
ǣ
x
x ǦͶͷ
x
x
ȋȌ ǡ
ǦǦǡ Ǥ
ǯǤ
10
Currentlawsformotoristsandcyclistsareoutdatedandcontradictorywhenitcomesto
sharingtheroadsafely. Ȃ Ǥ
ǡǡǡ
Ǥ Ȃ
Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ʹ͵ʹȂ ǯǤ
ThegreatestirritantformotoristsispelotonsȂ
ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ
Dz dz
Ǥ
Ȃ
Ǥ ǡ
ǡ ʹ͵ʹǤ
Thecounty’smapsareoutdatedandencouragecycliststousehightrafficroads.
Ǥ
Ǥ
Educationisneededifit’ssimpleandfocusedspecificallyonteachingmotoristsandcyclistshow
toimproveruralroadsafetyǤ
Dz
ǡ Ǥ
ǯ ǡ ǡ
Ǥ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǥ
Ǥ
11
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:August 19, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No.4.a.
SUBJECT: Proposed Orange Public Transportation Fixed-Route Fare Structure
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)Yes
ATTACHMENT(S):
1.Fare Increase Public Hearing Notice
2.Draft Fixed-Route Fare Structure
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bret Martin, Transportation Planner,
245-2582
Peter Murphy, Transportation
Administrator, 245-2002
PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing regarding a proposed fixed-route fare increase for persons 60+
years of age and consider recommendation to the BOCC of a slightly modified fixed-route fare
structure for Orange Public Transportation (OPT).
BACKGROUND:In advance of the implementation of the five-year bus service expansion program
approved by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in October 2014, Orange
County transportation planning staff is proposing a new fare structure for OPT fixed-route services.
The only major change to the fare structure is an increase in the cash fare for a one-way trip for
passengers 60 years of age or older from $0 to $1. The proposed fare structure also sets the one-
way trip cash fare for passengers with a Medicaid or Medicare card and children at $1, whereas the
existing fixed-route fare structure does not. Further, the proposed fare structure addresses transfers
between OPT-operated services and other agencies’ services and provides options for users to
purchase packages of bus passes that allow a reduced cost per trip based on frequency of use. The
proposed fixed-route fare structure is provided as Attachment 2. The existing fixed-route fare
structure for OPT is as follows:
Service Fare
Hillsborough Circulator Free to all passengers
Hill to Hill Shuttle
$2 one-way fare for general public
$1 one-way fare for passengers with disabilities
Free to passengers 60+ years of age
Although OPT is not yet a direct recipient of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307
Urbanized Area formula grants, OPT is in the process of positioning itself to receive this funding in the
near future. OPT is also currently a sub-recipient of Federal Section 5311 funding for non-urbanized
area use that is passed through to the County by the State. Consequently, OPT is subject to certain
12
administration and managementrequirements of each grantprogram, including the
administration of a specific publiccomment process for executinga proposed fare increase. Because
the proposed fare structure results in a fare increase to passengers 60 years ofage or older, OPT is
subject to this public comment process. Underthe most restrictive program, recipients must:
1)Issue a public notice at least 30 days prior to the effective date of the fare increase;
2)Provide the opportunity for the public to make comments on a proposed fare increase at a
public hearing conducted at least 30 days prior to the required 30-day public notice of fare
increase execution; and
3)Consider all public comments before making a final decision regarding the fare increase.
The published public hearing notice is provided as Attachment 1. The Transportation Services
Board’s decision on the proposed fare structure and associated fare increase to persons 60 years of
age or older will be forwarded to the BOCC for a second public hearing and consideration of
adoption.
As part of its Section 5307 program management and administration requirements, the FTA also
requires recipients’ fare structures to address fares charged to seniors and persons with disabilities
during nonpeak hours in a specific way. Fares charged to seniors, individuals with disabilities, or
individuals presenting a Medicare card may be charged no more than 50 percent of the peak period
fare. Because the proposed peak period general public fare is $2, both the peak and nonpeak fares
for these individuals is proposed to be $1.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:The financial solvency of the bus service expansion program
approved/adopted by both the OUTBoard and the BOCC in 2014 assumed the collection of fares in
accordance with the proposed fare structure with some additional very conservative assumptions
related to ridership. These assumptions were ultimately used to estimate the total amount anticipated
to be collected in fares per year. Although not likely to have a major impact in one direction or the
other, any changes to the fare structure will change the amount of expected farebox recovery built
into the financial assumptions of the plan/program such that the financial solvency of the
program/plan will need to be revisited.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends the OUTBoard and any additional County staff
representatives:
1)Open the public hearing;
2)Receive any comments from the public;
3)Close the public hearing; and
4)Forward and recommend for adoption the proposed Orange Public Transportation fixed-route
fare structure and any modifications to the BOCC.
13
ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Notice of Public Hearing for Fixed-Route Fare Increase
In advance of implementation of a five-year bus service expansion program approved
by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners in October 2014, Orange Public
Transportation is proposing a new fare structure for its fixed-route services. If approved,
the fixed-route fare structure would involve a cash fare increase to persons aged 60+
from $0 to $1 for a one-way trip to be effective September 1, 2015. No other fare
increases are proposed, and the Hillsborough Circulator service will remain fare-free.
A public hearing for this proposed fare increase will be held by the Orange County
Transportation Services Board August 19, 2015, at 7:00pm in the Orange County West
Campus Office Building located at 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278. All
interested persons are invited to attend the hearing and be heard. The site is accessible
to persons with mobility impairments, and interpretive services for the hearing-impaired
will be provided upon request.
A draft of the proposed fare structure will be available for review and inspection on the
Orange Public Transportation website:
(http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/orange_public
_transportation/index.php), in the administrative offices of Orange Public Transportation
located at 600 Highway 86 N, Hillsborough, NC, 27278; and in the administrative offices
of the Orange County Planning and Inspections Department located at 131 W. Margaret
Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, NC 28278.
For further information, to view a copy of the proposed fare structure, or to submit
comments, please contact Bret Martin, Orange County Transportation Planner at (919)
245-2582 or brmartin@orangecountync.gov.
14
Attachment 1
ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) PROPOSED FIXED-
ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE
Service Fare
Hillsborough Circulator Free to all passengers
All Other Non-peak Fixed
Routes (Orange-Chapel Hill
Midday Connector*, Orange-
Alamance Connector**)
$2 one-way fare for general public
$1 one-way fare for children ages 6 - 17, seniors 60+ years of
age, passengers with disabilities, and passengers with
Medicaid or Medicare card
Free to children ages 0 - 5
Peak Fixed Routes (Efland-
Hillsborough Commuter
Loop**)
$2 one-way fare for general public
$1 one-way fare for children ages 6 - 17, seniors 60+ years of
age, passengers with disabilities, and passengers with
Medicaid or Medicare card
Free to children ages 0 - 5
Free to passengers making transfers to or from GoTriangle
routes (ODX or 420)
Rural Deviated Fixed
Routes**
$2 one-way fare for general public at fixed stop locations
$4 one-way fare for general public at deviation locations
$1 one-way fare for children ages 6 - 17, seniors 60+ years of
age, passengers with disabilities, and passengers with
Medicaid or Medicare card at fixed stop locations
$2 one-way fare for children ages 6 – 17, seniors 60+ years of
age, passengers with disabilities, and passengers with
Medicaid or Medicare card at deviation locations
Free to children (0-5)
*Service scheduled to begin August 17, 2015
**Services scheduled to begin October 2015
Transfers:
1)Transfer passes will be issued by operators to passengers who request them and
are transferring between OPT-operated routes. Transfer passes can then be
used as an acceptable form of payment upon boarding another OPT-operated
service.
2)No transfer passes will be issued between transit systems (i.e., GoTriangle,
Chapel Hill Transit, Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation, etc.).
3)Passengers boarding OPT-operated peak-period fixed-route services (Efland-
Hillsborough Commuter Loop) may transfer for free from GoTriangle-operated
peak period services (Orange-Durham Express and 420).
15
Attachment 2
ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) PROPOSED FIXED-
ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE
4)Passengers boarding OPT-operated services who transfer from non-peak Chapel
Hill Transit- or GoTriangle-operated services will be subject to the OPT fare
structure provided above.
Methods of Payment:
1)Cash (no denomination greater than $20)
2)OPT bus passes – OPT is investigating the issuance, distribution and collection
logistics of bus passes for use upon boarding OPT-operated fixed-route services.
Once OPT’s bus pass program is developed and implemented, information
related to their distribution, pricing, collection, and the accepted method of
payment used to purchase them will be made available to the public. The
proposed pricing for OPT bus passes follows:
Fixed-Route Pass Type General Public Price Discounted Price*
Day Pass $4$2
Weekly Pass $16$8
Monthly Pass $60$30
15-Pass Booklet $30$15
*Discounted price reflects the price paid by children ages 6 -17, seniors 60+ years of age, passengers
with disabilities, and passengers with Medicaid or Medicare card. Discount passes will be indicated as
such on the applicable issued passes.
16
Item 4.b.
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:August 19, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No.4.b.
SUBJECT: OPT Expansion Services Status Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)N
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Murphy, Transportation
Administrator, OPT, 245-2002
PURPOSE:To review and provide feedback.
BACKGROUND: OPT has been planning and preparing for the implementation of new
expanded services. Preparation includes the receipt of new buses, hiring and training bus
operators and identifying potential route starting dates.
Buses - Funding application submitted and approved Fall 2014.
x Two (2) buses received April 28, 2015 - expected service ready date of August 17, 2015.
x Five (5) additional buses began assembly July 20, 2015 with an expected delivery of
September 15, 2015 – Predicted service ready date of October 15, 2015.
Employees
x Seven (7) bus operators (3 full-time, 4 part-time) began training August 10, 2015.
x 120 hours of training will be completed in preparation of new service start dates.
Route Start Dates
x Orange County Chapel Hill Connector (expanded service to Cedar Grove and hourly
service ~ 9:45am to 3:45 pm) begins August 17, 2015.
x All other expansion services are proposed to begin in October once the receipt of buses
is verified.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff recommends the OUTBoard and any additional County staff
representatives:
1.Receive the information.
2.Provide feedback.
17
Item 4.c.
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:August 19, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No.4.c.
SUBJECT: Transit Related Technologies
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)N
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Murphy, Transportation
Administrator, OPT, 245-2002
PURPOSE:To review transit related technologies promoting public transportation commuting
and provide feedback for further review.
BACKGROUND:
OPT staff has previously researched and presented technologies that would assist them in
providing an improved and more cost effective service to its passengers. The following priority
order has been placed on a proposed implementation of transit technologies:
a.Mobile Data Terminals (MTD’s) with Automatic Vehicle Locator system (AVLs). The
MTD system tablets would be mounted in each vehicle and provide the dispatcher the
ability to communicate in real-time with the transit vehicle. This system will interact
with our current dispatch software and allow passengers to be added or deleted
virtually. Drivers would be able to instantaneously see the change and react
accordingly. The tablets would additionally eliminate paper tracking of services and
save approximately three (3) working hours per day of data or ~$15,000 annual
equivalent.
Cost Summary: $24,000 one-time set-up fee and $4,200-$5,900 annual fees.
b.Passenger callback systems. System calls passengers at the end of the business day
to confirm they are scheduled for service and the time of their scheduled pick-up. This
system also has the ability to call passengers in the event of inclement weather and
notify them of changes to service. System significantly reduces manual callbacks and
saves approximately one (1) working hour per day or ~$5,000 annual equivalent.
Cost Summary: $5,000 one-time set-up fee and $2,000-$2,400 annual fees.
18
c.Automated Passenger Counters (APC’s): The Automated Passenger Counter system
automatically counts the number of people boarding and debarking vehicles on a daily
basis. This information would allow OPT to change service requirements based on
passenger ridership. This option could be added to two vehicles that would then be
rotated on routes for capturing periodic sample data.
Cost Summary: $13,200 one-time set-up fee to equip two buses and $600 annual
maintenance.
d.AVL and Route Prediction Software: Utilizes sensors mounted in the vehicles and
provides vehicle tracking through internet and mobile devices for real time bus arrival
predictions. Available for the public to observe locations of bus routes and projected
arrival times by location or route.
Cost Summary: $18,000 one-time set-up fee and $16,800-$20,400 annual fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff recommends the OUTBoard and any additional County staff
representatives:
1.Receive the information
2.Provide feedback and suggestions for consideration. Recommend a priority approval for
purchase and implementation based on offsetting available funds before presenting to the
BOCC for financial approval..
19