Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
OUTBoard agenda 021914
AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board February 19, 2014 7:00p.m. You can bring your laptops/tabletsif you would like to use them. Conference Room 004 (LowerFloor) Orange County West Campus 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Time Item Title 7:001.Call to Order and Roll Call 7:05 7:08 2. 3. Approval of Minutes Minutes from December 18, 2013 Consideration of Additions to the Agenda 7:10 8:20 8:40 8:50 9:00 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Regular Agenda Draft OPT System Goals Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program Recommendations OUTBoard Action: Make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the Draft OPT system goals and the Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program recommendations. Staff Updates a.Work Group for Outlining Rural and Central Orange County Public Transit Needs b.Status ofState, RPO and MPO Project Prioritization c. DCHC MPO, BG MPO, and TARPO activities OUTBoard Action: Receive updates Upcoming Agenda Items of Interest on Other Regional Transportation Related Board Agendas OUTBoard Action:Receive information Board Comments OUTBoard Action: Receive comments Adjournment – The OUTBoard’s nextmeeting will be March 19, 2014 1 D R A F T MINUTES1 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD2 DECEMBER 18,20133 4 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, At-Large Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Ted Triebel, Little 5 River Township Representative; Alex Castro, Bingham Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough 6 Township Representative; Andrea Rohrbacher, Planning Board Representative; Donald Wollum – Eno Township 7 Representative;8 9 10 MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Advocate;Amy Cole, Transit Advocate; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove 11 Township Representative; Gary Saunders, Commission for the Environment Representative; Vacant- Cheeks 12 Township Representative; Vacant –Economic Development Representative13 14 15 STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land UsePlanner;Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II16 17 18 OTHERS PRESENT:Nancy Cole Baker, Pascale Mittendorf, Holly Reid 19 20 21 AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL22 23 The meeting was called to order and new members and guests made introductions.24 25 26 AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 21,201327 28 TheOctober 16, 2013 OUTBoard minutes were approved by consensus.29 30 31 AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA32 33 Alex Castro and Jeff Charles have items to discuss during the appropriate areas of the agenda.34 35 36 AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA37 DRAFTSAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS)STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN.38 An overview of the 264-page plan has been provided in the packet. The draft SRTS plan 39 is also available on the Orange County Planning Department website 40 at:http://orangecountync.gov/planning/transportation.asp Hard copy of the plan is 41 available upon request.42 OUTBoard Action:This plan has been referred to the OUTBoard by the BOCC for 43 review, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for its 44 February 18, 2014regular meeting. 45 46 47 Abigaile Pittman gave an overview of the SRTS.48 49 Nancy Baker noted that the numbers are old and suggested staff contact the Board of Educationto see if the schools 50 have updated numbers.51 52 Ted Triebel asked for the maximum distance one way.53 54 2 D R A F T Abigaile Pittman responded that the maximum distance is 2 miles.55 56 Paul Guthrie asked about the distance for busing and Don Wollum asked about the greatest distance for busing.57 58 Abigaile Pittman referred the Board to the map and advised that it shows the traveling distances.59 60 Nancy Baker advised the Board that the County also buses students based on ‘hazard’ and literally have students 61 who live across the street from the school who are bussed because it is not safe for them the cross the road. 62 Additionally this program will make it accessible for walkers and bikesnot only for the elementary students but also 63 for the high school students at both Cedar Ridge and Orange High School as they are beside two of the chosen 64 elementary schools.Nancy noted there are also large apartment complexes within easy walking distance from 65 Grady Brown and some facilities there are going to help alarge group of children. She noted that with Cameron Park 66 being in downtown Hillsborough the benefits will include a lot of the residents.67 68 Pascale Mittendorf noted that many children within walking distance are driven which creates a lot of traffic 69 congestion. That is especially a concern with Cameron Park as therea bad corner on a hill with limited line of sight. 70 It is a dangerous location.71 72 Paul Guthrie commented that he was not involved in the placement of the schools but he was involved very heavily in 73 the placement of 2 schools in the Chapel Hill district and he does not remember any time that they talked about the 74 issueof walking to school. He said the only issue was the driving issue and the only place you could put a school 75 with the acreage required was out where there aren’t any people. He noted that the system has been built where the 76 schools are located are out away from the towns,so he is very enthusiastic about the request.77 78 Holly Reid agreed that the short term costs of locating schools where it is less expensive but then there is the great 79 long term cost for busing in the County system. She pointed out that the project also helps the afterschool and extra-80 circular activities, and since the facility are available for public use it also benefits that use not just before and after 81 school but multiple times a day and weekends.82 83 Abigaile Pittman noted that in the process of meeting with DOT regarding the maintenance the facilities there will 84 need to be a contract with the Town of Hillsborough to provide that maintenance. This will be one of the discussions 85 at the joint meeting between the BOCC and the Town of Hillsborough in February. The final decision on the Plan will 86 be postponed until after that meeting has been held. She noted it could a March or AprilBOCC meeting.87 88 Jeff Charles noted that if there are going to be bicycle lanes or bicycle areas there has to be maintenance in those 89 area that involves running a power brush over them to get debris, gravel, broken glass, etc. 90 91 Abigaile Pittman advised she would make sure it was included in the discussion. She also told the group that Grady 92 Brown School went into the projectlist for the DCHC MPO, who is allowed to submit 20 bike/ped projects up to DOT, 93 and Grady Brown made it as number 19. 94 95 Nancy Baker asked Abigaile ifthat included the overpass and was told that it does.96 97 Ted Triebel asked if there was any effort to prioritize between the three schools as to which one should go forward 98 first. He noted that the possibility of gettingfunding for all three was slim and Abigaile Pittman responded that the 99 Grady Brown projects have been prioritizedby the BOCC.100 101 Abigaile Pittman noted that Hillsborough submitted the Cameron Parkprojects as a packagebut it wasn’t accepted 102 as one of the 20 projects.103 104 Alex Castro asked if the County would have to pay for 20% of the costs of the Grady Brown project.105 106 Abigaile Pittman responded that there is a lot of money left over that was not obligated because very few of the plan 107 are ready right now if this project can get there first with an adopted plan and constructability with DOT resolved and 108 cost estimates that are fairly accurate, with the fact that the County has staff engineers that can lay out some pre-109 3 D R A F T engineering work, the project can submit for some of the remaining SAFETEA-LUfunds that have no matching 110 projects. She added that if not, because DOT scored it in their scoring list, it would be eligible for the fundsthat have 111 a 20% match.112 113 Alex Castro asked if the project was in a position to do all of that andhave all the work prepared.114 115 Abigaile Pittman advised that was the goal. 116 117 Motion made by Alex Castro that the OUTBoard recommend to the County Commissioners that they consider 118 approving the 3 SRTS action plans identified for Grady Brown, Stanford Middle School, and Cameron Park 119 Elementary School projects. Seconded by Jeff Charles.120 Vote: Unanimous121 122 123 AGENDA ITEM V:OUTBOARD INPUT FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT 124 Development of a list of concerns or emerging issues for the upcoming year that the 125 OUTBoard plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners’’ attention.126 OUTBoard Action:Develop and approve list.127 128 129 Abigaile Pittmanreviewed the staff’s list of 7 items for the report.130 131 Jeff Charles asked if bicycling would fall into #3.132 133 Abigaile Pittman responded it could be under #4.134 135 Jeff Charles noted that bicycling is not mentioned.136 137 Abigaile Pittman confirmed that is it not and suggested that it could be added to the list.138 139 Jeff Charles noted that he has comments about the implementation of bicycling projects during 2013 so they 140 improvements can be made for 2014. He said that there were a number of streets where the OUTBoard was advised 141 there would be 2 foot extensions put in to aid the cycling community and the biggest one was Dairyland which 142 handles a lot of bicycling traffic. He stated that it failed miserably and the cyclist never got 2 feet and some of it is 143 only 6 inches. He stressed that the implementation was a failure and further that Orange Grove Road where NCDOT 144 went back and redid it and there is a line in it, that section of the pavement is now heaving and separating from the 145 main road because there is not a top surface. He said that bicycling is getting a C in implementation in Orange 146 County and they are spending money but no one is overseeing the projects appropriately and he thinks it has been a 147 failure for the amount of money that has been spent. Jeff thinks the OUTBoard should go on record to state that 148 there needs to be a bicycling coordinator at the staff level in Orange County to oversee these projects because DOT 149 is not doing a good job. He said that he cannot state that strongly enough and the damage being done by the 150 infrastructural changes is now causing significant damage to the roads that are hazardous to cycling. He added that 151 bicycling is taking a back seat and it is time for Orange County to step up.152 153 Abigaile Pittman advised that this is an emerging issues list so it is about what the OUTBoard needs to be looking at 154 in 2014.155 156 Jeff Charles responded that the OUTBoard needs to recommend better bicycle coordination infrastructural changes. 157 158 Ted Triebel noted that the key is to have somebody that would monitor what is going on and it would become part of 159 somebody’s job description.160 161 Jeff Charles noted that Dale has that responsibility in Durham and asked who has that responsibility in Orange 162 County.163 164 4 D R A F T Abigaile Pittman responded that it is not on anyone’s job description and that he is right.165 166 Alex Castro suggested that it would be worthwhile to have photographs of the road sections mentioned.167 168 Jeff Charles noted he planned to do that whenever Chuck Edwards come to an OUTBoard meeting.169 170 Abigaile Pittman reminded the members that Chuck requested an agenda be created prior to setting a date for him to 171 attend a meeting.172 173 Abigaile Pittman noted that she has an item for that list that relates to schools. She said that there are other schools 174 in the district that have minorissues. She suggested the OUTBoard have a survey of those and noted there is one 175 elementary school that has a drop off area with a lot of traffic that all it would take is a slip lane at the exit to the right 176 so people can get out. She noted there are all these minor issues at schools all over the County that are not 177 necessarily on SRTS and staff can go around and evaluate those needs. She advised that it could then be brought 178 to the OUTBoard for input and then on up for the BOCC to ask DOT to do something. She added that DOT has 179 money to do projects for small things like slip lanes or flashing lights, etc.180 181 Paul Guthrie noted that while it is a good discussion, the County has no jurisdiction on the state road system. The 182 building of the lanes was done speedily and was probably not very well inspected and included curb cuts that were 183 never put back in place. 184 185 Jeff Charles responded that DOT was supposed to do Old Greensboro Road with the 2 foot for cyclists and if they 186 say they are going to do it, then they should do it.187 188 Paul Guthrie stated that what he’s hearing is that the Board would very much like to talk to the district engineer and 189 suggested that the members prepare a list of things for discussion and then Abigaile can put in the request.190 191 Alex Castro would like to add to the list the following- study the feasibility of using existing triangle region railway 192 infrastructure for commuter rail purposes. He noted that one of thebackgrounds on this is the 440 that will be under193 repair for the next three year and one of the way they are looking to relieve congestion is to use an existing rail link 194 from Selma up to Raleigh and putting in temporary commuter rail station along the existing route to take some of the 195 commuters off the highway. Alex thinks that could be extended through the triangle region as there is existing rail 196 infrastructure that goes right through the RTP and through Hillsborough and a there is a plan to put a station in 197 Hillsborough. Alex suggested initiating a study to see what is, what it will take, and then piggyback what DOT is 198 doing as they are implementing this already for the 440.199 200 Paul Guthrie noted that he served on the Hillsborough Rail Station Task Forceand it was stimulated by Amtrak 201 saying it was financially feasible for them to make a stop at Hillsborough. He noted that one of the ideas with the 202 Hillsborough station that he would like to see the OUTBoard to query the Town of Hillsborough is where they are in 203 that process. He indicated that the station could be used as a hub for bus lines and other forms of transportation.204 205 Alex Castro showed the Orange County Land Use Map and noted the light rail link and the economic development 206 zones which is along existing railways. He noted that we have it if we get it worked out. He referred to Northern 207 Virginia and they put in commuter rail on existing rail links and it’s called Virginia Railway Express and they have 208 good ridership. He says that is the ideato address where future development is proposed and see what can be done 209 using what is with additional on the margin funding compared to what is being talked about for the LRT. 210 211 Alex Castro amended what he suggested earlier to say –Study the feasibility of using existing triangle region railway 212 infrastructure for commuter rail purposes as part of a multi-modal transportation system.213 214 Motion made by Alex Castro to approve the report to the County Commissioners as amended. Seconded by Jeff 215 Charles216 Vote:Unanimous217 218 AGENDA ITEM VI: STAFF UPDATES219 5 D R A F T a.Notes from the NCDOT luncheon meeting220 b.Eno EDD Access Management Plan221 c.Ad hoc committee to define the needs of the County Central and Rural Bus Program222 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates223 224 Abigaile Pittmangave the OUTBoard updates to review at their convenience and noted the Eno Access Management 225 Plan was approved by the BOCC on November 19th and she gave the Board information on the ad hoc committee for 226 bus programs. Abigaile noted that this will include an OUTBoard member and Alex Castro has expressed interest. 227 228 The OUTBoard designated Alex Castro to the ad hoc committee by consensus.229 230 231 AGENDA ITEM XI: 2014MEETING232 OUTBOARD ACTION:Receive calendar233 234 235 AGENDA ITEM XI: ELECTION OF CHAIR/VICE-CHAIR236 The terms for the current Chair and Vice-Chair are concluding, new appointments are 237 needed. 238 239 The OUT Board reappointed by consensus Paul Guthrie as the Chair of the OUTBoard.240 241 The OUTBoard reappointed by consensus Jeff Charles as the Vice-Chair of the OUTBoard.242 243 244 AGENDA ITEM IX: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 245 BOARD AGENDAS 246 OUTBoard Action:Receive information as a handout247 248 249 Alex Castro noted that he attended the DCHCMPO TAC meeting and noted they received information regarding 250 funding for fiscal year 2014, 2015, & 2016. He would like to see those numbers and added they will be approved at 251 the DCHC MPO TAC February meeting.252 253 254 AGENDA ITEM X: BOARD COMMENTS255 OUTBoard Action:Receive comments256 257 258 AGENDA ITEM XI: ADJOURNMENT259 260 The meeting was adjourned by consensus.261 6 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:February 19, 2014 Action Agenda Item No.4 SUBJECT:Draft OPT System Goals and Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program Recommendations DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)N ATTACHMENT(S): 1.Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) Progress Report by Triangle Transit (TTA) 2.Draft Goals for the OPT System 3.Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendation Notes 4.Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations 5.Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations Map 6.Draft Resolution Supporting Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations INFORMATION CONTACT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner, 245-2567 Bret Martin, Transportation Planner, 245-2582 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 245-2579 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2592 PURPOSE:To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on: 1. The Draft Goals for the OPT System; and 2. TheFive-YearBus Service Expansion Program recommendations. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) was approved by the BOCC in June 2012. The OCBRIP provideslocal and regional transit opportunities including expanded bus service and proposed light rail. Voters in November 2012 approved a one-half cent sales tax to fund the local portion of the Plan and collection of the sales tax began on April 1, 2013.The $7 county vehicle registration tax resolution was approved by the BOCC on December 11, 2012. The sales tax and vehicle registration tax are two primary funding sources to support OCBRIP implementation of the future public transportation needs of Orange County and connections to the surrounding regions. To help ensure success of the OCBRIP, Orange County and Triangle Transit held workshops in August 2013 to maximize public involvement during the bus planning process. These workshops were held to provide an overview of the OCBRIP and collect information that would help staff and the policy boards bridge the OCBRIP, which is more general in nature, to a specific program for bus service expansions that are to take place over the next five-years. This specific program iscalled the Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program. 7 Information collected during the outreach process, via public meetings, surveys, and interviews, was used to develop and refine draft program goals for OrangePublic Transit (OPT) and Triangle Transit (TTA). TTA’sdraft goals are included in Attachment 1, the OCBRIP Progress Report. Itshould be noted that the TTA Board of Trustees ultimately sets the goals for its transit system. Alternatively, the BOCC sets the goals for the OPT system. Draft goals for the OPT system were prepared by staff and are provided in Attachment 2. The OPT goals will be included in the draft Central and Rural Orange County Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program that the BOCC willreview in March-April2014.Staff is seeking OUTBoardcomments on whether the lists of goals correctly represents the OPT transit systems, but also for any prioritization of, or emphasis on certain goals. Attachment 3is the Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendation Notesgenerally describing staff-recommended routes for service expansion, and includes currently unfunded priorities. Attachments 4 and5provide a more detailed table forthe recommended routesand anassociated map.Staff is seeking OUTBoard comments and support of the staff- recommended Five-Year Bus Service Expansion program for Central and Rural Orange County. For the OUTBoard’s consideration, staff has provided Attachment 6,a Draft Resolution Supporting Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations. Additional background documents such as the adopted OCPRIP can be found via the following link, listed under Transportation Documents: http://www.co.orange.nc.us/planning/transportation.asp NEXT STEPS: 1.February 2014: Staff will develop draft Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program 2.March/April 2014: Presentation of draft bus program to the BOCC 3.April/May 2014: Approval of final bus program by the BOCC 4.May/June 2014:a. Amendment to the adopted OCBRIP financial plan; and b. Project timing/update 5.Summer 2014/January 2015: Begin implementing first year expansion services RECOMMENDATIONS:The Planning Directorrecommends the OUTBoard: 1.Recommend approval ofthe Draft OPT system goals to the BOCC, to include any additional comments the OUTBoard might have; and 2.Recommend approval of the Plan the Five-Year Bus Service Expansion Program recommendations to the BOCC, to include any additional comments the OUTBoard might have. 8 $WWDFKPHQW 9 All of the proposed transit improvements found in the Transit Plan require new revenue. The Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorized a referendum on a half-cent cent sales tax increase and an increase to the vehicle registration fee to help pay for these transit improvements. To the right are a series of milestones that have been achieved that help advance the implementation of the Transit Plan. Milestones Goals of the Orange County Transit Plan The goals of the Transit Plan are to: ,PSURYHRYHUDOOPRELOLW\DQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQ RSWLRQVLQWKHUHJLRQ 3URYLGHJHRJUDSKLFHTXLW\ 6XSSRUWLPSURYHGFDSLWDOIDFLOLWLHV 6XSSRUWWUDQVLWVXSSRUWLYHODQGXVH 3URYLGHSRVLWLYHLPSDFWRQDLUTXDOLW\ Strategies to accomplish these goals include: 1HZEXVVHUYLFHVORFDOO\WKURXJKRXWWKHFRXQW\ DQGDFURVVWKHUHJLRQWKDW ,PSURYHFRQQHFWLYLW\ ,QFUHDVHIUHTXHQF\LQSHDNKRXUV ,PSURYHZHHNHQGQLJKWVHUYLFHV R̆SHDN (QKDQFHH[LVWLQJVHUYLFHV 0DLQWDLQH[LVWLQJVHUYLFHV 0DLQWDLQOHYHORIORFDOIXQGLQJDWQROHVVWKDQ WKH$XJXVW VSHQGLQJOHYHO $Q$PWUDN7UDLQ6WDWLRQLQ7RZQRI+LOOVERURXJK (QKDQFHGEXVVHUYLFHRQ0/.%OYGLQ&KDSHO+LOO $PLOH/LJKW5DLOFRQQHFWLRQIURP&KDSHO+LOO WR'XUKDP NovePEer Citizens of Orange County vote in favor of a half-cent sales tax increase to support increased investment in transit 'eFePEer Orange County Commission authorize a seven dollar increase in vehicle registration fee and 1/2¢ sales tax to support increased investment in transit April One half-cent sales tax is implemented in Orange County -ul\ Seven dollar vehicle registration fee was implemented 2FtoEer Approval of the Implementation Agreement -une Orange County Board of County Commissioners authorize public referendum on half-cent sales tax increase to fund transit improvements 10 (aFh 'eFePEer TrianJle Transit Zill FoPPuniFate to 2ranJe Count\ and the Chapel Hill Transit 3artners hoZ PuFh Pone\ Zill Ee availaEle Ior Eus serviFe e[pansions in the upFoPinJ \ear ,I the aPounts are not Fonsistent Zith the adopted 3lan TrianJle Transit Zill e[plain Zh\ Then 2ranJe Count\ the Chapel Hill Transit 3artners and TrianJle Transit Zill eaFh identiI\ ZhiFh Eus serviFes IroP the Transit 3lan Zill Ee paid Ior Zith the availaEle Pone\ TrianJle Transit¶s %oard oI Trustees is responsiEle Ior PaNinJ sure that the serviFes Iunded Zith the òFent sales ta[ and the vehiFle reJistration Iees are Fonsistent Zith State laZ loFal aJreePents and the Count\ 3lan 2nFe revieZed and approved E\ TrianJle Transit the Count\ and the Chapel Hill Transit 3artners Fan EudJet Ior and iPplePent the planned serviFes Accountability Orange County Annual Programming of Bus Service Expansions The IolloZinJ serviFes Zill Ee iPplePented in the upFoPinJ ¿sFal \ear -ul\ throuJh -une 0ore IreTuent ZeeNda\ serviFe EetZeen Streets at Southpoint parNandride and 8NCChapel Hill on TrianJle Transit 5oute AuJust /ater ZeeNda\ serviFe on Chapel Hill Transit routes C0 C: ' ) and - AuJust ,Pproved Saturda\ serviFe on Chapel Hill Transit routes C0 C: and -N AuJust 2ranJe Count\ and TrianJle Transit are also ZorNinJ Fooperativel\ to re¿ne a Eus serviFe e[pansion proJraP Ior Fentral and northern 2ranJe Count\ to Peet JroZinJ needs Ior loFal and reJional transit travel This proJraP oI serviFes is e[peFted to Ee FoPpleted E\ 'eFePEer The sFhedule Ior serviFe e[pansions Zill Ee deterPined throuJh this proFess 2ver the upFoPinJ ¿ve \ears Chapel Hill Transit 2ranJe 3uEliF Transportation and TrianJle Transit Zill iPplePent neZ or e[panded Eus serviFes 5esidents Zill also see neZ Eus shelters parNandride lots and sideZalN FonneFtions to Eus stops Next Steps Upcoming Bus Service Expansions 11 Financial Summary April – June 2013 Revenue Chapel Hill Transit North Corridor Alternatives Analysis Study Chapel Hill Transit North South Corridor Alternatives Anal\sis Stud\ is the ¿rst step in the Iederal proFess that Zill alloZ CHT to FoPpete Ior Iederal Iunds to Euild an enhanFed transit serviFe proMeFt Zithin the Forridor The Alternatives Anal\sis Zill e[aPine a variet\ oI puEliF transportation options and aliJnPents and FonFlude Zith the identi¿Fation oI a /oFall\ 3reIerred Alternative /3A Ior the Forridor The stud\ Zill revieZ the ColuPEia St 0/. %lvd transportation Forridor The stud\ is sFheduled to EeJin in 2FtoEer The antiFipated stud\ tiPeline is Ponths The stud\ Zill e[pand on previous ZorN to identiI\ and evaluate Pultiple aliJnPents Ior the Forridor and a Eroad ranJe oI serviFe deliver\ options in order to reFoPPend an /3A that iPproves aFFessiEilit\ IreTuenF\ FonneFtivit\ reliaEilit\ FapaFit\ speed and FonvenienFe iPproves the level oI serviFe and inFreases ridership to the 8NC FaPpushospital and provides a neFessar\ FonneFtion to the neZ FaPpus at Carolina North provides aFFess and FonneFtion to the proposed 8NC /iJht 5ail Station provides Pore aFFessiEle saIe and FoPIortaEle stations stops Zith pedestrian FonneFtions to aFtivit\ Fenters in the Forridor supports Iuture developPent Zithin the Forridor and provides Eene¿ts to e[istinJ neiJhEorhoods inFludinJ loZ inFoPe and Pinorit\ populations and Jenerates Zide puEliF and staNeholder support and enFouraJes partnerships aPonJ aJenFies Eusinesses and orJani]ations in the Forridor Durham-Orange Light Rail Project: 3lanninJ ZorN Fontinues on the proposed Pile 'urhaP 2ranJe /iJht 5ail Transit 3roMeFt that Zould FonneFt (ast 'urhaP throuJh doZntoZn 'urhaP to Chapel Hill and 8NC Hospital TrianJle Transit is ZorNinJ Flosel\ Zith area staNeholders and reJional partners to identiI\ and resolve issues as the\ ZorN to FoPplete an intensive environPental stud\ oI the proposed Forridor :orN on the liJht rail has Eeen Iunded E\ TrianJle Transit¶s 0aMor Transportation ,nvestPent )und %eJinninJ in -ul\ additional ZorN on the proMeFt Zill Ee Iunded E\ the neZ revenue streaPs identi¿ed in the Transit 3lan ConstruFtion Fould EeJin E\ Zith operations underZa\ in Hillsborough Amtrak Station: Additional ZorN on the station aZaits the result oI rail Forridor FapaFit\ anal\sis to Ee perIorPed E\ TrianJle Transit North Carolina 5ailroad and NorIolN Southern 3lanninJ ZorN should EeJin later this Iall and is tarJeted to Ee FoPpleted Zithin three to Iour Ponths ,n NovePEer and NovePEer voters in 'urhaP Count\ and 2ranJe Count\ passed separate reIerenda that alloZed eaFh Fount\ to lev\ a òFent sales ta[ to Iund the 'urhaP and 2ranJe Count\ %us and 5ail ,nvestPent 3lan '2 Transit 3lan 'urinJ the past ¿sFal \ear -ul\ throuJh -une the neZ transit ta[ Zas in ĕeFt Ior three Ponths IroP April throuJh -une The '2 Transit 3lan is also Iunded throuJh a portion oI the Furrent 5eJional 9ehiFle 5ental Ta[ TrianJle Transit antiFipates reFeivinJ other neZ revenues Ior the '2 Transit 3lan IroP additional IundinJ sourFes inFludinJ a Count\ 9ehiFle 5eJistration Ta[ a 5eJional 9ehiFle 5eJistration Ta[ inFrease state and Iederal Jrants and FustoPer Iare pa\Pents Sales Tax* Durham County Orange County Regional Vehicle Rental Tax Durham County Orange County * Readers should not assume that these values represent 1/4 of a full year’s revenue. Month- to-month variability is high and April 2013 receipts were very low. 12 At t a c h m e n t 2 Ce n t r a l a n d R u r a l O r a n g e C o u n t y F i v e - Ye a r B u s S e r v i c e E x p a n s i o n P r o g r a m Pr o g r a m G o a l s 1 13 Dr a f t G o a l s f o r O r a n g e C o u n t y Se r v i c e - O P T Pr o v i d e e q u i t a b l e s e r v i c e Ge o g r a p h i c a l l y Tr a n s i t - d e p e n d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s Im p r o v e a c c e s s t o i m p o r t a n t d e s t i n a t i o n s a n d se r v i c e s Ti e i n t o l a r g e r t r a n s i t n e t w o r k Pr o v i d e c o s t e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e Ma t c h s e r v i c e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o e x p e c t e d d e m a n d Ma i n t a i n t h e f l e x i b i l i t y t o m e e t e c o n o m i c de v e l o p m e n t p r i o r i t i e s 2 14 Pr o v i d e E q u i t a b l e S e r v i c e Ad d r e s s p o r t i o n s o f t h e C o u n t y t h a t a r e c u r r e n t l y un d e r s e r v e d b y t r a n s i t ( g e o g r a p h i c e q u i t y ) Fo c u s o n a r e a s o f t h e C o u n t y w i t h h i g h e r n u m b e r s o f tr a n s i t - d e p e n d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s Re a s o n s f o r G o a l : Pr o v i d e s s e r v i c e f o r t h o s e w h o a r e h e l p i n g p a y f o r tr a n s i t i m p r o v e m e n t s a n d w o u l d u s e t h e s e r v i c e Pr o v i d e t r a n s i t s e r v i c e t o i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t w o u l d n o t ot h e r w i s e h a v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o i m p o r t a n t d e s t i n a t i o n s 3 15 Tr a n s i t - d e p e n d e n t P o p u l a t i o n s 4 16 Im p r o v e A c c e s s t o I m p o r t a n t De s t i n a t i o n s a n d S e r v i c e s Im p o r t a n t d e s t i n a t i o n s a n d s e r v i c e s i n c l u d e : Wo r k / s c h o o l Se n i o r c e n t e r s So c i a l s e r v i c e s Sh o p p i n g Me d i c a l So c i a l / P e r s o n a l b u s i n e s s Ti e n e w a n d e x i s t i n g s e r v i c e s i n t o l a r g e r t r a n s i t ne t w o r k 5 17 Im p r o v e A c c e s s t o I m p o r t a n t De s t i n a t i o n s a n d S e r v i c e s ( c o n t . ) Re a s o n s f o r g o a l : Fo c u s e s i n v e s t m e n t s o n w h e r e p e o p l e w a n t t o g o Ty i n g i n t o t h e l a r g e r t r a n s i t n e t w o r k c o n n e c t s m o r e pe o p l e t o m o r e d e s t i n a t i o n s , i m p r o v e s s y s t e m fu n c t i o n a l i t y , a n d b r o a d e n s r e ac h o f e x i s t i n g i n v e s t m e n t s Me n t i o n e d a t s e v e r a l p u b l i c i n p u t s e s s i o n s a n d o n t h e su r v e y Fe e d b a c k f r o m D e p ’ t o n A g i n g a n d D S S 6 18 De s t i n a t i o n s f r o m Sur v e y 7 19 Pr o v i d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e S e r v i c e Ma t c h s e r v i c e i m p r o v e m e n t s t o e x p e c t e d d e m a n d Ab i l i t y t o l e v e r a g e a d d i t i o n a l f u n d i n g Ma t c h d e m a n d t o a p p r o p r i a t e s e r v i c e t y p e ( d e m a n d re s p o n s e , p o i n t d e v i a t i o n , f i x e d r o u t e ) No t e t h a t r u r a l l e v e l o f d e m a n d m a y b e d i f f e r e n t t h a n ur b a n / r e g i o n a l l e v e l s o f d e m a n d Pr a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s : Ex p a n d s e r v i c e h o u r s o n e x i s t i n g r o u t e s , i n c l u d i n g g a p s in s e r v i c e , e v e n i n g s , a n d w e e k e n d s Im p r o v e f r e q u e n c y o f e x i s t i n g r o u t e s w h e r e d e m a n d ex i s t s 8 20 Pr o v i d e C o s t E f f e c t i v e S e r v i c e (c o n t . ) Re a s o n s f o r G o a l : Su r v e y q u e s t i o n : W h a t s e r v ic e i m p r o v e m e n t s a r e t h e mo s t i m p o r t a n t ? 28 % M o r e f r e q u e n t s e r v i c e 23 % W e e k e n d s e r v i c e 21 % S e r v i c e l a t e r i n t h e e v e n i n g 7% S e r v i c e e a r l i e r i n t h e m o r n i n g Me n t i o n e d a t s e v e r a l p u b l i c i n p u t s e s s i o n s Fe e d b a c k f r o m D e p ’ t o n A g i n g a n d D S S Go o d g o v e r n a n c e 9 21 Ma i n t a i n t h e F l e x i b i l i t y t o M e e t Ec o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t P r i o r i t i e s As f u t u r e e c o n o m i c d e v e l o p m e n t n o d e s d e v e l o p , ad d t r a n s i t s e r v i c e a s a p p r o p r i a t e Re a s o n s f o r g o a l : St a t e d p r i o r i t y f r o m C o m m i s s i o n e r s a n d s t a f f Su p p o r t s e l e m e n t s o f 2 0 3 0 C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n 10 22 OPT5-Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendation Notes 1)Northeastern and Northwestern County Zonal Routes – Route would come online July 2014, would be one day per week on a Tuesday or Thursday running 5 hours per day with one-hour headways during off-peak periods, and would run a deviated fixed-route schedule. This route would require 0.50 bus and could be run using an LTV spare. The route would connect residents in northeastern Orange County to destinations and additional transit connections in Hillsborough.The route would be fare-free. 2)US 70 Midday Service – Route would come online January 2015, would be a daily weekday service running up to 6 hours per day during off-peak periods with two-hour headwaysper direction, and would run a fixed-route schedule. This route would require 1 additional bus(Section 5307-funded). The route would connect Mebane/Buckhorn and Efland with destinations and additional transit connections in Hillsborough and Durham. The route would be fare-free. 3)Route 420 Expansion – Route would come online January 2015, would be a daily weekday service running up to an additional 10 hours per day (5 hours each northbound and southbound) with one- hour headways, and would run a fixed-route schedule. This assumes a two-hour run time each way. This route expansion would require 2additional buses(Section 5307-funded). The route would connect Cedar Grove with destinations and additional transit connections in Hillsborough and would continue on to destinations and additional transit connections in Chapel Hill.The route would be fare-free. 4)Hillsborough Circulator with Additional Noon Hour Service – Route would begin using OPT OCBRIP funding July 2015 and would continue the existing Hillsborough Circulator service with an additional hour added for 12pm-1pm. Route would not require any additional buses but would require 2 replacements(Section 5307-funded)for 2 existing ARRA-funded buses.The route would continue to be fare-free. 5)Later Senior Center Service – Route would come online July 2016, would be a daily weekday service running up to 4.5 hours per day with one-hour headways, and would run a deviated fixed route or point deviated demand response schedule. The route would provide earlier and later service to and from Orange County senior centers beyond times the service is currently provided. Service may require 1 additional bus. UNFUNDED PRIORITIES: 6)Expansion of Route 420 Peak Service to Cedar Grove 7)Hillsborough Circulator Service Additions to include weekend service and/or early morning and evening service 8)EDTAP/RGP Subsidization – Funds could be used to subsidize $3 copays for EDTAP trips already provided by OPT to make medical trips free for users.Funds could also be used to provide limited, free or fare-reduced rural general public point deviated demand response service to persons throughout the county who are pre-qualified for other human service-specific transportation within the county. This service expansion could be funded with any additional funding realized by OPT through additional OCBRIP revenues or leveraged federal or state grant sources or it could be considered a higher prioritythan expanded senior center service and supplant that service recommendation. 9)Others???? Attachment 3 23 Or a n g e C o u n t y 5 - Y e a r B u s S e r v i c e E x p a n s i o n R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s Ro u t e M a p ID St a r t Da t e Es t i m a t e d We e k d a y Ho u r s Es t i m a t e d An n u a l We e k d a y s Es t i m a t e d An n u a l Ho u r s Es t i m a t e d To t a l A n n u a l Op e r a t i n g C o s t FY 2 0 1 4 $8 8 , 3 5 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e FY 2 0 1 5 $2 1 1 , 0 0 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e NE z o n a l r o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 1 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 5 2 2 6 0 $ 1 2 , 1 6 0 NW z o n a l R o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 2 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 5 2 2 6 0 $ 1 2 , 1 6 0 US 7 0 r o u t e 3 1 / 1 / 2 0 1 5 7 1 2 5 8 7 5 4 0 , 9 2 4 Ro u t e 4 2 0 e x p a n s i o n 4 1 / 1 / 2 0 1 5 1 0 1 2 5 1 , 2 5 0 $ 5 8 , 4 6 3 FY 2 0 1 5 A n t i c i p a t e d O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s 2, 6 4 5 $ 1 2 3 , 7 0 7 FY 2 0 1 6 $3 1 5 , 0 0 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e NE z o n a l r o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 1 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 2 , 5 3 7 NW z o n a l R o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 2 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 2 , 5 3 7 US 7 0 r o u t e 3 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 7 25 0 1, 7 5 0 $8 4 , 3 8 5 Ro u t e 4 2 0 e x p a n s i o n 4 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 10 25 0 2, 5 0 0 $1 2 0 , 5 5 0 Hi l l s b o r o u g h C i r c u l a t o r ( a d d 1 h r . / d a y ) 5 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 5 9 2 5 0 2 , 2 5 0 $ 1 0 8 , 4 9 5 FY 2 0 1 6 A n t i c i p a t e d O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s 7, 0 2 0 $ 3 3 8 , 5 0 6 FY 2 0 1 7 $3 7 2 , 0 0 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e NE z o n a l r o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 1 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 2 , 9 2 6 NW z o n a l R o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 2 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 2 , 9 2 6 US 7 0 r o u t e 3 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 7 25 0 1, 7 5 0 $8 7 , 0 0 1 Ro u t e 4 2 0 e x p a n s i o n 4 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 10 25 0 2, 5 0 0 $1 2 4 , 2 8 7 Hi l l s b o r o u g h C i r c u l a t o r ( a d d 1 h r . / d a y ) 5 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 9 25 0 2, 2 5 0 $1 1 1 , 8 5 9 La t e r S e n i o r C e n t e r r o u t e s 6 7 / 1 / 2 0 1 6 4 . 5 2 5 0 1 , 1 2 5 $ 5 5 , 9 2 9 FY 2 0 1 7 A n t i c i p a t e d O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s $4 0 4 , 9 2 9 FY 2 0 1 8 $3 8 2 , 0 0 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e NE z o n a l r o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 1 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 3 , 3 2 7 NW z o n a l R o u t e ( 1 d a y / w e e k ) 2 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 4 5 52 26 0 $1 3 , 3 2 7 US 7 0 r o u t e 3 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 7 25 0 1, 7 5 0 $8 9 , 6 9 8 Ro u t e 4 2 0 e x p a n s i o n 4 1/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 10 25 0 2, 5 0 0 $1 2 8 , 1 4 0 Hi l l s b o r o u g h C i r c u l a t o r ( a d d 1 h r . / d a y ) 5 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 5 9 25 0 2, 2 5 0 $1 1 5 , 3 2 6 La t e r S e n i o r C e n t e r r o u t e s 6 7/ 1 / 2 0 1 6 4. 5 25 0 1, 1 2 5 $5 7 , 6 6 3 FY 2 0 1 8 A n t i c i p a t e d O p e r a t i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s $4 1 7 , 4 8 1 FY 2 0 1 9 $3 8 8 , 0 0 0 Ma d e A v a i l a b l e No t e s * A s s u m e s n o l e v e r a g i n g o f F e d e r a l o r S t a t e g r a n t s f o r o p e r a t i o n s ** A s s u m e s o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t o f $ 4 4 / h o u r i n 2 0 1 4 do l l a r s w i t h c o s t e s c a l a t i o n o f 3 . 1 % p e r y e a r At t a c h m e n t 4 Fe b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 1 4 24 ?ª ?ª ?r I§ I§ K© !"c$!"_$ !"c$ !"_$ ?o ?o Ir KÊ AË !(2 !(2 !(2 !(1 !(1 !(1!(3 !(4 !(4 !(5 !(6 Five -Year Bus Service Expansion Recommendations Map Route 1 2 3 4 5 6 · Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (2/11/2014) 01 Miles 1 in = 2 miles $WWDFKPHQW25 ATTACHMENT 6 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBOARD) RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PUBLIC TRANSIT WHEREAS,Representatives from Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Triangle Transit (TTA) have worked collaboratively to developthe Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP), a comprehensive bus service improvement plan that supports the effort to improve public transit in Orange County, including bus, light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and Amtrak; and WHEREAS, Theone-half (½) cent sales tax for public transit was approved by referendum in Orange County on November 6, 2012(Session Law 2009-527, House Bill 148, NCGS 105, Article 43); the $7 county vehicle registration tax resolution was approvedby the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)onDecember 11, 2012 (NCGS 105- 570); the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) was adopted by the BOCC on June 5, 2012; and the Interlocal Implementation Agreement for the OCBRIP was approved on October 24, 2012; and WHEREAS, The one-half (½) cent sales taxand $7 county vehicle registration tax arefunding sources to supportOCBRIPimplementationofthe future public transportation needs of Orange County and connections to the surrounding regions; and WHEREAS, Session Law 2009-527, House Bill 148, NCGS 105, Article 43requires that the financial plan for the OCBRIP must provide for equitable use of the net funding proceeds and consider: (i) the identified needs of localpublic transportation systems in the district; (ii) human service transportation systems within the district;and (iii) expansion of public transportation systems to underserved areas of the district; and WHEREAS, Orange Public Transportation (OPT) is the primary transportation resourcefor rural and central portions of the county, and strives to provide a comprehensive continuum of locally accessible, community- based transportation services; and WHEREAS, TTAprovides inter-city and inter-county connections and CHT provides Chapel Hill, Carrboro, UNC services, all which are an integral part of county coordinatedpublic transit services. WHEREAS, Public transportation is an important part of the ability to access employment and a variety of public and private services in the county for those who do not have cars of their ownor who cannot operate vehicles (i.e. transit dependent populations); and 26 WHEREAS,The 2011 Orange County Community Health Assessment Report identifies Top 10 Issues in Orange County that includephysical access to health care services (including transportation and disability access); and WHEREAS,The 2011 Orange County Community Health Assessment Report identifies Top 10 Issues in Orange County that includetransportation systems that impact quality of life and health (including accessible and affordable transportation for those with limited incomes, physical or mental disabilities, or living in rural areas); and WHEREAS, Transit-dependent parameters based on the 2010 Census and the American Community Survey indicate that 14.7% of the county population is 60 years and over, 8.1% of the population is disabled, 17.4% is under the poverty level,295.6% are minorities, and 7.0% are without motor vehicle access; and WHEREAS,A significant percentage of Orange County’s transit-dependent residentsreside in central and northern rural areasand face many barriers to transportation;and WHEREAS, Orange County’s senior population is disproportionately increasing and it is important to consider and plan for the transportation needs of this segment of the population;and WHEREAS, The adopted Transportation Objective T-1.of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan supportsthe expanding the availability and use of public transportation throughout the County to provide better connections between employment centers, shopping, social and personal/medical service locations, and other key points of interest in both urban and rural areas(such as educational), particularly for the County’s senior and disabled populations and others without access to automobiles; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED on this 19h day of February, 2014, we the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)support: A. The following goals for Orange County Service by OPT: 1.Provide equitable service a. Geographically b. Transit-dependent populations 2. Improve access to important destinations and services a. Tie into larger transit network 3. Providecost effective service a. Match service improvements to expected demand 4. Maintain the flexibility to meet economic development priorities 27 B. Funding for the following Orange County 5-Year service expansion recommendations: 1.The implementation of a west/east bus route using U.S. 70 (January 2015) as the primary route and stopping in Mebane, Efland, Hillsborough, and Durhamwith both peak commuter serves in the mornings and afternoons/evenings operated by Triangle Transit (TTA)and mid-day service operated by OPT, both funded by the OCBRIP regional cross-county funds; 2. The July 2014 OPT implementation of northeastern and northwestern county zonal deviated fixed-routes that would connect residents to service destinations and additional transit connections in Hillsborough; 3.Future expansion of the 420 Route (January 2015) to connect Cedar Grove Community Center with destinations and additional transit connections in Hillsborough and to destinations and additional transit connections in Chapel Hill; 4.Future expansion of the Hillsborough Circulator (July 2015 and beyond) to add noon hour service, weekend service, early morning and evening service, and/or reverse-route service; 5.Future senior center bus route daily weekday service (July2016) that would run a deviated fixed route or point deviated demand response schedule and provide earlier and later service to and from Orange County senior centers beyond times the service is currently provided; 6.Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program (EDTAP) / Rural General Public Program (RGP) subsidization, if possible throughout the ongoing budget process,of $3 copays for EDTAP trips already provided by OPT to makemedical trips free for users, and to provide limited, free or fare- reduced rural general public point deviated demand response service to persons throughout the county who are pre-qualified for other human service-specific transportation within the county; and 7. The implementation of other transportation services that willassist the transportation-dependent population of Orange County with better connections between employment centers,shopping, social and personal/medical service locations, educational, and other key points of interest in both urban and rural areas. ________________________________________________ Paul Guthrie, Chair Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) 28