HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 051706
1
Orange Unified Transportation Board 1
Regular Meeting 2
May 17, 2006 3
4
5
Members Present: Alice Gordon, BOCC; Barry Jacobs, BOCC; Jan Grossman; Pascale 6
Mittendorf; Bryn Smith; Nancy Cole Baker; Robert Peterson; Randy Marshall; Eric Tillman; 7
Sam Lasris (Late); Al Terry; Elisabeth Lake (Late) 8
9
Members Absent: Sandra Quinn; Julian Marshall, Jr.; James Ray 10
11
Staff Present: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; 12
Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant 13
14
Visitors: Pat Strong, Triangle J Council of Governments 15
16
Karen Lincoln: (Reviewed the draft resolution included in agenda packet). OUTBoard has been 17
suggested as the new acronym for this Advisory Board (Orange Unified Transportation Board). 18
Attachment 3 in your packet shows examples of activities, which this Board will be involved 19
with, and this material will be reviewed in more detail later. If you have any questions regarding 20
this Board, or what’s happening regarding transportation, please feel free to contact me at any 21
time. Transportation is inseparable with land use, economic development, and the environment. 22
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the major funding program for large 23
transportation projects ($300,000 or greater) and these projects are funded federally. This 24
program is a 7-year program, updated every other year. The proposed priority list will be 25
coming to this Board in the future for review. In the past, the list had been reviewed by Staff, the 26
Planning Board and the Commissioners. The approval process for TIP projects is very long, and 27
has numerous components such as a feasibility study, and NEPA process to confirm that the 28
project meets federal guidelines. There will also be the opportunity to comment on the State 29
TIP, which is also put out for public comment. The 2007-2013 plan will be coming to you soon 30
for review. 31
32
Barry Jacobs: Could you explain how the roads and bike lanes work in North Carolina? 33
34
Karen Lincoln: Funding for these programs are primarily federal, with a local match by the 35
State. A certain percentage goes toward alternative transportation programs, also called 36
transportation enhancement programs, such as bike routes, pedestrian trails, etc. 37
38
Barry Jacobs: The County essentially has no authority over these types of projects, and no funds 39
available. 40
41
Alice Gordon: The counties got out of the funding of programs in approximately 1931. The 42
focus is primarily on public transportation. 43
44
2
Karen Lincoln: The County can now fund bike paths, but not when they are directly related to 45
the roads. Projects can work in conjunction with highway projects to help pay for them, such as 46
adding bike shoulders on the highways. 47
48
Craig Benedict: There are other fund sources available which are more responsive to local 49
needs, such as NC Moving Ahead. These are not reliant on federal funds. We work closely with 50
NCDOT. Also, some urban-type funds are available for the short-term projects, if the urban 51
areas are included in the programs. Also, funds are available for safety related issues, such as 52
signage, guardrails, etc. 53
54
Robert Peterson: Who are the MPO and RPO representatives for the County? 55
56
Karen Lincoln: Alice Gordon is the representative to the MPO, and Barry Jacobs is the 57
representative to the RPO. 58
59
Alice Gordon: The local MPO (Municipal Planning Organization) includes Durham, Chapel Hill 60
and Carrboro. It has a 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan, as shown on the wall, which is a 61
requirement of the federal government. All Federal and State projects go through the MPO, such 62
as TIP projects. The RPO is a newer program, and includes areas not included in the MPO. In 63
the past, Staff has prepared recommendations for the BOCC, and the BOCC desired an Advisory 64
Board to review and provide recommendations. State TIP projects go directly to the State. The 65
Advisory Board role is important, as transportation issues need regular attention. 66
67
Pat Strong: (handout) The RPO was established in 2000, and the Triangle RPO was set up in 68
2002. Memorandums of Understanding were signed in 2003, and the TARPO includes Orange, 69
Chatham, Lee and Moore counties. There are 20 RPOs throughout the State. Recent legislation 70
allows review of TIPs to be every 4 years, however NCDOT is retaining a 2-year interval. The 71
new TIP process for the TIP beginning in 2009 will begin next spring, and go throughout 2007. 72
There are four reasons for an RPO, as shown in the handout: to provide input and requests for 73
the State TIP, to disseminate information, to work with NCDOT and local governments on long-74
term multi-modal programs, and to be a forum for public participation and public involvement. 75
NCDOT is very active in reviewing the expectations of the RPO/MPO public involvement 76
process. This Board, being one of the first transportation advisory boards in the area, will serve 77
as a model for other members of the RPO. 78
79
Jan Grossman: Who puts out the various bicycle maps? Are they done by the County or the 80
State? 81
82
Karen Lincoln: The State is currently working on one, which was a TIP funded project. There 83
are several difference maps available now. Local groups have helped to define the areas. There 84
are two different types of bicycle programs; a bike plan, and a bike map, showing assigned 85
routes with signs. 86
87
Jan Grossman: A multi-county effort is good, to show the continuous routes available. 88
89
3
Barry Jacobs: As you can see, there is a blizzard of acronyms and rules relating to 90
transportation. Counties have extremely limited opportunity for change. With this group, we 91
can look for creative ways to work with the laws. For example, a pedestrian bridge across I-40 92
on Orange Grove Road was able to move up on the Long Term TIP, due to community efforts. 93
94
Alice Gordon: Orange County is recognized as being aggressive with transportation 95
opportunities. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO is very supportive of our County efforts. 96
Also, we need to keep in mind that there are three overlapping NCDOT divisions within our 97
MPO. 98
99
Jan Grossman: If NCDOT wanted to widen the Interstate, do we have a say in that? 100
101
Alice Gordon: We have a voice, however our impact on the actual decision may be minimal. 102
103
Bryn Smith: So, we’re really like a noise-making group. 104
105
Barry Jacobs: There is a proposal made by the mayors within the RPO to the County 106
Commissioners to raise transportation funds in the local areas. The Capital Area MPO tends to 107
be more road oriented. The Durham MPO is about 50/50 towards road improvements. Locally, 108
we are not as road oriented. If this does get approval by the various BOCC’s, we could have 109
more control or say over what gets done in our areas. The County Commissioners may not want 110
to take the lead, however. 111
112
Alice Gordon: Each MPO has different legislative agendas and revenue sources. 113
114
Craig Benedict: Another opportunity is that the focus of NCDOT is to build roads, and they may 115
not look closely at other efficient situations, such as using service roads instead of widening the 116
roads. Your input on these matters may help with designing programs overall. 117
118
Karen Lincoln: With federally funded projects, there is a public involvement process. More 119
projects will need to be looked at locally in the future. A comprehensive transportation plan has 120
replaced thoroughfare plans. I will plan to develop a list of acronyms. 121
122
Al Terry: NCDOT has numerous acronyms on its website under the Highway Division, but is it 123
several pages long. 124
125
Karen Lincoln: I will try to send the weblink to the Board members, as its difficult to find things 126
on the DOT website. Another area this Board will be reviewing is traffic demand management 127
ideas, and possibly proposals for businesses. 128
129
Craig Benedict: Traffic Demand Management, also called TDM, includes areas such as Park-130
and-Ride lots, telecommuting options, flex hours and the like. 131
132
Jan Grossman: Are there TDMs for subdivision plans? 133
134
4
Karen Lincoln: Not generally. It’s hard to do TDM for residential areas, since people travel in 135
numerous directions at various times of the days. 136
137
Bryn Smith: Can we talk about it anyway? 138
139
Barry Jacobs: We may be able to review plans in the future. The public was involved in 140
discussions on the Ashwick subdivision in the Mebane area. Elizabeth Brady Road will be a 141
controversial issue. 142
143
(end side 1 of tape) 144