Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 101806 1 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 1 Orange Unified Transportation Board Meeting Summary October 18, 2006 John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center, Hillsborough, NC Members Present: Nancy Cole Baker; Jan Grossman; Elisabeth Lake; Sam Lasris; Randy Marshall; Pascale Mittendorf; Robert Peterson; Sandy Quinn; James Ray; Bryn Smith; Al Terry; Eric Tillman Staff Present: Craig Benedict; Planning Director; Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner; Sherri Ingersoll, Administrative Assistant Visitors: Pat Strong, Triangle J Council of Governments; Stephen Spade, Chapel Hill Transit; John Tallmadge, Triangle Transit Authority; Bill Nichols, Citizen I. Call to Order and Roll Call Chair Robert Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. Approval of Minutes of September 20, 2006 Motion by Randy Marshall to approve the minutes. Seconded by James Ray. Vote: Unanimous. III. Presentation by Stephen Spade, Chapel Hill Transit Spade explained that the Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) serves UNC, Chapel Hill and Carrboro, which encompasses approximately 85,000 people. There are six park- and-ride lots. All services, with the exception of the Shared Ride program (which provides service to areas of town that do not receive regular evening or Sunday bus service), are free of cost to the riders. Chapel Hill Transit has approximately 200 employees, 86 buses in the fleet, and has an annual operating budget of $14 million. The free fare system has been in place since 2002, and originally served approximately 2.8 million passengers. In 2005, the number of passengers doubled to 5.6 million. They are challenged by the growing pains of the increased ridership. Future initiatives include (1) Fleet modernization – increasing the existing fleet to approx. 100-110 units within five years; (2) larger buses, with possibly lower floors for better accessibility and faster loading capability; (3) longer buses, 45-60’ with articulated design. There are three transportation boards that report to Chapel Hill Transit: UNC, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. They hold regular public forums for outreach. Currently the fleet has diesel vehicles, and there is interest in switching part of the fleet to ethanol, bio-diesel or ultra low sulphur diesel. They are also in the process of acquiring three new buses that would be hybrid electric-diesel vehicles. 2 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 2 Tillman asked how the budget is allocated. Spade responded that the Town of Chapel Hill provides $2.9 million, Town of Carrboro $0.3 million, and the UNC system $5.3 million. There are also state and federal subsidies that are allocated by the size of the municipalities served and service provided (population and routes). Those subsidies do not include the express service to UNC. UNC pays 100% of service to UNC. Peterson asked if records were maintained to determine the miles-per-gallon (mpg) based on ridership. Spade said that he is uncertain of the various formulas, but it has been estimated that the diesel rates are 3.5 mpg. He said that they measure the performance of the system by the number of passengers-per-hour. Smith asked if numbers were available for passengers-per-mile, or passengers-per- hour. She also asked if advertising was an option for additional funds. Spade said that advertising revenue is minimal, approximately $15,000 per year. The national standard ridership goal is 2.5 passengers-per-mile, or 14 - 20 passengers-per-hour system-wide. Chapel Hill Transit serves approximately 4 passengers-per-mile, and 35-40 passengers-per-hour, which is average for college towns. However, the ridership varies greatly by route. Mittendorf asked about the locations for the Park-and-Ride lots, and Spade indicated that general public lots were located on Eubanks Road, Highway 54 East, Southern Village, Jones Ferry Road, NC 54 at Carrboro Plaza, East Franklin Street/Estes Drive, and a near-term future route at the Bible Church off Erwin Road. Mittendorf asked about the frequency of trips with the Park-and-Ride system. Spade said that there is generally a 5-10 minute headway time during rush hours. Smith asked if there was an agreement with University Mall to use their lot for the Tarheel Express, and Spade responded that this is not an advertised location, but the new management is more favorable to discussions about this. Tillman asked if Chapel Hill Transit had considered the impact on private transportation, with the anticipated increased ridership. Spade responded that he had not yet been introduced to this issue, but suspects that when they went to a free fare policy, it had a major impact. Tillman said that in Durham, they have a subsidized system for cabs. Spade was not aware of the impact of this type of arrangement, but mentioned that Chapel Hill Transit has a different role in that the emphasis is on students and the University. Grossman added that the system is geared towards providing service to a hub – downtown Chapel Hill. Spade agreed and said that it’s a challenge to know how far people will travel to get a free ride into town. Baker asked about the potential of coordinating bus service with the Chapel Hill school system. Spade said that this could be an unmet need, and that CHT will discuss with the school district, probably within the next year. When he worked in Des Moines, the system transported 3,000 kids to the city school, and there was a lot of duplication of routes between the school system and the bus system. A study undertaken there indicated that the City could save money in school bus service 3 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 3 through coordinating with the City bus service, and there were additional benefits related to transportation availability for extra-curricular activities or work-study opportunities. Peterson asked about the collaborative efforts between Orange Public Transportation (OPT), Chapel Hill Transit and Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). Terry responded that while they have similar coverage areas, the three systems provide three different transit services funded by different sources under the jurisdiction of different governmental entities. OPT provide rural public transportation and is the contracted agency for county human service agency transportation needs; Chapel Hill Transit provides public transit within its municipal limits; OPT provides regional transit service between urban areas. There is some collaboration in purchasing vehicles. Al Terry said that the various transit providers have an interest in collaborative efforts, when possible. The Hillsborough to Chapel Hill (Orange Express Route) is an example. The service is funded 75% by TTA, which contracts with Orange Public Transportation to provide the service. John Tallmadge reported that TTA, Capital Area Transit (CAT, Raleigh) and Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) are looking at coordination/consolidation, and CHT is at the table. One of the cooperative efforts is for a regional call center that may be operative within the next year. The center would connect callers to the appropriate agency. The systems are looking at technology to provide “seamless” service in the region using the three systems. Benedict asked if there were regular meetings scheduled with business entities to continue strong efforts for synergy. Tallmadge responded that the Seamless Transit Project integrated approximately 9-10 working groups. Spade said that it was more of an informal process, and that the policy bodies are willing to participate. IV. Presentation by Orange Public Transportation Terry distributed handouts showing the FY2006 OPSTATS Report Form and NCDOT ROAP Report. The operating statistics report, OPSTATS, is a requirement of NCDOT. It reflects transit vital signs, and serves as a report card for the agency. The Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) Report shows how allocated funds from the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program (EDTAP), the Workfirst – Employment Transportation Program, and the Rural General Public Transportation Program are expended through OPT services. There is a budget contribution by the County (from county taxes). The County contributes approximately $3.29 of OPT’s average cost per trip. NCDOT has requested that public transportation providers coordinate into regional systems. The Rural Regional Transit Providers meet on a regular basis to provide a network for coordinated efforts. Currently, there is an ongoing study to recommend potential coordination/consolidation implementation actions for the Human Service Transportation Systems for Durham, Orange and Wake Counties. 4 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 4 V. Presentation by Triangle Transit Authority Tallmadge gave a brief history of TTA. TTA , created in 1989 by the NC General Assembly as a unit of local government, operates a regional, primarily commuter transit service in Wake, Durham and Orange Counties. The TTA Board of Trustees has 13 members, ten are appointed by the region’s principal municipalities and counties and three non-voting members are appointed by the NC Secretary of Transportation. Funding is provided through the $5 vehicle registration fee in the three counties and a 5% rental vehicle tax, which is dedicated to the regional rail project. Fare box returns are approximately 12.5% of the operating costs. Other revenue comes from federal and state grants. TTA provides a carpool and ride-share matching service as well as regional bus service and a shuttle from RTP to the airport. TTA Emergency Ride Home Program provides contracted taxi service for up to 20 miles. If the commute is greater than 20 miles, rental car service is available. TTA also coordinates vanpool service made up of no fewer than ten (10) commuters who live and work near each other and who share approximately the same work hours. One leg of the vanpool's trip must begin or end in Wake, Durham, or Orange County. TTA provides the van, pays for gas and insurance; and arranges, oversees, and pays for all maintenance. Riders pay a low monthly fare based on the average daily round-trip mileage. TTA operates Monday-Friday from 6 am – 10:15 pm, and Saturday from 7 am – 6 pm. Riders can purchase a day pass for $4 or pay $2 fare per trip. TTA also works with corporations to develop commute programs and/or subsidies for employees. Current efforts are making arrangements with UNC, NCSU, State government offices, and the City of Raleigh for employees to ride free (employer picks up the tab, offers subsidies). TTA also hosts www.gotriangle.org , a trip planner that gives advice on the best public transportation connection to your destination within the Triangle region. TTA ridership has increased 7% in the last year, and van pools have also increased 7%. TTA is providing staff support for the development of a Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Human Services Transportation Plan. TTA plans two public workshops in November and December to determine unmet needs for service for the disabled, low income and elderly populations. TTA needs to replace numerous vehicles within the next five years, and wants to get public input on the features desired, and is planning public outreach to ask the public to define the TTA experience for the future. VI. Discussion of Transit Related Issues (discussion contained in above) Baker asked about an update on the rail project. Tallmadge said that this program was originally designed to run between 9th Street-Durham to downtown Raleigh. It is 5 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 5 65% federally funded. The criterion recently changed, so TTA’s rail program no longer qualifies for federal funding. TTA is reassessing the program. Grossman asked which criteria were no longer met. Tallmadge explained that originally they used a balanced approach that compared benefits of the proposed project versus the currently available bus service. The new criteria downplay effects of transit on community development and land use, which lowered projected rail ridership figures. Grossman asked if TTA or OPT pays the state fuel taxes. Terry said that OPT’s fuel is bought through the County, which is exempt from taxation. He’s not certain if the tax is actually paid through the fuel costs. The OPT budget is based on motor pool costs. Peterson noted that the service had decreased for OPT, so everything else went down. Terry said that this did not have an effect on the cost-per-mile numbers, and that OPT doesn’t provide service on a one-by-one basis; they look at multiple destinations and needs. Mittendorf asked why the cost-per-passenger trip increased, and Terry responded that that was largely due to the 4% increase in employee wages. Peterson asked about the $3.29 per rider cost, if this was comparable among the various programs. Terry said that this number varies greatly. For example, the Workfirst Program listed in the ROAP Report is a car donation program that appears to be expensive, but really deals with a limited number of vehicles that are donated. He also said that Orange County is one of the few counties with a car donation program provided by the County. Grossman asked Tallmadge about the possibility of an express service to RTP from a Park-and-Ride lot. Tallmadge said that most routes go through RTP, but it’s not really a Park-and-Ride operation, due to the size of RTP. TTA does provide some shuttle service to particular employers, and is talking with those employers to take more responsibility for the service. TTA will probably invest more in long-distance express services. Peterson asked why shared ride arrangements are not arranged through the call center. Tallmadge explained that this is very complicated, and they currently work with limited static information of defined routes. Shared/paired ride is much more dynamic, and there are institutional issues, since it uses different service providers. Peterson asked if requests for shared rides are directed to OPT, and Tallmadge said that they haven’t look at that level yet. Lasris asked that as the region grows, do funding sources correspondingly grow. Terry said that OPT is limited on growth, because of the funding sources. The amount of funding has been consistent over the last seven years. The ROAP is based on population in the rural area, and uses the latest census data, the population in the rural Orange County hasn’t changed much. Benedict added that annexations also affect the County’s population numbers. Terry said that some legislative changes may encourage changes, but there is no stability in the amount of funding. 6 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 6 Baker asked about the status of an in-town Hillsborough route. Terry responded that everyone loves the concept, but no one has volunteered any money for the service. Hillsborough doesn’t provide any funding to OPT. Tillman asked if TTA/OPT plans to cut back on the Hillsborough to Chapel Hill (Hill- to-Hill) route, as it appears to have minimal use and buses are frequently empty. Terry said that this is one of the most effective routes, servicing about 70 people day. A lot of OPT service to Chapel Hill is for medical appointments and there are frequently empty buses coming back to Hillsborough to provide service to other passengers. There are a lot of deadhead miles, but the route is very effective. The goal for this route is 30 minutes one-way. Benedict asked Tallmadge to explain why TTA pays for the route if they don’t personally provide the service. Tallmadge explained that TTA has certain thresholds for providing service. OPT met those thresholds for the Hill-to-Hill route and it was cheaper for OPT to provide the service than TTA. He added that TTA doesn’t really make money on the route, so their financing is limited. Ray asked about the frequency of trips on the Hill-to-Hill route, and Tallmadge responded that there are 11 trips per day. The TTA ceiling for this route is $116,000. Ray asked what percentage of funding comes from the northern part of Orange County that does not have any service, and if TTA could increase the ceiling since no service is provided to that area. Terry said that since the allocation area is based on the overall census, there is little that could be done to change the funding amounts. Tillman commented that it is a waste of public funds to have empty buses travel back and forth between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. Terry mentioned that there are potential Park-and-Ride lots in Hillsborough at Fairview Baptist and Maxway in addition to the one at Sportsplex. VII. Orange County Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Process Benedict showed a chart with the proposed schedule that had been presented to the BOCC, and explained that the new process proposed doing all of the Elements simultaneously. The OUTBoard’s main role would be with the Transportation Element. The BOCC said that the process would take too long, and asked Planning to abridge the timing. Originally, the Comprehensive Plan was organized as Goals, Objectives and Policies, and included some implementation strategies. When the revised Plan was presented last year, this approach became controversial, and several of the strategies had changed over time. One question that has been posed is if the Advisory Boards would like to use a consultant to assist them in their plan development. Staff has suggested the possible use of a facilitator to keep the dialogue going between the various boards. Lasris asked if any of the Advisory Boards have expressed concern over the request for a condensed schedule, and Benedict responded that Staff is just starting to get that feedback. Some of the Boards are just starting to look at the revised process. 7 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2006\OUTBoard Minutes 10-18-06.doc 7 Benedict advised that there will be a joint advisory board meeting in January to discuss the timeframe and other issues of concern and get feedback from the various boards. VIII. Plan Six Month Timeline Peterson said that he would like to have Commissioner Jacobs and Gordon present when this topic is discussed. The BOCC retreat is in January, and he questioned the type of transportation issues that the BOCC is looking for. Lincoln stated that Commissioner Jacobs has expressed interest in an OUTBoard recommendation for the legislative agenda. She explained that the legislative agenda is a separate issue than the BOCC’s planning agenda. Peterson asked if this was the information that was sent to the State, and Lincoln responded, yes. Peterson stated that N.C. House Bill 2631 would be one. Lincoln stated that requests for expansion of Chapel Hill Transit into the County may entail some legislative requests. Benedict explained that the BOCC will send out a form to the various Advisory Boards shortly, that has a consistent format for reporting their goals. Peterson asked if they could get a copy of the form, and Lincoln said that she would try to get one by next meeting. Peterson indicated that topics for the next meeting could include a Carolina North update, and the BOCC retreat goals. Lincoln said that another potential issue would be the possible expansion of the MPO area boundary with regard to the LTIP. This discussion will be occurring in January-March. The particular area of concern is the I-85/I-40 corridor between Hillsborough and Mebane. Peterson said that another topic that Commissioner Gordon suggested is the MPO priorities. Lincoln said that another upcoming issue will be looking at amendments to the subdivision regulations to lower the number of residential lots that trigger the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis for new development applications. This is proposed as an item for the February Public Hearing. IX. Adjournment Motion by Ray to adjourn. Seconded by Smith. Vote: Unanimous.