Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 051607Approved June 20, 2007 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2007\OUTBoard minutes 051607.doc 1 Orange Unified Transportation Board Meeting Summary May 16, 2007 Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Members Present: Commissioner Alice Gordon, Nancy Baker, Jan Grossman, Sam Lasris, Randy Marshall, Pascale Mittendorf, Sandra Quinn, Robert Peterson, James Ray, Eric Tillman. Members Absent: Bryn Smith, Al Terry. Staff Present: Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner. Visitors: Pat Strong, Triangle J Council of Governments, Betsy Underwood, Historic Preservation Commission liaison to Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. I. Call to order and roll call Chair Robert Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Consideration of additions to the agenda III. Board Comments IV. Approval of minutes of April 18, 2007, meeting minutes Lincoln handed out a revised draft of the April 18, 2007, minutes with changes highlighted in red. The board agreed by consensus to table approval of the minutes until the next meeting to give members time to read the revised copy. V. Framework for Developing Goals and Objectives: Economic/private business transportation issues/needs. Eric Tillman presented issues involving light vehicular commercial transportation and discussion issues. • There is a need for better maintenance on Orange County roadways to reduce vehicular maintenance costs resulting from damages caused by un-repaired potholes and other hazards. • He also encouraged the local government to use private transportation services for government subsidized transportation instead of expanding existing services. He noted that most “big” businesses outsource their transportation needs. Gordon noted that although public transportation is subsidized, roads are also highly subsidized. She agreed that public transportation could be more efficient and cheaper if only well rode routes were maintained and the other service could be outsourced. Service would be more agile and responsive if it does not rely on any one system. Grossman asked Tillman to demonstrate how/where a private transportation provider could be more cost effective than the public sector. Tillman replied that he would need the figures and routes of the public agency to do that. Strong asked if the private providers were looking for more of Approved June 20, 2007 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2007\OUTBoard minutes 051607.doc 2 the demand response business. Tillman replied that private transportation providers could also provide contract service. Grossman suggested that the public transportation service could contract a private transportation provider to serve new routes during the trial periods, and then take over those routes that were successful. • Tillman discussed problems with transportation services using a “Z” license, which is intended for private limousines. He said that businesses use the Z license to get around obtaining a license to operate a taxi and that the legislation did not define “limousine” and there were no checks on how the vehicles were being used for business. The group determined that the issue was outside of the County’s purview. • Tillman discussed the need for the Elizabeth Brady Road extension project. • He also called for provision of private economic development and use of private transportation services to be included in the planning phase of University of North Carolina North project. Peterson stated that planning thus far calls for exterior parking with a main interior thoroughfare for transit. • Tillman said Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough Town Boards should create Taxicab Sub-Committees to monitor and address citizens’ and taxicab owners’ and operators’ concerns and act as a liaison between the industry and the public. He proposed that the County include block numbers in road signs whenever a sign is replaced. • Tillman stated that the Orange Unified Transportation Board should be more inclusive of all transportation industries that operate in Orange County and suggested that the board include a position for a private transportation provider member. Peterson asked for suggestions on how the board could move forward with conversations regarding opportunities for private contracts with public transportation agencies. Gordon stated that the Transportation Services Board may be the venue for such discussion. VI. Transportation Element Goals for the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update Peterson noted the goals and objectives that would be discussed at the joint Element Advisory Board meeting Wednesday, May 23. Gordon noted that the 8 principles approved by the Board of County Commissioners should be incorporated in the goals and she did not see those. There was discussion about how the proposed draft goals related to the principles. Gordon encouraged the board to consider wording that would create a more positively framed goal # 1 than “to minimize negative impacts”. Peterson said that the 8 principles should be visible during the goals discussion at the meeting with the Planning Board on May 23. VII. Priority Projects for 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Peterson noted that the handouts of the ranking for Orange County’s priority projects for the 2007-2013 TIP were helpful in understanding how the regional transportation planning agencies chose priority projects. The group briefly discussed priority project options, and noted that since the priority list would be revisited in two years and the funding situation did not offer encouragement that any Approved June 20, 2007 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2007\OUTBoard minutes 051607.doc 3 new projects would be funded, at least in the next two years, that the priorities submitted for the 2007-2013 TIP are still appropriate for the 2009-2015 TIP. Motion by Marshall to recommend the 2007-2013 priority list for the 2009-2015 TIP, second by Ray. Vote: Unanimous. VIII. Future Agenda Items Peterson stated that he would like a further study of TIP projects at the next meeting. He said that for the next meeting, he would like for the board to have a six to twelve month schedule of next board actions for the TIP, the Comprehensive Plan and any other projects that will require OUTBoard comments/recommendations. IX. Adjournment Motion by Marshall to adjourn. Second by Grossman. Vote: Unanimous.