AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board August 19, :00 p.m. You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them.

Transcription

1 AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board August 19, :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: 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

2 8:10 8:30 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 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The unranked 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 directed to 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 the Planning 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

3 MINUTES ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD MAY 20, 2015 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chair and Chapel Hill Township Representative; Alex Castro, Vice-Chair and Bingham Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Heidi Perry, At- Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, At-Large Representative; Amy Cole, At-Large Representative, Tom Magnuson, At-Large Representative, John Rubin, At-Large Representative MEMBERS ABSENT: Eno Township Representative - Vacant; PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Bret Martin, Transportation Planner; Peter Murphy, OPT Transportation Administrator; Erica Gray, Administrative Assistant II; Debra Graham, Administrative Assistant III. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES/OPT REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT: Lucina Munger (Library Dept.), Janice Tyler (Child Support Services Dept.), Donna King (Health Dept.), Robert Gilmore (Dept. of Social Services) OTHERS PRESENT: Matt Day, Triangle Area Regional Planning Organization (TARPO), Gail Alberti, Bonnie Hauser, Clifford Leath, Jeff Charles, John Rees AGENDA ITEM I: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL; INTRODUCTIONS AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 18, 2015 AND APRIL 15, 2015 March 18, 2015 Minutes Bret Martin: Line 171 should read, The NCDOT State Management Plan they developed to tell the FTA. MOTION made to approve March 18, 2015 minutes by Art Menius. Seconded by Alex Castro. Vote: Unanimous April 15, 2015 Minutes Alex Castro: Line 53 should read, We have a group of expert bicyclists which include Heidi, Jeff, John, Cliff, Tom and another lady. Line 184 should read, On Martin Luther King, north of Estes. David Laudicina: Line 128 should read, Aren t most car dealers in Durham County? MOTION made to approve April 15, 2015 minutes with corrections by Alex Castro. Seconded by Heidi Perry. Vote: Unanimous 3

4 AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS OF THE AGENDA No additions to the Agenda were made. AGENDA ITEM IV: TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) A. TRANSPORTATION RELATED TECHNOLOGIES Review of new transportation related technologies for promoting public transportation commuting alternative (Peter Murphy) Peter Murphy: Reviewed Power Point presentation on Transportation Related Technologies: Passenger callback systems; Mobile data terminals; Automated passenger counts; AVL route prediction software. Alex Castro: Do you have money for implementing new technologies or would you request additional funds? Peter Murphy: We would need to put in a request for additional funds. Continued presentation. Tom Magnuson: I suggest that you have the cost savings of these technologies as another aspect of the presentation. Alex Castro: Can these technologies tie into the trip planner? I understand that would cost an additional fee, is that right? Peter Murphy: I don t recall the numbers but we can certainly look into it. Art Menius: The interactive voice response and mobile data terminals, both on functionality and savings, seem like the top two priorities. Ted Triebel: Data for data sake is somewhat of information overload. I think you should be looking at what data is most usable for efficiency and effectiveness; i.e., how best do you use the resources that you have. Paul Guthrie: Find out what would build a platform of information so you can improve the system. You have to decide what will help you now and build a platform for the future. Robert Gilmore: From a perspective of a citizen, the data and transit systems are good, but what I have found is 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 able to move people more quickly. Peter Murphy: We are talking about technology here. As far as the growth plan for OPT, absolutely, we are going to look at starting routes earlier in the morning. Robert Gilmore: With the transit system in our rural areas, it is not unusual for people to have to walk several 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 shelters be provided? Heidi Perry: When they are ready to expand, perhaps there is some way to identify the places this would make the most sense. If they were living in higher density neighborhoods and working in high density places, we should make a list so that when the bus is ready to expand, you will know where it should expand. Bret Martin: Many of the services we have identified funding for that will be rolled out were designed to fill gaps. Most of our fixed route services are concentrated in the central part of the county where you have a lot more density. There are also services being extended to the rural services. 4

5 Tom Magnuson: Could staff do layers from the GIS software showing where the low income housing, schools, the retirement homes and all the potential users? If we can get that information then the ridership would improve? Bret Martin: For transit, we did that by Census Block, and that went into the development of the routes to make sure we are targeting the correct places. Janice T: The passenger callback technology would be great for seniors. The mobile data terminals would be helpful but if we are looking to access the boomers and others, the trip planner is a key piece of technology. Janice T: I want to put in a plug for the volunteer driver program which would complement the OPT system. Gail Alberti: Asked if people who don t have smart phones are taken into account. Robert Gilmore: Thanked OPT for having been very supportive in working with DSS on employment job fairs for Orange County. They have helped provide services to our community. OUTBoard Action: Received and reviewed information, provided comments. AGENDA ITEM 5: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) A. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST 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 Rural Planning organization (TARPO to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). (Bret Martin). OUTBoard Action: Staff recommends that the Board consider and recommend to the BOCC the list of priority transportation projects for each MPO/RPO to be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). BGMPO List Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. Heidi Perry: Questioned rationale for submitting projects. Bret Martin: Explained submission selection and prioritization. BGMPO and TARPO each get 12 new projects, and DCHC MPO get 14 new projects. The funding decisions are up to NCDOT scoring of the projects. Paul Guthrie: Even if we know they will score low, it is better to submit such projects so that we can have it on the public record that they are a local priority. Bret Martin: It is true that if you don t submit a project because it doesn t currently score well, it might be difficult to include it in later years if it has not been previously included and it doesn t get carried forward. Paul Guthrie: Also, there may be a tactical advantage because these low scoring projects are much less expensive than most of the ones that scored well and are prioritized on the STIP. So if some of the expensive ones don t happen for some reason, there could be an argument for letting one of these less expensive ones go forward. 5

6 Bret Martin: Answered general questions about the proposed BGMPO projects. He explained how the proposed Mattress Factory Road interchange is related to the planned improvements for Mebane Oaks Road to the west in Mebane. He explained that the focus of all the projects was economic development. MOTION made) by Alex Castro to approve the recommended BGMPO list to the BOCC to submit to the MPOs and RPOs for consideration of inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Seconded by Art Menius. Vote: Unanimous TARPO List Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. Bonnie Hauser: Asked whether consideration has been given to improving the connection of Efland-Cedar Grove Road to US 70 and the interstate, which would improve economic development in Efland. Heidi Perry: Asked about making adjustments to the scoring methodology to improve prioritization of bike and pedestrian projects. Bret Martin: Explained that for SPOT 3.0 it had been allowed that Divisions and Regions come up with their own highway scoring criteria, which improved the scoring of some widening projects and allowed for bike lanes. This was done in the eastern portion of the state, but here we have to get 6 different MPOs and RPOs to approve this. It is possible but strategically complex. Heidi Perry: I don t think I can support the NC 54 widening or alternative operational improvements project unless you take out the word widening and use alternative operational improvements because I feel like a fourlane divided highway is excessive. Alex Castro: I agree. The simple answer for improvements on NC 54 in Carrboro is signals. Bret Martin: The Town of Carrboro is support of that. That is the direction we are looking to see if we can address the problem with signals first. DOT is looking at the problem for a long term solution. If you add storage for left and right lanes, you have pretty much added a lane so that is an issue as well. Paul Guthrie: One of the problems is the conflict between having this process where you put things on a list a long time in advance so they will be done, and the fact that in a very high growth area, that is not good enough. That road is in a high growth area. This process we have here hurts the ability to do long range planning in the sense you have to force this thing and you usually build the wrong thing as a temporary fix. The idea of traffic lights will work. Art Menius: I m not as confident that the growth is going to continue due to the land locked nature of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, considering the rural buffer. More importantly I am doubtful given the tenor of the state university that the university or hospital will be adding jobs at the rate they have in the last 20 years. 205 MOTION made by Alex Castro to approve recommendation with changes to 1 and 2 with no widening and only 206 alternative operational improvements on the NC 54 projects. Seconded by Art Menius. 207 Vote: 1 opposed (David Laudicina) MOTION made by Heidi Perry to validate the discussion about scoring with regard to highway projects in order to improve the scoring for bike/ped projects. Seconded by Amy Cole. Vote: Unanimous. 6

7 Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro MPO list Bret Martin: Reviewed list of priority transportation projects. Paul Guthrie: Does the STIP process allow you to articulate one of the reasons why there is such a problem right above 15/501 on I-40 westbound? Namely, they lose a lane, it drops to two lanes and it backs up for miles. I realize in this scoring game that doesn t play out, but that road is not adequate to receive the traffic coming into it. Bret Martin: Safety is a component of the scoring but that is only along the segment of the road that is considered, not a segment remote from the project. Heidi Perry: You said I-85 s widening was taken off the STIP because traffic had not increased the way NCDOT had predicted it would, so why do we expect the traffic on I-40 to increase? And NCDOT doesn t think the building of the light rail will alleviate the traffic on I-40? Bret Martin: Because traffic on I-40 has increased. On I-85, the traffic hasn t really increased. Who uses I-40? It is Alamance County commuters, and on NC 54 it s Alamance County commuters and Western Orange County going to Chapel Hill. They are using I-40 to go to RTP and south Durham, etc. Look at the major employment destinations and look at the origins and growing residential origins in Orange County, explains a lot of it. Downtown Durham and Duke are big employment hubs, and I-85 is the connection to that, but the traffic is not really growing, but on I-40 it is. I-40 is pretty much at capacity from NC 86 to 15/501. Heidi Perry: When you add more lanes, don t you bring more cars? Bret Martin: That is something what happens. This is usually assessed with the cumulative impacts assessment of NEPA environmental impact assessment for a STIP project. Chapel Hill and Carrboro are not accepting the growth they were expected to accept but maybe should accept in order to bring people closer to their jobs. Alamance County s growth is exploding, with a very strong commuting relationship with the Triangle. Some of this has been absorbed by Chatham County, and north of Pittsboro. Heidi Perry: When I read this, I see that the main scoring thing is that you are improving the level of service, and the cost benefit looks good because you are improving the level of service, but you are really not, you re just bringing more cars into the service and spreading it out more. It seems you are double scoring. Bret Martin: But if it costs in congestion scores, it basically double counts congestion as a score. Paul Guthrie: If a road becomes less usable, what happens? They go to another road. That puts pressure on mass transit, utility systems, and all kinds of things that come off this. We are next door to one of the fastest growing cities in America. We are at the crisis point of how we handle the future in transportation. Amy Cole: I want to make sure I get my plug in for these projects. Numbers 13, 14 and 16. Numbers 13 and 16 are tied together as projects to help out with the Safe Routes to School program and scoring seems significantly different. Item 14, this project was scoring much higher. I want to ensure that stays on the list so that at some point it happens. Alex Castro: I agree. I don t understand why 13, 14 and 16, particularly 13 and 14 which are in the Orange County Safe Routes Action Plan aren t higher priority. They have higher scoring. Bret Martin: This is not a scoring list, just a list that will be submitted to the BOCC. Because we are so limited on the projects we can submit for scoring, we might be in the position of needing to prioritize before we submit so that we can tell them which ones are more important to us locally. If the SPOT 4.0 committee determines that 7

8 pre-prioritization of projects will be necessary, we will return to the OUTBoard in August so that we can then make the BOCC s calendar in September. 268 MOTION made by Art Menius to recommend the DCHC MPO project list. Seconded by Ed Vaughn. 269 Vote: Unanimous AGENDA ITEM 5, CONTINUED B. BICYCLE SAFETY Continuation of the Board s April 15 discussion regarding the plan to address the Board of County Commissioners petition related to bicycle safety (Attachment 1). The Draft Bicycle Plan is provided as Attachment 2. (Heidi Perov, Abigaile Pittman). OUTBoard Action: Receive and review information, provide comments, and forward to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) with, or without a recommendation of endorsement. Heidi Perry: Stated that the goal is to have a draft document/resolution at the end of the meeting to present to the BOCC. Art Menius: I appreciate both Bonnie Hauser s concerns and the official report which does a wonderful job of balancing the interest of bicyclists and motorists sharing safe driving responsibilities. Heidi Perry: Reviewed the document, several minor edits. Bonnie Hauser: Submitted a written statement regarding the Report (copy attached to Minutes). She stated she met with Lauren Blackburn, NCDOT, Bike/Pedestrian Division and discussed: Vocabulary for bikers and motorist and it being more urban based; Urban centers are the biggest problems; Secondary roads have higher speed with no bike lanes; Road designs or laws that support sharing the road safely and it will take a long time to fix. She stated that the bike problem has not been solved which is why this work has been done, to provide insight. It is important for Commissioners understand the problem, and understand that if it is addressed just as a Bike/Ped thing we will not fix the problem. It takes $500,000/mile to add bike lanes and there are 900 miles of road in rural Orange County. Much of this is not in county jurisdiction it is state jurisdiction. She stated that she would like the OUTBoard to acknowledge rural roads separately from things done in urban areas and that rural roads need special attention. Paul Guthrie: Asked what kinds of things on rural roads would be useful short of barring bicycles. Bonnie Hauser: 1) 2-foot shoulders are not helping. It is adding bicyclists to the road and not allowing motorists to pass safely; 2) Many of the lines are not properly/evenly drawn and this really needs to be looked at; 3) Her group asked Chuck Edwards, NCDOT, to look at five dangerous hills and curves, and he is going to consider 4-6 foot wide safety shoulders on the road where there is a poor line of sight and where motorists can pass safely and bicyclists have somewhere to go; and 4) We could pilot a concept for a new kind of complete streets model for secondary roads. Alex Castro: Referred to page 34, item 15 of the Draft Plan which specifically addresses this. MOTION made by Ted Triebel to approve this report, with the edits, and to forward it to the BOCC for their information and endorsement. Seconded by Alex Castro. Vote: Unanimous 8

9 AGENDA ITEM VI: STAFF UPDATES A. MOUNTAINS TO SEA NORTH CAROLINA STATE TRAIL DRAFT MASTER PLAN Abigaile Pittman: Comments are being accepted on the Draft Master Plan for the Mountains to Sea North Carolina State Trail. They are accepting comments. I have provided a link but can also send a PDF file if any of you would like. There are approximately 600 miles already constructed with 400 in final planning stages to go to construction. Public meetings will continue until June. B. ENO MOUNTAIN ROAD RELOCATION FEASIBILITY STUDY Abigaile Pittman: Staff undertook a feasibility study via a consultant for a connectivity problem on Eno Mountain Road. The road is a connector between the south and western Hillsborough and carries about 3400 vehicles a day and intersects with Orange Grove Road. AGENDA ITEM VII: BOARD COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM VIII: ADJOURNMENT. THERE IS NO MEETING IN JUNE OR JULY. MOTION was made by Alex Castro. Heidi Perry seconded. VOTE: Unanimous Paul Guthrie, Chair 9

10 Attachment to May 20, 2015 OUTBoard Minutes Statement to OUTBoard on Bicycle Safety Plan May 20 th, 2015 I am Bonnie Hauser, and I am speaking on behalf of the Rural Road Safety Coalition which is an active coalition of Orange County cyclists, motorists, and public safety leaders including rural fire departments and emergency medical professionals. NC DOT and Highway Patrol work with us on an advisory basis. Gail Alberti, Bryant Dodson and I co chair the coalition. Our goal is to improve rural road safety, and our slogan is Share the Road goes Two Ways. Gail Alberti initially participated in OUTBoard s meetings but was unable to continue due to personal issues. So we are providing comments for the record to reflect our view of the issues that we believe are impacting the culture of cooperation on roads in unincorporated Orange County. Please include our comments in your report to the county commissioners. Growing popularity of recreational cycling combined with situational factors contribute to growing tensions between cyclists and motorists in rural areas. Secondary road design and outdated motorist and cyclist laws impede the culture of sharing. Town models for complete streets and bike lanes are impractical, and more focus is needed on responsibilities for sharing the road safely. We have engaged with cyclists and motorists all over Orange County and find that there is strong interest in improving road safety for everyone. The issues are complex and challenging. We appreciate the good work that OUTBoard has done, and hope our comments will help to add insight into the work that s needed. Thousands of cyclists from all over the Triangle use Orange County s rural roads, primarily for recreational purposes. Cyclists share the road with cars, trucks and school buses running at speeds of 45 MPH or higher. Most of our roads have narrow shoulders or no shoulders at all. Passing safely is the key issue. Impatient motorists are passing at unsafe times increasing the risk of head on collisions with oncoming motorists. The recent addition of 2 foot shoulders have made matters worse by attracting more cyclists to our highest traffic roads and are too narrow for motorists to safely pass a cyclist. Since full bike lanes are impractical for secondary roads, our coalition has been working with DOT to explore the option of wide safety shoulders at blind hills and curves. Passing safely is a complex issue and will require careful planning. Options we are exploring include: Safety shoulders at blind hills and curves A county wide speed limit of 45 MPH Maps and materials to encourage cyclists to use roads with less traffic Long term investment in alternative recreational greenway infrastructure for cyclists and other recreational users (hikers and equestrian) This could include off road trails, utility rights of way, or very wide road shoulders designed for recreational use. Some of these ideas are noted in OUTBoard s report. 10

11 Current laws for motorists and cyclists are outdated and contradictory when it comes to sharing the road safely. Impeding traffic is the biggest issue and motorist law is insufficient. Other issues include running stop signs, failing to signal, stopping in the middle of the road, and failing to stop for emergency vehicles. These actions carry heavy penalties for motorists but there are no consequences for cyclists. New laws may be needed governing licensing, tags, insurance, and allowing children on dangerous secondary roads. We are pursing these topics with the NC legislature through HB 232 or an alternative and welcome OUTBoard s input and support. The greatest irritant for motorists is pelotons large groups of cyclists who span the entire width of the lane, prohibiting safe passage by cars. There is a perception of entitlement in these large groups and a lack of road etiquette that includes disregard of laws and other road users. These behaviors create unsafe conditions and undermine the culture of sharing that most road users would like to see. Our coalition has started working with Highway Patrol to set up directed safety patrols where citations will be issued to motorists and cyclists who violate current laws. For the long term, state laws need an update, which is the subject of HB 232. The county s maps are outdated and encourage cyclists to use high traffic roads. One area where OUTBoard can immediately help is updating the county bicycling maps in a way that encourages cyclists to use roads with less traffic. This in itself is a major initiative that can greatly improve the culture of cooperation in Orange County. Education is needed if it s simple and focused specifically on teaching motorists and cyclists how to improve rural road safety. General cyclist safety messages may be perceived as glossing over important issues, and could inadvertently inflame motorists and cyclists further. Orange County s rural roads serve a community of people going to work, getting their kids to school, and taking care of business. We believe most cyclists and motorists are committed to share the roads with respect and shared responsibility for road safety, and that short and long term actions by the legislature and NC DOT will be needed to address limitations of roads and laws. We believe that any efforts to improve rural road safety should distinguish these rural road safety issues from general cyclist advocacy. Our coalition intends to continue to work on these issues and welcome the help and support of OUTBoard. Thank you 11

12

13 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, Peter Murphy, Transportation Administrator, 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 oneway 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 Hillsborough Circulator Hill to Hill Shuttle Fare Free to all passengers $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

14 administration and management requirements of each grant program, including the administration of a specific public comment process for executing a proposed fare increase. Because the proposed fare structure results in a fare increase to passengers 60 years of age or older, OPT is subject to this public comment process. Under the 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

15 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, 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 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: ( _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 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) or brmartin@orangecountync.gov. 14

16 ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) PROPOSED FIXED- ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE Service Hillsborough Circulator Fare Free to all passengers All Other Non-peak Fixed Routes (Orange-Chapel Hill Midday Connector*, Orange- Alamance Connector**) Peak Fixed Routes (Efland- Hillsborough Commuter Loop**) Rural Deviated Fixed Routes** *Service scheduled to begin August 17, 2015 **Services scheduled to begin October 2015 Transfers: $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 $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) $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) 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

17 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

18

19 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, 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 Two (2) buses received April 28, expected service ready date of August 17, Five (5) additional buses began assembly July 20, 2015 with an expected delivery of September 15, 2015 Predicted service ready date of October 15, Employees Seven (7) bus operators (3 full-time, 4 part-time) began training August 10, hours of training will be completed in preparation of new service start dates. Route Start Dates Orange County Chapel Hill Connector (expanded service to Cedar Grove and hourly service ~ 9:45am to 3:45 pm) begins August 17, 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

20

21 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, 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

22 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