Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-08-2011 - Attachment 2
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2011
>
Agenda - 12-08-2011
>
Agenda - 12-08-2011 - Attachment 2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2012 1:01:10 PM
Creation date
12/6/2011 12:27:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/8/2011
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
Attachment 2
Document Relationships
Minutes 12-08-2011
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment 3 <br />Triangle Transit Responses to Orange County Staff Questions on Bus and Rail <br />Plans in Orange County <br />November 7, 2011 <br />1. How is the model fiscally conservative on both the revenue and expense side? <br />As a point of reference, this question was briefly discussed in Triangle Transit's June 7, 2011 <br />presentation to the Orange BoCC. We shared the following information. <br />On the expense side: <br />• Construction costs and right-of-way acquisition costs for rail have a 30% contingency added on <br />top of base costs. <br />• Capital plans add a general unspecified contingency of 4.6% above and beyond the 30% in the <br />previous item <br />• Inflation is estimated using long-term growth rates from the Federal Congressional Budget <br />Office (CBO) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but we have added an additional <br />0.5% inflation per year to be more conservative on cost growth. <br />On the revenue side: <br />• Plan maintains a minimum of $3 million cash balance throughout life of the plan (about 60% of <br />initial year sales tax revenue) while running buses, planning for and building rail <br />The plan uses along-term annual growth rate of 3.6%, which is below the historical trend for <br />Orange County, which has grown at 4.0%. Economist Karl Smith from UNC School of <br />Government has projected long-term economic growth for Orange County to be as much as <br />4.5% per year. <br />• The plan assumes no interest on cash balances; there would be interest during implementation <br />• The plan is tested against debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) that have been accepted by bond <br />markets to loan money for transit projects in other metro areas <br />2. Which bus routes are assumed to be fare free and which ones are not? <br />This item was maintained by former Orange County Transportation Planner Mila Vega in the spring and <br />summer of 2011. It is attached to the end of this document as Exhibit A. <br />All the routes. assumed to be operated by Chapel Hill Transit were assumed to be fare free, and all <br />routes assumed to be operated by Triangle Transit were assumed to have a cost recovery of 15% from <br />the farebox. Since the majority of services were assumed to be operated by Chapel Hill Transit, the <br />average fare recovery for all Orange County bus services in the financial model is 3.5%. In Durham and <br />Wake counties, the fare recovery is assumed to average 15% since there are no fare free routes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.