Browse
Search
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 5a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2012
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - Regular Mtg.
>
Agenda - 06-05-2012 - 5a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/17/2015 3:27:05 PM
Creation date
6/1/2012 12:38:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
6/5/2012
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
5a
Document Relationships
Minutes 06-05-2012
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
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
25 <br /> 1 MPO, and the towns since the implementation agreement is between Orange County and TTA. <br /> 2 Rather, the plan should note that the implementation agreement spells out how all these parties <br /> 3 will work on various aspects of the implementation of the plan. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 On page 24 additional revisions to the implementation agreement : <br /> 6 On item b, delete reference to the MPO voting on changes to the plan. <br /> 7 The Intermodal Act does not require an MPO vote but a report to the MPO as outlined in item a. <br /> 8 On item d delete reference to MPO. The Implementation Agreement does not have the MPO <br /> 9 voting on modifications unless it is needed. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 Page 29. The assumptions mix total costs with Orange County costs. The cost for the <br /> 12 MLK BRT is the total cost but the Hillsborough train station is the local cost. It would be good to <br /> 13 make sure that costs always clearly identify for the reader total costs vs. local costs to avoid <br /> 14 confusion. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 Check that all numbers are consistent across the document <br /> 17 (Commissioner Gordon pointed out some of the inconsistencies). I noticed , for example, that <br /> 18 the cost of the MLK bus lanes are not the same on page 29 and 43. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 1 would like to have a note about the percentage contingency assumed in the financial <br /> 21 model. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 Comments from Commissioner Gordon: Part 1 <br /> 24 <br /> 25 All, <br /> 26 <br /> 27 As I stated at the BOCC regular meeting on May 15, 1 have additional questions and comments <br /> 28 concerning the "Draft Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County. " (BRI) I will convey <br /> 29 those comments and questions in two parts: <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Part I. <br /> 32 A. Additional Appendix-There should be an appendix which shows the details of the cost <br /> 33 sharing agreement with Durham County. In the attachment, I have shown what I think should <br /> 34 be included for capital costs, giving the dollar amounts which I have obtained from <br /> 35 information previously presented to the BOCC. These charts need to <br /> 36 be completed and checked for accuracy. For operation and maintenance costs. I have just <br /> 37 stated that the information should be given in the same format as for the capital costs, because <br /> 38 1 do not have those dollar amounts. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 B. Page 6 - First five years following successful tax referendum It was suggested at the BOCC <br /> 41 meeting that the cost share for the regional bus lines should be shared 50-50 between Durham <br /> 42 and Orange. <br /> 43 Before that change is made, I would like an explanation of why that should be done and what <br /> 44 effect, if any, it would have on the BRI as it has been presented. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 C. Page 7-What is the meaning of the following statement: <br /> 47 Routes provided by Chapel Hill Transit, may or may not, be included in the Plan. What effect, if <br /> 48 any, does that have on the BRI as it has been presented? <br /> 49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.