Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
methods. For example, should widening include dedicated busways for BRT-H, how do <br /> commuters mode transfer from car to LRT or BRT and where (i.e., adequate Park & Ride and <br /> where in corridor do you locate), how can actions ensure that the transit method does not <br /> duplicate investment (i.e., LRT fully addressing commuter patterns so parallel BRT or bus <br /> service is not needed). <br /> NEXT STEPS: <br /> March 16, 2012 is the deadline for public comment to be submitted to the DCHC MPO <br /> Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). <br /> At#achment 3 is a draft letter for the BOCC to consider submitting to the MPO with or without <br /> revisions. The draft has been prepared based on Board comments at its February 21 S� meeting <br /> and other recent Board discussions on bus and rail. The draft letter conveys the Board's <br /> questions and comments regarding the study. <br /> STUDY SCHEDULE: <br /> Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners (Planning Board and <br /> Orange Unified Transportation Board members invited to attend) <br /> Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and <br /> comment <br /> Mar 12 Chapel Hill Town Council approves comments on report <br /> Mar 13 Orange County approves comments on the report <br /> Mar 14 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Hearing <br /> March Durham County review and approves comments on the report (prior to March 16) <br /> Mar 16 Deadline for public comment <br /> Mar 28 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) recommends NC 54 <br /> recommendations for approval by TAC <br /> Apr 11 Approval by TAC <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS: The Manager recommends the Board approve the attached letter <br /> (Attachment 3)for submission to the DCHC MPO TAC with or without changes. <br /> The Board then discussed the proposed draft letter recommended by staff. <br /> Commissioner Gordon noted that the letter should go to the Transportation Advisory <br /> Committee, not the Technical Advisory Committee <br /> Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bullet on the top of page 5. He thought <br /> that the first part of the sentence is saying that there is not adequate density and the second <br /> part is saying that light rail will not support the high density. It seems contradictory. <br /> Craig Benedict said that there are two ideas embedded in that bullet and they probably <br /> should be separated. One is that the density development might not get the thresholds that <br /> would make light rail transit viable. The second part should be a second bullet, that the amount <br />