Agenda - 09-18-2012 - 7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 Staff discussions onoptions for adjusting the BG MPO and DCHC MPO boundaries were initiated in the Fall of 2011, which addressed deleting the area of overlapfrom the DCHC MPO as well as expansion of the BG MPO(at that time) pursuant to anticipated 2010 Census revised UZA boundaries. Staff representing all parties were involved in discussions: BG MPO, DCHC MPO, Mebane, Orange County, and NCDOT. Attachment 2provides a history of the various options discussed by staff during the process. None of the first three options considered by staff are being recommended at this time. What is the Current Status of the Boundary Discussions? Based on a careful review of the urbanized areas in Mebane and western Orange County(Efland-Cheeks corridor), andBG MPO limited capabilities for assuming the financial responsibilities of an expanded MAB boundary, the BG MPO, DCHC MPO and Orange County staffshave th proposed a 4Optiondepicted in Attachment 3.This option would: Retain theoverlap area in BG MPO; addtwoareas(Areas 1 and 2) on thenorth and northeast sidesof Mebane to the BG MPOarea; return the southwestern ‘leg’(Area 6)ofthe DCHC MPO boundary to the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO); add a small area(Area 5)near Frazier Rd./US-70to the DCHC MPO area; and retainthe Efland portion of the BG MPO urbanized area in the DCHC MPO boundary(Areas 3 and 4). DCHC would accommodate the portionsof the Burlingtonurbanized areawithin its boundariesthrough a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)between the two MPOs affirmingthat the DCHC MPO will provide transportation planning services for this area (similar agreements exist between DCHC MPO and the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and between BG MPO and the Greensboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (GMPO)).Planning staff wouldprovide a copy of Option 4is mutuallyagreeable bythe this MOA to the BOCC whenit is available. two MPOs staffs, the BG MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Orange County Planning staff. What Information Should be Considered in Supporting MPO Boundaries and Membership?To assist the BOCCwith itsreview of this evolving discussion of MPO boundaries and membership, staff has provided Attachment 4, an Overview of MPOs and RPOs.Attachment 4provides reference material on the governing legislation, administrative structure, rules for boundary development, core duties, funding sources, and standard documents for MPOs and RPOs. Planning staff has also prepared Attachment 5,Considerations for Option 4 MPO Boundary Decision.Attachment 5provides a condensed overview of the advantages and disadvantages for Option 4 (providedinAttachment 3).