Agenda - 01-23-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

16 1 mobility projects favored the urban areas. He said the new scoring method takes away the 2 modernization category, so the projects that favored rural projects no longer exist. 3 He said this is a big deal because Orange County had previously submitted several 4 projects classified as modernization projects. These are no longer lucrative projects for 5 submission. 6 Brett Martin said an opportunity was provided for divisions and regions to get together 7 and come up with their own scoring criteria at the regional/divisional level. He said some 8 divisions were able to do this, and lane and shoulder width were included in their scoring 9 factors; therefore the rural projects in those regions have a better chance to be funded. He 10 said division 7 was not able to mobilize fast enough to make this change, but it is an option two 11 years from now in the next phase of development. 12 Brett Martin said all of the modes of transportation will be competing against one 13 another, as there is no separate pot of money for each mode. However the state has set a 14 minimum amount of 4 percent of funding that must go to non-highway modes, with a maximum 15 allowable amount of 10 percent. 16 He noted the list of projects outlined in the materials at the Commissioner's places, and 17 he invited questions from the Board. 18 Commissioner Gordon said it is important to consider the cascade effect and the fact 19 that this only runs one way. She said the local input only takes effect at the regional and 20 divisional level, and it has a low level of points. She said another important factor is the 21 limitation in monies. She referred to a letter, sent out today from DCHC MPO, that expresses 22 concern about the normalization process. She noted that the 4 -10 percent amount for non- 23 highway means a minimum of 90 percent for highway. 24 She said that for highway project submissions, there is a need to consider the relative 25 importance to Orange County. She did ask transportation planner Andy Henry about this, and it 26 was his opinion that the Board did not need to submit Interstate 40 and Interstate 85 since they 27 are already on the list. She said those projects will be 100 percent data driven at the state 28 level. She said the Board will need to think about whether some of the local projects are more 29 important than the regional projects. She said the Board needs to think about how many points 30 should be put on projects that are extremely data driven. 31 She said the transit projects can have an unlimited number of submissions, so this is 32 where the cascade effect is not as important tonight; however it will be very important on 33 November 19tH 34 She suggested the submission of separate lists for bike/pedestrian and highway on 35 November 19tH 36 Bret Martin said the County can submit different projects in different modes, but the 37 projects will still all be scored as one item. He said the list that will be coming to the Board on 38 November 19th will act as a guide for the TAC members to look at where to assign points. 39 Chair Jacobs asked if the Burlington MPO will be dealt with separately. 40 Brett Martin said this was done last month. 41 Chair Jacobs said staff discussed some adjustments, and somehow the number one 42 priority, which was is the TARPO projects, got lost in the shuffle. He was wondering how to get 43 this back in. 44 Brett Martin asked if this is about the Buckhorn Road widening. He said this is now in 45 the Burlington/Graham MPO planning area and can no longer be submitted. He said the 46 projects that came to the BGMPO TCC were an abbreviated list of projects made by their staff. 47 He said the Board did submit that project, but he is unsure what decision making process 48 occurred at the MPO level to prevent it from being included in the recommendations. 49 Chair Jacobs said there was an exchange of emails regarding substitution of projects.