Browse
Search
Minutes 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Minutes - Approved
>
2010's
>
2015
>
Minutes 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2015 8:37:36 AM
Creation date
6/3/2015 10:12:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/14/2015
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Minutes
Document Relationships
Agenda - 04-14-2015 - Agenda
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2015\Agenda - 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
Agenda - 04-14-2015 - 1
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2015\Agenda - 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
Agenda - 04-14-2015 - 2
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2015\Agenda - 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
Agenda - 04-14-2015 - 3
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\2010's\2015\Agenda - 04-14-2015 - Work Session - Late
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
• C1A adds $36.Om in capital cost <br /> Little Creek: Operating Cost <br /> • Lowest operating cost alternative: C1 (eliminated), NHC-LPA, either Duke/VA station at <br /> $16,846,000/year <br /> • C2 and C2A add $56,900/year in operating/maintenance cost <br /> • C1 adds $82,100/year in operating/maintenance cost <br /> Little Creek: Public Parklands-4(f) <br /> • Section 4(f) requires consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl <br /> refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. <br /> • Before approving a project that uses Section 4(f) property, FTA must either: <br /> (1) determine that the impacts to the property are de minimis (will not adversely affect <br /> the activities, features, or attributes of property), or <br /> (2) undertake a Section 4(f) Evaluation. <br /> • C2A has least impact to Section 4(f) properties <br /> Little Creek: Natural Resources <br /> Little Creek: Water Resources <br /> • Low Impact Design techniques have kept total acreage and linear feet impacts low for <br /> project of this size <br /> Timeline for Local Gov't Participation <br /> • Jan 2015 — Review Five Key Decisions <br /> • March-June 2015 — Local Governments & Public Review Data on Benefits / Impacts of <br /> Alternatives <br /> • April — May 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Recommended NEPA Preferred Alternative <br /> • September/October 2015 — Official 45-day comment period: Local Governments and <br /> Citizens provide comments on Key Decisions and any other items related to the D-O <br /> LRT Project <br /> • Fall/Winter 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Final EIS <br /> • February 2016 — Record of Decision issued by FTA <br /> Discussion <br /> Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County has been involved in protecting New Hope <br /> Creek since the 1980s and would like to know Triangle Transit's proposal and what any <br /> alternatives are for protecting it. <br /> Patrick McDonough said showing the video would best answer that question. <br /> Video started at 7:16pm <br /> Commissioner Rich asked if homeowners in the East 54 development knew of the light <br /> rail proposal. <br /> Patrick McDonough said he thought that many did know of the proposal. <br /> Commissioner Rich said she recalled that signs had been put up in the past but when <br /> she spoke recently with new home owners, that they were unaware that the light rail would be <br /> in front of the property. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.