OUTBoard minutes 051607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved June 20, 2007 T:\Advisory Boards\Orange Unified Transportation Board\Minutes\2007\OUTBoard minutes 051607.doc 2 the demand response business. Tillman replied that private transportation providers could also provide contract service. Grossman suggested that the public transportation service could contract a private transportation provider to serve new routes during the trial periods, and then take over those routes that were successful. • Tillman discussed problems with transportation services using a “Z” license, which is intended for private limousines. He said that businesses use the Z license to get around obtaining a license to operate a taxi and that the legislation did not define “limousine” and there were no checks on how the vehicles were being used for business. The group determined that the issue was outside of the County’s purview. • Tillman discussed the need for the Elizabeth Brady Road extension project. • He also called for provision of private economic development and use of private transportation services to be included in the planning phase of University of North Carolina North project. Peterson stated that planning thus far calls for exterior parking with a main interior thoroughfare for transit. • Tillman said Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough Town Boards should create Taxicab Sub-Committees to monitor and address citizens’ and taxicab owners’ and operators’ concerns and act as a liaison between the industry and the public. He proposed that the County include block numbers in road signs whenever a sign is replaced. • Tillman stated that the Orange Unified Transportation Board should be more inclusive of all transportation industries that operate in Orange County and suggested that the board include a position for a private transportation provider member. Peterson asked for suggestions on how the board could move forward with conversations regarding opportunities for private contracts with public transportation agencies. Gordon stated that the Transportation Services Board may be the venue for such discussion. VI. Transportation Element Goals for the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Update Peterson noted the goals and objectives that would be discussed at the joint Element Advisory Board meeting Wednesday, May 23. Gordon noted that the 8 principles approved by the Board of County Commissioners should be incorporated in the goals and she did not see those. There was discussion about how the proposed draft goals related to the principles. Gordon encouraged the board to consider wording that would create a more positively framed goal # 1 than “to minimize negative impacts”. Peterson said that the 8 principles should be visible during the goals discussion at the meeting with the Planning Board on May 23. VII. Priority Projects for 2009-2015 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Peterson noted that the handouts of the ranking for Orange County’s priority projects for the 2007-2013 TIP were helpful in understanding how the regional transportation planning agencies chose priority projects. The group briefly discussed priority project options, and noted that since the priority list would be revisited in two years and the funding situation did not offer encouragement that any