Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
2 <br />5 <br />We buckled down to the task in August 2000. With professional planning representatives <br />from DCHC, CAMPO, TTA, DOT, TJCOG and our hired consultants, we met every 2-3 <br />weeks until Februazy, when the document was completed. <br />Content <br />Here aze a few observations about what this report, Regional Transportation Strategy, is and <br />what it isn't. It is: <br />1. A statement ofthe problem. <br />2. A compilation of existing, publicly adopted plans -the long range plans and T1P's from <br />CAMPO and DCHC; TTA regional transit plans; RTP transportation plan; the I-40 HOV <br />study; the 15-501 study; an others. <br />3. A plan that asks, where do existing "fiscally constrained" plans fail to meet the need? <br />4. A plan that quantifies the cost of what we need but do not have funding for. The <br />estimates include infrastructure, operations and maintenance. <br />5. A strong argument for a more multi-modal approach. For example, if you look at page 4, <br />you will see that we suggest that dramatic increases in funding are needed for managed <br />lanes, transit and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. <br />6. A proposal that private sector funding contributions be explored and increased. <br />The Regional Transportation Strategy is not: <br />1. A blueprint, a directive, a TIP or anything that anyone can count on to happen. Again, it <br />was created to stimulate good action. <br />2. A proposal for any particular revenue source. It estimates what the Transportation <br />Finance Study Commission's proposals would have raised, had they been adopted ($50- <br />60 million for the Triangle). Those proposals will. not be adopted in this session of the <br />General Assembly. It also estimates what .several revenue sources (e.g. sales tax, real <br />estate transfer tax, S cents on the property tax) would raise in the Triangle if they were <br />implemented. The .document before us makes no recommendation whatsoever about <br />what revenue source is most appropriate. <br />3. Comprehensive on all subjects. For example, improved land use decisions over the next <br />quarter century could probably reduce transportation costs considerably. Those improved <br />decisions, and any rules or bodies that could compel them, cannot be counted on. Adding <br />land use, though it is obviously critical to transportation planning, was a dimension we <br />reluctantly let go because it is too complex and controversial and we are seeking some <br />regional consensus on transportation needs. <br />4: Comprehensive on non-infrastructure strategies, such as transportation demand <br />management, parking fees and restrictions, and intelligent transportation systems. We <br />discussed ail these and view them, as an essential part of an effective overall strategy, but <br />quite frankly, couldn't include everything. <br />A comment was made on May 7 about the surface street recommendation. 1 appreciate the <br />opportunity to explain that in more detail. As we all. know, building new collectors and <br />arterials and widening existing ones is not popular in Chapel Hill. However, these kinds of <br />