Browse
Search
Agenda - 09-20-2005-6a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2005
>
Agenda - 09-20-2005
>
Agenda - 09-20-2005-6a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 3:56:19 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:45:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/20/2005
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
6a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20050920
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2005
RES-2005-071 Comments to TAC or DCHC MPO on transportation priorities list for 2007-2013 improvement program
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Resolutions\2000-2009\2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
ATTACHMENT 2 <br />26 <br />Section 4, which contains reference documents, provides detailed definitions and d'ir'ections <br />for applying the ranking methodology. It is important to note that the ranking methodology <br />continues to be more fully developed and refined with each TIP development cycle. The MPO is <br />developing new data sources in related planning projects, such as the congestion management <br />system, that will improve the data and application of the rankug criteria. <br />Ranking Results Compared to Local Priorities <br />It is unportant to remember that the ranking methodology is only one of several tools used <br />to produce the final Regional Priority List. The local governments have provided local priority lists <br />that must be considered, as well. It is the prerogative of the TAC to review the project ranking, <br />local priority lists, public comments, long-range transportation plan, and other valuable input in <br />order to produce the final Regional Priority List, <br />To begin this review, the TAC will likely compare the ranking results with local priority lists <br />to identify those projects dzat are highly ranked on the local project lists but are not highly ranked <br />using the ranking methodology. Figure 2 provides this comparison. The second column in the table <br />below, titled "Local Priority Ranking," shows project ranking by jurisdiction. The thud column, <br />titled "Order in Ranking Methodology," shows ranking by criteria methodology. <br />Figure 2 -Comparison oi' Ranking Results and Local Priorities <br /> Local Priority Order in Ranking <br />Project Ranking Methodology <br />Durham City and County <br />NC 54 --widen to multi-lanes with a City of Durham - 2 <br />55 <br />divided median, consideration for Durham County -- 2 <br />bus rapid transit, and bicycle and <br />pedestrian features; from I-40 to NC <br />S5 <br />NC 54 -- widen 2-laue roadway to <br />City of Durham - 3 <br /> <br />26 <br />multiple lanes, including bicycle and Durham County -- 3 <br />pedeshian facilities; from Page Road <br />to the Wake County Line <br />Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road -- City of Durham - 4 <br />26 <br />bicycle and pedestrian <br />rovements between Garrett Road <br />i Durham County - 4 <br />mp <br />and US 15-50. Chapel Hill -- 4 <br />US 70 --convert existing 4-lane City of Durham - 5 <br />43 <br />facility to 6-lane freeway; from Durham County -- 5 <br />Lynn Road to Wake County Line <br />Chapel Hill <br />Transit Capital Projects -Fund Chapel Hill - I <br />35 <br />h'ansit capital projects as identified Carrboro -- 5 <br />by Chapel Hill Transit <br />Page 8 <br />DCHC MPO -Regional Priority List for FY 2007-2013 MTIP <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.