Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-19-2002-10b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2002
>
Agenda - 02-19-2002
>
Agenda - 02-19-2002-10b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2017 12:07:44 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 11:14:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/19/2002
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
10b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20020219
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
3 <br /> functions, local membership, staffing, funding, level of NCDOT participation, and other <br /> procedural and operational issues. <br /> Orange County Options <br /> Orange County must consider whether transportation issues in the rural portions of the <br /> county are more related to transportation interests of the urbanized areas of the county <br /> (MPO) or to rural portions of neighboring counties. The portion of Orange County that is <br /> in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization will <br /> remain in that MPO. Orange County;s options for the remainder of the county are: <br /> 1. to expand the county's involvement in the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) <br /> Metropolitan Planning Organization (the entire county becomes part of the DCHC <br /> MPO); <br /> 2. to join with some combination of adjacent counties in a Rural Planning <br /> Organization; <br /> 3. to join with the Burlington MPO; or <br /> 4. to maintain the county's current arrangement, where a portion of the county is in <br /> the DCHC MPO, and the remainder of the county is not (Orange County does not <br /> join an RPO). <br /> The table on the next page outlines advantages and disadvantages of each of the <br /> above options. <br /> Orange County has several choices if the county decides on option 2 above to join with <br /> some combination of adjacent counties to form a Rural Planning Organization. <br /> Triangle J Council of Governments has developed a proposal for an RPO for Triangle <br /> oriented counties (Orange, Chatham, Lee and Moore). Those documents are attached <br /> as Exhibit A. <br /> Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) proposes an RPO for counties <br /> within NCDOT Divisions where PART operates. PART would act as Lead Planning <br /> Agency. Counties in the RPO could include Rockingham, Caswell, Alamance, <br /> Davidson, Randolph and Orange. <br /> Orange County could-form an RPO with adjacent counties not already committed to <br /> another RPO arrangement. Alamance, Caswell and Chatham Counties are adjacent <br /> counties that have not yet made a decision regarding the RPO program. Most of the <br /> RPOs are being set up by the regional councils of governments (COGs). There are one <br /> or two that are being set up differently. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.