Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2011 - 9aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 15, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. q - a SUBJECT: Triangle Regional Transit Program -Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative DEPARTMENT: BOCC, Manager's Office & Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) ATTACHMENT(S): 1 a. Triangle Transit Responses to Questions 1 b. Triangle Transit Exhibits A-E INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank W Clifton, Manager, 245-2300 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 245-2575 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 245-2579 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the Triangle Regional Transit Program -Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and identify additional information that may be required for the Board. BACKGROUND: On May 19 and June 7 the BOCC held a work session and regular meeting regarding the Triangle Regional Transit Program (TRTP) and the localized Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP). At its June 7 meeting the Board decided: • not to proceed to a November 2011 referendum on the half cent sales tax; • to set a date later in the year for discussion of a new timetable and to receive further information related to Orange County components of the local and regional transit plans; and • indicate to Durham, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, UNC and the public the Board's continued interest in pursuing participation in an enhanced regional public transportation system. The Alternatives Analyses (AAs) for the Triangle Regional Transit Program projects in the Durham-Orange, Durham-Wake and Wake County Corridors were completed in July 2011. The findings and recommendations developed through the AA process are included in three separate Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports each of which is part of a set of documents which covers the alignment plan and profile, cost estimates, travel time, traffic analyses, an assessment of each station's capacity for potential transit oriented development and related information as well as a recommendation for the most appropriate initial fixed guideway transit investment known as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for each corridor. In July 2011, the multivolume reports for each of the three corridors were posted along with all of the other information generated through the AA process at the project web site: www.ourtransitfuture.com. 2 In late August, 2011 as a result of ongoing technical evaluation, public involvement and discussions with government agencies, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other key stakeholders, an Addendum was prepared for each of the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports. This additional information is also posted on the project web site noted above. Triangle Transit has stated that the LPA must be approved by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee by mid-February 2012 to make the deadline for federal New Starts applications (mid-August 2012). FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the presentation.; 2. Identify any additional information required of staff, including Triangle Transit Association; and 3. Plan to continue discussion at a December 8, 2011 Board work session. Attachment 1 a. H Triangle Transit Responses to Orange County Staff Questions on Bus and Rail Plans in Orange County November 7, 2011 1. How is the model fiscally conservative on both the revenue and expense side? As a point of reference, this question was briefly discussed in Triangle Transit's June 7, 2011 presentation to the Orange BoCC. We shared the following information. On the expense side: • Construction costs and right-of-way acquisition costs for rail have a 30% contingency added on top of base costs. • Capital plans add a general unspecified contingency of 4.6% above and beyond the 30% in the previous item • Inflation is estimated using long-term growth rates from the Federal Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but we have added an additional 0.5% inflation per year to tie more conservative on cost growth. On the revenue side: • Plan maintains a minimum of $3 million cash balance throughout life of the plan (about 60% of initial year sales tax revenue) while running buses, planning for and building rail • The plan uses along-term annual growth rate of 3.6%, which is below the historical trend for Orange County, which has grown at 4.0%. Economist Karl Smith from UNC School of Government has projected long-term economic growth for Orange County to be as much as 4.5% per year. • The plan assumes no interest on cash balances; there would be interest during implementation • The plan is tested against debt service coverage ratios (DSCRs) that have been accepted by bond markets to loan money for transit projects in other metro areas 2. Which bus routes are assumed to be fare free and which ones are not? This item was maintained by former Orange County Transportation Planner Mila Vega in the spring and summer of 2011. It is attached to the end of this document as Exhibit A. All the routes assumed to be operated by Chapel Hill Transit were assumed to be fare free, and all routes assumed to be operated by Triangle Transit were assumed to have a cost recovery of 15% from the farebox. Since the majority of services were assumed to be operated by Chapel Hill Transit, the average fare recovery for all Orange County bus services in the financial model is 3.5%. In Durham and Wake counties, the fare recovery is assumed to average 15% since there are no fare free routes. 4 3. Provide more detailed description of the bus rapid transit -- length of line, exact start and end point. Would BRT be viable and economical options for the high volume corridors of Hwv 54. 15-501 and MLK to be part of a regional public transit network? The two BRT options called BRT-high and BRT-low alternatives were studied as part of the Alternatives Analysis process, in addition to the Light Rail alternative between Durham and Chapel Hill. The two BRT alternatives are explained in great depth in the documents that were released by Triangle Transit and provided to Orange County in July 2011. These documents do not address MLK and Fordham Blvd/15- 501 since those areas were removed from high priority analysis for regional transit investment in the Transitional Analysis process (as part of the Alternatives Analysis process) that concluded in September 2010. The Alternatives Analysis recommendation for using light rail in the Durham-Orange corridor over BRT included the following reasons: • Light rail provides the fastest end-to-end travel time for transit passengers • Light rail has a demonstrated ability to influence and concentrate economic development into Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) in the United States; BRT does not have that track record • Light rail can be powered by energy sources other than fossil fuels due to electric propulsion • At levels of utilization seen in other cities where light rail has been implemented, long- term operating costs for LRT will be lower than BRT Since the Alternatives Analysis documents were completed, Durham County has proceeded to put a plan to build light rail in the 15-501 corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill. If the upcoming referendum vote approves this plan for Durham, any deployment of BRT in the NC 54 corridor would not bean effective connection to the regional public transit network because it would force a mode change at the county line. Chapel Hill Transit is also expected to accrue considerable cost savings in bus operations in the NC 54 corridor when light rail opens, and those operational efficiencies would also be lost. 4. Provide description of the limitations on use of the sales tax (e.s., cannot be used to supplant existing service) Attached to this document is a memo drafted by Triangle Transit General Counsel Wib Gulley dealing with the limitations on the use of half-cent sales tax revenues under NC House Bill 148. It is listed as Exhibit B. 5 5. How does the model assume the light rail cost to include the most expensive alignment (Meadowmont) and how much lower would the rail investment cost be if the Hillmont alignment were chosen? Wherever possible, to be fiscally conservative, financial modelling for the Orange County plan has always assumed the more expensive of two cost options where options exist. As the alignments are presently designed, the Meadowmont (C1) alignment costs approximately $40 million more to build than the Hillmont (C2) alignment. However, since the completion of these cost estimates, new analysis from the NC 54 study by the DCHC-MPO suggests that in the future, a double or triple-left turn lane from Barbee Chapel Rd onto NC 54 heading west towards UNC will be needed to handle morning rush hour traffic even if the rail is built. With this recommendation on the highway side, there is a high likelihood of needing to change the Hillmont design from an at-grade crossing of Barbee Chapel to an elevated crossing ,which will likely cost enough to make the Hillmont alternative almost identical to the Meadowmont alternative cost. 6. Provide a spreadsheet showing Durham's bus plan and how it lines up with the regional bus plan on the Orange County plan. The bus element of the Durham County Bus and Rail Investment Plan is attached to this document as Exhibit C. It can be compared to Exhibit A to show which services are listed in both plans. The Durham plan has been ratified by the DCHC MPO, Durham County Commission, and Triangle Transit Board of Trustees; the Orange bus plan is still in a draft form. 7. What permits and rights of wav will need to be obtained to implement the light rail and bus rapid transit. This question cannot be answered with any accuracy until a certain level of design is complete, roughly the 30% design level. The question of the C1 versus C2 alignment is still under discussion for the Locally Preferred Alternative( LPA), and it is not uncommon for station sites to move anywhere between zero and a few hundred feet during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Preliminary Engineering (PE) process. The PE/EIS processes happen concurrently and can take anywhere from 1.5 to 3.5 years to complete. 8. How and when will state and federal monies be requested? Federal and state funds for bus operations will be requested and provided through existing formula programs such as the Federal 5307 funds program and the State SMAP funding process. Federal and State shares of large capital projects, such as light rail, will be applied for via processes mandated by the appropriate level of government. For the Federal government, this process is the New Starts Program managed by the Federal Transit Administration. Triangle Transit plans to submit a federal New Starts application for the Durham-Orange corridor in August 2012. While acceptance into the New Starts program and a signal from the federal government that the corridor is approved to enter preliminary engineering is NOT a guarantee of 6 Federal funding, it is a strong indicator that the FTA sees merit in the project and that as construction approaches, a commitment known as a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which commits the FTA to the federal share of the project, is likely to be forthcoming. For State Government, the Charlotte Blue Line was funded through a process very similar to the FFGA process that yielded a State Funding Grant Agreement (SFGA) that secured the state commitment to light rail in Charlotte. At the appropriate time, probably 3 to 7 years past the date of referendum, Triangle Transit would initiate that process with NCDOT. 9. How are the operational costs per hour of bus service beine estimated across time and different providers? The bus service costs in-the model were estimated using region-wide averages of bus service cost including costs of Chapel Hill Transit, DATA, CAT, and Triangle Transit. The current estimate of that average is just under $87/hour in $2011 dollars. This number will be re-examined for accuracy on a regular basis as the plan is implemented. 10. list all the lieht rail stations within Oranse County and within the limits of Chapel Hill but in Durham County List where park and ride lots will be. This data was originally provided at public meetings attended by Orange County staff in March 2011. The table below summarizes the data as requested in question 10. Station County Municipality Bus Bays Park/Ride Spaces UNC Hospital Orange Chapel Hill 4 0 Hamilton Rd Orange Chapel Hill 0 0 Friday Center Orange Chapel Hill 0 0 Meadowmont Orange Chapel Hill 0 0 Hillmont / Woodmont Durham .Chapel Hill 0 < 200 Gateway Durham Chapel Hill 7 500 11. Describe how the I.PA will be selected. The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is the recorded decision by the governing MPO that specifies the endpoints, alignment, and technology of a transit investment. For the Durham-Orange corridor, the LPA will be selected by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO after weighing input by citizens, local municipal and county governments, and other stakeholders. This vote is currently scheduled for February 2012, giving Orange County time to weigh in on the decision before the vote. The detailed Alternatives Analysis documents from which the LPA is likely to be chosen have been available since July 2011. A DVD with full documentation was sent to every Orange County Commissioner, the County Manager, and Orange County Planning Staff in summer 2011. 7 12. What is the backeround rationale for the eastern route from UNC towards Hwv 54 and then NNE alone I-40 to 15-501 instead of a more direct UNC to 15-501 route? In combination has a BRT line been examined in the Hwv 54 corridor or similar alternative analysis scenarios? This question was raised by the Chapel Hill Town Manager during the Transitional Analysis phase at the beginning of the Alternatives Analysis process. Triangle Transit and consultant staff put together a memo detailed why the MPO chose the preferred alignment over the Fordham Blvd/15-501 approach to campus. It is attached to this document as Exhibit D. Independent from the Alternatives Analysis conducted by Triangle Transit, the Town of Chapel Hill studied an enhanced form of bus service that it referred to as "BRT" along the 15-501 Fordham Blvd corridor from exit 273 west towards campus passing Sage Rd and Europa Drive. This concept would offer some improvement in bus travel times and reliability, but is not considered true Bus Rapid Transit by the definitions used in Triangle Transit's alternative analysis. According to this definition, true Bus Rapid Transit operates in its own, permanent, exclusive right-of-way and is not subject to interference by automobiles. The guideway provides the ability for express buses to pass at ALL station locations at full freeway speeds. Off-board fare payment is the norm, with no time lost during boarding for passengers to put payments into the farebox. Information about these concepts can be found in the Chapel Hill Transit Master Plan, which has not been adopted. 13. Please provide the various financial scenarios with reference to 2011 tax dollars or 2035 dollars or some other clearly explained footnote so the financial plan can be monitored accordin¢Iv. As there is presently no adopted version of the Orange County plan, we have provided the most recent vital statistics of the financial plan that was discussed in June 2011 at the Orange County BoCC. This is included as Exhibit E. 14. Ensure how no financial liability would befall the county beyond stated revenue sources includine debt capacity. The plan is built around the revenues in the model; requiring no additional funding outside of the model to execute the plan. If for some reason any of the revenue streams in the model were not performing, the overall plan outcomes would be reconsidered and revised to stay within the available revenues. 15. How much bus service can be provided if there is no state money and no federal money for rail? 8 Approximately 120,000 hours of bus service. 16. Would commuter rail extended from Durham to Hillsboroueh be an effective means to connect central Oranee County to the Trianele (includine airport) since the proposed ~ro~ram to accomplish would be to drive to Gateway park and ride, lieht rail to transfer Durham commuter line, commuter to TTA reeional hub to transfer to airport shuttle? The major concentration of residents in Orange County is in the southeast corner, approximately 8 miles south of Hillsborough. For most residents, the back-tracking to Hillsborough would not be acceptable, since most travellers will only travel a very short distance AWAY from their destination to choose another mode to travel TOWARDS their destination, unless air travel is involved. Second, the concentration of residents in central Orange County is not that large, and is predicted to remain modest in the future compared to the anticipated population and job growth in the 15-501 corridor. Therefore, primary access to RTP and RDU via public transportation from Orange County will probably remain in the form of buses for the next 20 years, such as the existing Route 800 operated by Triangle Transit between Chapel Hill and RTP. Extending commuter rail to Hillsborough from Durham may make sense once the initial Durham to Raleigh commuter rail segment is open and successful for a few years. 17. How will an Inter-local Aereement (ILA) help provide manaeement and oversieht to any chanees to the financial plan over time? Triangle Transit is currently working closely with Wake County officials to draft an interlocal agreement that would be circulated among their 12 municipalities. The ILA will define how different types of changes to the plan would be managed. While minor changes, such as routing of buses and frequency of service, would be delegated to transit agencies best positioned to respond to the riding public, other major changes, such as significant changes in the total amount or distribution of funds disbursed in a year for operating and capital expenses, would incur more oversight from governing bodies including the Orange County BoCC , DCHC MPO, and the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees . Continued work by all the partners working on the Orange County Transit plan will help inform the final design of any interlocal agreement that the plan requires. Attachment 1 b. EXHIBIT A: ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PLAN BUS ROUTES Draft Countywide Bus Service Improvement Plan -Orange County :Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs CORE RECOMMENDATIONS Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 2 2 2 28 N x T A = N T W >. ~ N N ' ? y ~ ~ Y 'O ~ ~ C ~ x Si ~' c x d x ~ o a O c ~ ~ D N y a m m Z iA x` z 3 3 3 3 3 c c e•°- o ° E a o ' c ~ PROJECTS w z z z z i c c c= LocaF 75I5015ervlceJm rovements- H; UNC E 244 6.o C.0 251 C 0 6,0?2 8032 $97 5 719104 `>8 3 R iona~ ~x ress Ctla HIII orCarrbaro-Ourttam Ex ass Route 405 = eak E 26 G 251 6 526 J 263 $97 $ 633022 11 295 Re tonal -xcre~s McGan F,iilshorn~iah-Curhar-~ Er ress N 13.0 251 3,263 1,632 " ' 8 316,511 12,921 pcaf~J ~ ' S4"Carrldor Im rovem~nts fOren e artl Gumem Counties" E 12.0 '' •°4,0 251 4 016 ', 4,016 ' 387 - ' 36 5 "', 941 R i6rial .', ~ Cna I< lk i al Transis %entervia-Soutn aint~ &oute 800 • eak-_ - E ~~r18,6 0.0 ` -` ` ~"' , 251 ~ '4 895 ~?- 2+14. ^ 7 ! $ ''47 ~F.i&7 <_`, '_.YO Locale: Ex and Saiurda bus service Cha I HIII Carrboro`UNC E 3,640 3,840 $97 $ 353'080 23 030 Re tonal Ex~ ress C1ha el WIIIorCarrboro=Durham Ex ress Route 405-Sat E 8.0 55 440 120 ~ 97 $ 42680 23 250 Re i6nel ~' Cha el HII~Re (onai Transit Center vita South Dint Route 80C~ -Sat E B.0 55 ?440 220 $B7 $ x2880 23 470 Local Su ort existin services 6,000 6 000 $97 $ 582 000 29 470 RGP Tier i Im rove service in unincor orated Oran a Count E 6.0 6.0 251 3 012 3,012 $97 $ 292 164 32 462 Local Hilisborou h Circulator base service Tier I N 8.0 251 2 008 2 008 $97 $ 184 776 34 490 Local Introduce Sunda Service Cha el Hill Carrboro UNC N 52 5 096 5 096 $97 $ 494 312 39 556 Re tonal Ex ress Cha el Hill or arrboro- urham Ex ress Route 4 5 - un 24.0 52 1,248 624 $97 121,0 6 40 2 Re tonal Cha el Hill-Re Tonal Transit Center via South Dint Route B00 -Sun N 24.0 52 1 246 624 $97 $ 121 056 40 834 Local Hilisborou h Circulator Tier II N 2.0 12.0 251 502 502 $97 $ 48 694 41 336 RGP Tier II Im rove service in unincor orated Oran a Count E 6.0 6.0 251 3 012 3 012 $97 $ 292,164 44 348 Re tonal Ex ress Pittsboro-Cha el Hill Ex ress E 6.5 0.0 251 1 632 816 $97 $ 158 256 45 164 Local Extend Evenin service in Cha el Hill Carrboro UNC E 4,080 4 080 $97 $ 395,760 48 244 Re lonai HilhsSorou'h•Cha eI Hfll Route 420 - eak E ' 6.5 0.0 251 1 632 1 632 $97 $' 158 256 "-BD 875 hocal Im rove eak hour bus fre uenc Cha eI Hill Carrboro UNC E" B.B 251 2 209 "2 209 $97 $ 214 254 b3 064 Re Tonal Ex ress Alamance-Cha el HIII Ex ress N 13.0 0.0 251 3 263 3 263 $97 $ 316,511 58 347 Local Homestead-CaNander to Carolina North CH, C, UNC N 13.0 6.0 251 4 769 4 769 $97 $ 462 593 68 520 Local Oki Favettteville Rd from Hillsborouoh Rd to Homestead N 7.0 6.0 251 3 263 3,263 $97 $ 316 511 71 783 3'$ERVICETOTALS oca subt :87~ 2 1,783 8,477,976 4 5 6 7 BRT BRT Martin Luther King Jr Corridor Improvements (Orange only) BRT 54 Corridor (unfunded) Capital Protects Park-and-Ride Lot Cedar Grove Park-and-Ride Lot White Cross Park-and-Ride Lot 15-501 Park-and-Ride Lot NC-54 East Transfer Facility/Hub CH Transfer Facility/Hub Carrboro Transfer FacilltyiHub Hillsborough ADA 11 EXHIBIT B: LIMITATIONS ON USE OF HALF-CENT SALES TAX IN HOUSE BILL 148 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Patrick McDonough, Senior Planner FROM: Wib Gulley, General Counsel RE: NCGS 105-508 et seq DATE: August 29, 2011 In response to the request for Triangle Transit's legal and policy understanding of the non-supplantation clause of the 2009 Intermodal Transportation Fund legislation ("Act") and its impact upon allocation of the new revenues authorized by that Act, let me share with you the following legal and policy observations: 1. The non-supplant clause appears in the section of the law authorizing the % cent sales tax option for Wake, Durham and Orange counties. It is not a part of the sections of the Act authorizing the addition $3 regional and $7 local or county-based increase in vehicle registration fees. 2. No NC case law or AG opinion exists to date on the interpretation of non- supplantation language at this time for transportation, education or any of the other areas of state law where such statutory language appears. The State Treasurers staff reported that they have no specified state guidelines that they apply to non- supplantation in their work. The AG's office recently advised me that DOT staff thought that there might possibly be some federal regulations that had an impact on this question, but they have not identified or furnished these regulations to me as of this date. 3. The only possibly relevant NC transportation situation arises from the Charlotte and Mecklenburg County ("Charlotte") use of its % cent sales tax authorized in 1997. Pursuant to the 1999 Transit Governance Interlocal Agreement, the three parties to that contract currently paying for transit services (Charlotte, Huntersville and Mecklenburg County) agreed to maintain and not reduce their financial contributions each year to the CATS system going forward. More particularly, the Agreement provided that Charlotte and the other entities expending funds for transit must meet a "maintenance of effort" requirement to provide funds annually equal to its FY 98 local expenditure for transit services. The state legislation authorizing Charlotte's transit sales tax included anon-supplant clause. Their maintenance of effort requirement, according to the CATS legal staff, is a product of their creation and is not specified in or specifically supported by the statutes. 1 13 4. The issue of how the new revenues enabled by the Act are to be allocated by the local and regional entities involved is thus a legal question of first impression with no prior or established state legal precedent, ruling or regulation. Interestingly, the language of the statute (at NCGS 105-508.2) specifies that the net proceeds of the sales tax revenues must "supplement ... existing funds or other resources for public transportation systems" (emphasis added). The "other resources" suggests that non-supplantation may well reach the local taxing ability of the local governments that are currently being used for transit, as well as state, federal and farebox revenues. In sum, the presence of the non-supplant language in the sales tax provisions of the Act raises legal doubt about using those funds for current or future increased costs for existing bus services. A reasonable legal argument could be made against this use of the sales tax revenues. Without clear legislative or other legal authority for this use, there is clear risk attached to this course of action. 5. At the same time this non-supplant issue is a policy decision that must be made by the "regional public transportation authority" (TTA in the case of the Triangle region) in its development of the financial plan. At NCGS 105-508.1 the law directs that the regional authority develop a "financial plan" which sets out the use of the new revenues. In developing the financial plan TTA has been guided by the intent and purpose of the Intermodal Act shaped by its work with the key legislative sponsors over a three year period prior to enactment. The intent of the Act, in the words of one of its key sponsors, "was to expand public transportation options" in the Triangle and across the state. I believe that TTA will be guided by this understanding of the intent of the Actin its preparation of the financial plan. TTA will also be guided by the understanding that the public is very unlikely to approve new tax revenues for public transit that will be used to pay in any significant measure for existing transit services. 6. In light of the considerations of legal risk and legislative intent of the Act, it is my opinion that the TTA General Manager will not lead the development of a transit financial plan and that the TTA Board of Trustees will not approve a financial plan that uses either (1) new sales tax revenues or (2) the additional $3 regional vehicle fees granted by the Act to pay for current costs or for future inflationary increases in the costs of public transportation services now provided. As noted above, the $7 increase in local vehicle registration fees portion of the statutes does not contain non-supplant language. It may be, then, that these funds could be used for either new transit services or for the increased costs of existing transit services, but that frankly there is no firm legal (or policy) basis established at this time for that use. 2 14 EXHIBIT C: DURHAM COUNTY BUS AND RAIL PLAN: ADOPTED BUS ELEMENT Durham County Bus Transit Plan -- Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Complements Express rail to TMC and Light Rail to_ Leigh Village .i,~I~±~~~F~ior~~yK.F~dr~imendations~ ~. ... ., Annual Total Annual New Bus Service Type (Responsible Enhanced New Operating Hours Party) Projects or New? Hours Cost Cumulative YEARS 1 THROUGH 3 s Local (Gifu c Local Local (Crty of ........... Local (Gifu of Regional (Triangle Tra Regional (Triangle Tra Regiona{ (Triangle Tra Regional (Triangle Tra Regional (Tnarigle Tra Brier Creek-Downtown (Route 15) .Enhanced Southern High Liberty Street-Downtown (Route 16) Enhanced ~NC 54/NC 55-Downtown (Route 12) !Enhanced Carrboro-Chapel Hill-Durham Boulez service during peak hours New Hope Commons-Downtown via Northgate Mall Downtown (Route 1) The Village-Holloway Street-Downto Hill-Durham I ....... ............. Hill-Regional ~y hours to 11 hours to 11 Durham Durham (Route 405) - 15 extend Saturday hours to 11pm _..., ~uthpoint (Route 800) -extend $4,290,000 50,000 3,800 $320,000'. 3,800 3,000 $260,000 6,800 3 000 $260,000 9 800 Enhanced 1,500 New 3,400 ` Enhanced _ 1,500 _..... Enhanced 1,500' Enhanced 200!: 'Enhanced DU (Route 700/100) -extend Saturday , ':Enhanced ass (Route 405) -Sundays Enhanced~~ wa Southpoint (Route 800) -Sundays Enhanced DU (Route 700/100) -Sundays Enhanced _.. Enhanced :enters Express New Local (City of Durham) Durham Regional North Roxboro Street Downtown (Route 4) IEnhanced Regional Express (Triangle Transit) ;Durham-Raleigh Express (Route DRX) 30 minute service during peak hours - Enhanced ;Chapel Hill-Regional Transit Center via Southpoint (Route 800) 15 minute , Regional (Triangle Transit) aervice during peak hours ;Enhanced Regional Express (Triangle Transit) Mebane-Hillsborough-DukeNA Medical Centers Express 'New Regional Express (Triangle it T Rougemont-DukeNA Medical Centers Express ~ rans ) New I Rural (Durham County) Durham County Dial-A-Ride ;Enhanced Local (City of Durham) NCCU-Fayetteville Street-Downtown (Route 5) Enhanced Local (City of Durham) .Durham Tech-Downtown (Route 8) Enhanced ' Local (City of Durham) ~_ . . American Village Duke-West Chapel HiII Street Downtown (Route 6) Enhanced Local (City of Durham) , :East Durham Downtown (Route 2) _..... Enhanced !Durham-Regional Transit Ceriter (Rou(e 700j~ 15 minute service during peak _ Regional (Triangle Transit) 'hours +Enhanced BY 2035 Local and Rural-Bus Service Improvements Regiona{ Bus Service improvements Total Bus Service Improvements Note: Cost per hour is assumed to be $85. 200 600 11,300 .......... 14,700 16,200 17,700 17,900 18.100 600. $50 000 ~ 20 100 1 200 ' $100,000 21 300 8,000 $680,000; 29 300 ~' 3,000 ' ~.._.. .._ _ _„ _ $260,000 ...-_.~. ____. 32,300 W . _ .,___ 800 ._ ,- $70,000p ___ 33,100 1 500 ' $130,000 34,600 '. 1 600 '' $140,000` 36,200 3,300 - $280,000. 39,500 j 1,200 ', $100,000!. 40,700 1,500 ' $130,000' 42,200 ~ 1,500 $130,000" 43,700' 1,500 I $130,000 45200 1 500 $127,500 47,000 ~ 3,300 ', $280,500! 50,000 $4,590,000 54,000 $1,955,000 23,000 $6,545,000 77,000 CJ7 Durham County Bus Transit Plan -- Slmall Capital Costs (excluding buses) Complements Express rail to TMC and Light Rail to Leigh Village - aHighe~st Prlorlty Recommendations ~ - ~ 'i . e .r w,sa _, .., .~o... .,.~w ..~.. v~ CAPITAL PROJECTS .~~ ~_a.,~.,.~ . ~~,o~_.~~..~ ~... _ o, v. ~, RELATED OPERATING PROJECT z~q,. ..=v~~.~.~... ..~~.,~~uw,~...~ ~~~.~,~~, Unit Cost Quantity Est. Cost Park-and-Ride lot in northern Durham County ~.,, . Rougemont-Duke-Downtown Express ~ ..:.. .,~ $350,OOOper lot 1 ~ ... a...._ $350_,000; w~ ._ _ ~ . 'Rougemont-Duke-Downtown Express AND Durham ~ Park and Ride lot near Durham Regional Hospital Regional Duke Medical Hospital Connector. ... $350,000, per lot ~ 2 $700 000' .,, , , Associated Chapel Hill-Durham Express (Route 405) -peak only e with Light Park-and-Ride lots at Patterson Place and/or South Square AND New Hope Commons-Downtown via Duke ° Rail Project .. _ ... Southpoint-Duke~Connecfor•AND Chapel Hill- ~ I Regional Transit Center via Southpoint (Route 800) - Park and-Ride near Southpoint Mall peak only $350,OOOper lot 21 $700,000.. ' ;Chapel Hill-Regional Transit Center via Woodcroft Park and Ride near Woodcroft Shopping Center (Route 805) $350 000-. per lot 1 ~ $350 000 _ Transit Emphasis Corridor (Holloway St between The Village ;and Alston Ave) ~~ ~~ W ` ;The Village-Downtown (Route 3) -peak only , , ; W M~ ' $530,000"per mile 2i , $1,060,000' Durham Regional Hospital) Durham Regional-Downtown (Route 4) ~ $530 000'per mile _. _. _ ~ ~. ~ _F .. ~ _ ___ ___, . , . ~ _ ~.m~ _ _...~ _ ~ ~ __ Transit Emphasis Corridor (Fayetteville St between Lakewood and Cornwallis) °NCCU-Downtown (Route 5) $530,000"per mile Neighborhood Transit Center (Northern Durham) Durham Regional-Downtown (Route 4) $220,000'per bay The Village-Downtown (Route 3) -peak only AND !: Ale in F~hnrV.nnr~l Tror.c i4 /'en4er /The \/ill.~no\ '. Cn~ ~4F.n... LJ i..M fl.......4....... /D... .4i. 4 G\ @~f7/\ /~/1n'..... L..... 3! $1,590,000' 4 $2,120,000 3= $660,000!. $660,000 $660 $440,000 $2,000,000' 11, 300, 000'. $3,400,000'':. _.._ 15,000,000'... 17 EXHIBIT D: FORDHAM BLVD WHITE PAPER -WHY RAIL ALIGNMENT WAS CHOSEN 18 September 3, 2010 TRIANGLE REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM Durham to Chapel Hill Corridor Alignment West of I-40 September 3, 2010 BACKGROUND At a meeting with Town of Chapel Hill and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill representatives on July 27, 2010, the Town requested that additional alignments be considered for the Durham to Chapel Hill fixed guideway transit corridor in the segment that is between the proposed Gateway station (in the southwestern quadrant of the interchange of I-40 and US 15-501) and the junction of NC 54 and US 15- 501 (near the proposed Hamilton Road station), before continuing to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill main campus. The 2035 DCHC MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) shows the alignment that was adopted by the MPO following a Major Investment Study (MIS) completed for the corridor in 2001 (a Major Investment Study is now referred to as an Alternatives Analysis). The MPO plan proposes light rail transit (LRT) as the preferred vehicle technology for the corridor. The adopted and alternative alignments are shown in Figure 1. Commencing at the Gateway station, the adopted alignment (Alignment 1) swings south roughly paralleling the west side of I-40, traverses the proposed Leigh Village development in southwest Durham, then swings west to cross the US Corps land (through a Natural Heritage Area), through Meadowmont, crosses NC 54 to serve the Friday Center, and then continues west to terminate at the UNC Hospitals. In addition, an alignment that closely parallels the NC 54 roadway corridor (Alignment 2) was also proposed as an alternative to the adopted alignment to avoid the crossing of the Natural Heritage Area by Alignment 1. This alignment is considered to be broadly within the adopted corridor in the LRTP. Alignment 3 remains on US 15-501/US 15-501 Bypass (Fordham Boulevard) between the Gateway and Hamilton Road stations and is outside of the adopted corridor. At its furthermost point, Alignment 3 is approximately 2 %Z miles from the adopted alignment. The Town requested that Alignment 3 be considered since (a) over 10 years has elapsed since the adopted alignment was initially selected, and (b) redevelopment along the US 15-501 corridor within Chapel Hill has become a higher priority for the Town. 1 19 September 3, 2010 Figure 1-Alignment Options '' _( 15 Parrett Rd 50I Patterson Place Gate Q ©urh~r»' Alignment 3 ~s Alignment 1 Ghapel Hill ~ __~ soy Leigh Village ~~ :~. lrleadotnnnont Hamilton Rd s ' `- ~~ i!~ ~ ~ ' ~~ "~ Alignment ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ °~- Friday Center Legend Station a r, ,?s ozs as Taangle Regional Tr'ensit Progtart awrrr~n. 2 20 September 3, 2010 ADOPTED ALIGNMENT US 15-501 Major Investment Study The 2001 US 15-501 MIS recommended the alignment (referred to as a corridor in that study) shown in Figure 2. The alignment was subsequently moved to the east (closer to I-40) which is now Alignment 1 in Figure 1. Subsequent Transportation and Other Plans The alignment recommended in the MIS was subsequently included and approved in the DCHC MPO Long-Range Transportation Plan, and subsequent updates to the LRTP, including the current Plan, have continued to include this alignment. Several local government land use and transportation plans have been prepared and adopted assuming Alignment 1 as a major fixed guideway transit corridor that includes regionally adopted transit stations: The adopted alignment is referenced in the Durham City and County Comprehensive Plan. This Plan, adopted in February 2005 and amended in January 2009, states that the "City and County shall support planning for and protection of the transit corridors identified in the most recently adopted version of the Triangle Transit Authority's Regional Transit Plan". Furthermore, it mandates that the "City-County Planning Department and the City Public Works Department shall review development proposals in relation to the adopted Regional Transit Plan, and shall seek dedication or reservation of right-of-way along designated transit corridors in conformance with that Plan". The Comprehensive Plan also designates the Leigh Village area as a Suburban Transit Area, which allows for high densities associated with Compact Neighborhood development, and requires development to be transit, bicycle, and pedestrian oriented. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for the DCHC MPO adopted the Southwest Durham/Southeast Chapel Hill Collector Street Plan (CSP) in April 2007. Transit circulation and future transit~facilities were a large component in the development of the recommended CSP. Better connectivity and accessibility to existing and future transit facilities was closely considered, with dense development expected near proposed transit stations. The current NC 54 corridor study, from US 15-501 to east of 1-40, was commissioned by the City of Durham, Durham County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the DCHC MPO in order to analyze land use and transportation issues in the corridor to better inform future land use and transportation strategies. While the final master plan resulting from this study has not been officially adopted, the study assumes the adopted alignment. Development Plans A number of land development projects have either been completed or are being planned based on the adopted alignment and local government land use and transportation plans that reference the alignment. These include: • Meadowmont was required by the Town of Chapel Hill to preserve right-of--way for fixed guideway transit, and planned the development to concentrate the commercial and office components in the vicinity of the proposed Meadowmont station. 21 September 3, 2010 Figure 2 -MIS Recommended Alignment ~xhilsi# ES-2 ~ _ U~ 15-501 lfrilS µ ,~ + _ - ~ ~ Phase I[ ~ ~?` s , Recommended _ ' Transit Corridor "w, .~ ~.. ~, a. ~ ~' .. ..,,. LE~ENE3 ~~.. ~ r .,, ~ z~ s ~.~ r~ ~. oew,aa~a ~ ~ N haere~ 7TA hFsxae ~ ~~ "l s~ _ ~ ~ Chapel Nill Durham t~ ~. ~ ~: 3 y~ a ~ ~ ' SVE d - ~4Y1~ `~y, `~ ~ . S Gar ~~ < ,~ ,~ ut+c ~ { . ~' 9 $ ~" ' HNTB ~F ~,~ o , s s s • The design of the recent 54 East project was required to accommodate the adopted alignment. • The design of Creekside Elementary School was also affected by and was required to preserve land for the adopted alignment. • Planning for high density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development for the Leigh Village property has been ongoing for several years, on the assumption that the land must be preserved for the alignment and as a station that will be located there. The planning also assumes that the station will be a multi-modal hub that serves express buses from t-40 to the east, as well as a major park-and-ride center. • The University has undertaken preliminary planning for the Friday Center property on the assumption that a station will be located there. Conclusion The regional rail plan, and its feasibility, hinges on high density, transit-oriented development occurring at many of the stations. Much of this development will be undertaken by the private sector, and in some cases appropriate development has commenced, has been planned, or is in the planning phases. In making financial commitments, developers and their financial backers need to be assured that an alignment formally adopted by local governments will not be retracted. ADDITIONAL FACTORS There are several additional factors that favor remaining in the NC 54 corridor, though these do not preclude the US 15-501 corridor as an option. It also should be noted, however, that Alignment 3 is approximately two miles shorter than the NC 54 options, thus potentially providing some cost savings, and Alignment 3 also may have the least impacts on the natural environment. Regardless, these 4 22 September 3, 2010 potential advantages must be weighed in comparison with the benefits of keeping the chosen alignment within the NC 54 corridor. Employment, Population, and Activity Centers Figure 3 shows the 2035 employment and population projections for the traffic analysis zones within the study area. These projections should generally cover all anticipated and desired development. Based on aerial photography and some knowledge of the proposed developments, an order of magnitude estimate of the number of employees and population within approximately % mile of the stations has been determined. While several of the traffic analysis zones are quite large, in many cases the development is focused in only a portion of the zone. For example, the proposed Leigh Village development is clustered around a station in the southern portion of the zone, and the Meadowmont and Friday Center employment is closer to NC 54, where stations are proposed. The 2035 population is significantly higher for the two NC 54 alignments than for Alignment 3, and the 2035 employment is more than double. Therefore the NC 54 alignments strengthen the feasibility of light rail transit in the Durham-Chapel Hill corridor, as this initial analysis suggests that ridership generated from development within the corridor would be higher for Alignments 1 and 2. Park-and-Ride Demands and Ridership Park-and-ride has the potential to significantly contribute to ridership on a rail line that connects park- and-ride facilities located near I-40 interchanges to UNC main campus and downtown. Currently there are 1,660 park-and-ride spaces at the Friday Center on NC 54, serving primarily commuters from east of Chapel Hill. These are filled to capacity on a typical weekday, and the University has identified a need for more spaces in this corridor. Over time, as the Friday Center property is redeveloped, it is anticipated that the current park-and-ride must be relocated closer to 1-40. One site that has been studied for a large park-and-ride facility is Leigh Village where a rail station and major transfer hub would be located for Alternatives 1 and 2. Initial studies have indicated along-term need (2035+) for a total of over 3,500 spaces in the NC 54 corridor. Previous analysis has determined that this could translate into about 8,000 daily transit riders in the corridor (both directions combined). While these would be short distance trips, they would represent a significant amount of the total ridership in the Durham to Chapel Hill corridor. Representatives of the planned Leigh Village development have indicated a willingness to accommodate park-and-ride. Studies have also identified the need for a large amount of park-and-ride in the US 15-501 corridor to serve commuters from the Durham area. However, the University and Town have been unable to find sites suitable for a sizable facility in the corridor, a situation that is unlikely to change. Therefore, while some opportunities may arise for smaller or shared park-and-ride facilities, it is unlikely that they will match the potential for park-and-ride in the NC 54 corridor. Therefore, rail alignments in the NC 54 corridor, i.e. 1 and 2, will benefit to a much greater degree in terms of ridership than an alignment in the US 15-501 corridor, i.e. alignment 3. 5 23 September 3, 2010 Figure 3 - 2035 Employment and Population Projections ` i 9ES: 71y _1L~t- - ~ r;t ~ w ~9 ~ ~~iY { ~ - 39 T~~t(1 ,x ~ ~~~ ~~ _._ 5Tf[4W ~ .y ~ . ~.. ~ _ ~_ . -- '1 ]W +, !'NY ~ ~, '~ ~ ' . ~ i )5 ZSI , ~.:3" «7' ~2' ~. '. F: -'*: .F k ~ ~ :~ .. n ,. r `7.., n t~ ~~ ~ .. ~5 ri. , ~.~~ -~ ;'-: - p _' ~ R: oT' ~ ~ +; ,: i ,~~~ r ~ ~ i y+~ +~r.+i ^s ~ '~' - ~ ~ ? r;.; ..ip'~ -' „ .~ r' ~~ ~ ;~ w ~,"~~ a f~. ~ m7 ,4~ , ~9} ~ 6] t t I ti7~ 'iYt ~ '~ e _ t J '~ .~~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ f.{- _ ; y l ~ 1 ~ 7 w x ' `~ ~ 1,;~ S ~ '~w _, _ ' . ~~~~ i 1: +.. ~. I OT f~2 ~ '_ }; fir ': 'r 7?1r ~ ~: ~ ~y. .7d ++1 ltf ~~ ~{ --`~:~. + r ~ ~~ :405 a7C 4 C.25 ~ ! 5~ 1 °5 "''~ F des t r ~~ i 55~3'd4 -. 2 SGLST9t+1 ~S k50 ~: 1 An alignment in the NC 54 corridor also can reduce Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) operating costs, or enable CHT service to be expanded at no cost. In the NC 54 corridor, CHT runs approximately 24 vehicles in rush hour service to serve the Friday Center and NC 54 park-and-ride lots, as well as buses serving the more neighborhood-oriented "G" and "V" routes. With the NC 54/I-40 interchange being the primary intercept point for east-of-Chapel Hill traffic (and much of southern Durham traffic), Alignments 1 or 2 have the potential to pick up the work (and cost) of perhaps 50% to 75% of these buses. Selecting Alignment 1 or Alignment 2 provides the Town of Chapel Hill with the choice of: • Significantly re-deploying their vehicles for service in other corridors, such as the MLK corridor or East Franklin/15-501 corridor, which were envisioned for enhanced bus service in the Chapel Hill Transit Long Range Transit Plan study • Creating feeder routes to link presently unserved or underserved neighborhoods in Chapel Hill to the rail line • Reducing the number of buses operating at peak periods in Chapel Hill and lower the burden of the bus system on the Town budget • A combination of all of the above 6 24 September 3, 2010 A choice of Alignment 3 would probably require most of those 24 buses in service in the NC 54 corridor to remain in operation in that location, reducing redeployment, feeder bus, and peak period operating cost reduction opportunities. Right-of-Way Availability As previously mentioned, right-of--way has been preserved for Alignment 1, possibly at no cost. Additional right-of--way may have to be purchased #or Alignment 2, particularly if the NC 54 corridor study recommendations for road improvements are implemented. An initial review of property maps indicates that the right-of-way width along US 15-501 (Alignment 3), including the parallel service roads, is a minimum of 200 feet. It is possible that right-of--way may have to be purchased in places. It is assumed that the redevelopment of Ram's Plaza will donate right-of-way close to US 15-501 for transit. CONCLUSIONS As outlined above, there are strong arguments for the alignment to remain in the NC 54 corridor. A desktop environmental evaluation of the three alignments does not indicate any environmental fatal flaws associated with any of the alignments. A detail environmental study and coordination with the federal and state regulatory agencies is needed before a definitive recommendation can be made as to which of the two NC 54 alignments has the least overall environment impacts, particularly as to the preferred location for crossing the Corps land. No permits for crossing federally-owned lands or wetlands-have been obtained for the adopted alignment. P:\Transit\2010021 TT Program Management\AA\Durham-CH\NC 54 Alignment Paper 090310.doc 7 25 EXHIBIT E: ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT FINANCIAL PLAN: ONE-PAGE SUMMARY Orange County Transit Financial DRAFT Plan: November 7, 2011 ASSUMPTIONS ::- ~: ~ . , _ s Sales Tax Growth Rate (2015 and beyond) 2.5% Enhanced MLK Bus Lanes Capital Cost $22 1 Light Rail Capital Costs Attributed to Orange County, Millions $2011 $330 Annual Light Rail Operating Costs Attributed to Orange County, Beginning 2025, Millions $3.2 Federal Share of Light Rail and Bus Lane Capital Costs 50% State Share of Light Rail and Bus Lane Capital Costs 25% .OUTCOMES. ; ,. _ Enhanced MLK Bus Lanes 2018 Light Rail DT UNC Hospital to Alston Avenue 2025 Annual Rail Train-Car Hours (UNC Hospital to Alston Ave) 44,000 Rail Dividend New Annual Bus Hours* 15,000 to 25,000 jBUS SERVICE _ '` ' . Bus Capital Investment, Millions $2011(first five years) $3.0 Total New Annual Bus Hours by 2025 44,100 Total New Annual Bus Hours by 2035 50,400 FINANCIAL' _ .. _ - Debt Service Coverage Ratio Tests Met? YES Cash on Hand Test Met? ($3m Orange) YES Cash Balance in 2035 (millions in $2011/$2035) $25/$45 .. *When rail lines open, bus services operating in those corridors can be re-directed to new purposes These hours are additional to the "Total New Hours" 26 Prepared by Triangle Transit Staff Updated 11-07-2011