Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 12-08-2011 - Attachment 1
Attachment 1 Orange County BOCC Transit Work Session - Thursday, December 8, 2011 Agenda Outline and Key to Attachments A. Mobility Regional Purpose 1. House Bill 148 (Attachment Al) 2. Local (Att. A2) i B. Alternatives Analysis (AA)(Mode of Transit) 1. Bus Plan (Att. 131) 2. BRT (Att. 132) 3. Light Rail (Att. 133) 4. Commuter Rail (Att. 134) 5. UNC— D (Att. 135) C. Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) (Corridor) 1. C-1 — Meadowmont(Att. C1) 2. C-2 — Hillmont 3. Alignment Alternative Comparison (Att. C3) D. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Financial Plan/Model) 1. Cost Sharing Discussion a. Durham/Orange Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial:Plan Draft(Att. D1a) b. Cost Sharing Map (Att. D1 b) C. Revenue Sharing (Att. D1 c) 2. Ridership a. Assumptions (Att. D2a, incl. 4-charts) b. Demographics (Att. D2b) C. Employment and Population (Att. D2c) 3. Plan A; Core Transit --Bus (See Att. 131) --BRT (See Aft. 132) Plan B; Enhanced Transit --Light Rail --Bus --BRT --Commuter Rail (See Att. 134) E. Intergovernmental Agreements or Memorandum of Understanding 1. Municipalities (Att. E1.) 2. Triangle Transit(Att. E2) F. Referendum Decisions G. Timeline (Att. G) Attaehment Al 5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX AUTHORIZED SECTION 2.(a) Section 1(a)of S.L. 1997-417 is recodified as G.S. 105-510.1.SECTION 2.(b) Article 43 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes, as enacted by S.L. 1997-417 and amended by Section 13(f)of S.L. 2001-427, Section 74 of S.L. 2008-134, and by subsection (a)of this section, reads as rewritten: "Article 43. "Local Government Sales and Use Taxes for Public Transportation."Part 1. General. " "§ 105-510.6. Limitations. A transportation authority may not levy a tax under Part 3A or 3B of this Article unless: • (1) It operates a public transportation system. (2) it has developed a financial plan and distributed it to each unit of local government located within its territorial jurisdiction. The plan must be approved by the board of commissioners of each county in the district prior to the levy of the tax. If the board of commissioners of a county in a multicounty district does not adopt the plan,the transportation authority may remove that county from the district, and no tax may be levied in that county under this Part. The financial plan must provide for equitable use of the net proceeds within or to benefit the special district created under Part 3A or Part 313 of this Article and consider • (i)the identified needs of local public transportation systems in the district, • (ii) human service transportation systems within the district, and • (iii) expansion of public transportation systems to underserved areas of the district. The financial plan must also be approved by all Metropolitan Planning Organizations under Article 16 of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes whose jurisdiction includes any of the area of the special district. The plan may be revised from time to time.An interlocal agreement between the transportation authority and all the counties in the special district may require periodic review and approval of the financial plan. (3)The tax is approved by the voters. 6 Attachment A2 Regional Mobility Purpose: Orange County • Regional Perspective and Connectivity • Enhance Public Transit Options ® Reduce Traffic and Air Pollution • Increase Development and Redevelopment Opportunities • (Increase Tax Base/Sales Tax) • Provide access to: • jobs • education • shopping • entertainment • Serve Orange County Residents and Businesses 7 Attachment B1 OratnW County Transit Main— Bus fervice Plan lstement Draft Concept Map Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 and he.vtond(2015) 22.,050 bus hours 44.000 bus.hours 5C AX)bus hom RW 80,00W 8010's 1 Local Survicc kaas � t� ti�Prcx►s Now}oak-avd-tidy or Orange Count a ighb&hoodtrairsit confers fi 1 �i516"Judrtt r 's I- IS-501 Area apt,"Hiff ti,LKAJrrwr�hrx�rs,�tl+us tzt'd`I'1kv WiN 4W rit•.4 hot1tio!), �Felr Freldd'�dld���. Attachment B1 (Cont.) 00 Draft Countywide Bus Service Improvement Plan -Orange County : Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs CORE RECOMMENDATIONS 12 B x ° 0a o 3 x x w i AAAad(w evLA- X32, Draft Orange County Bus Plan Cedar Grove 5 / It9 70 Mebane (_fland Hillsborough 70 Graham Durham k i Duke}Jniversity Ho pital Eubanks. 15 751 g 5 White Cross Park&Ride / . 501 r rn a n Chapel Hill/Carrboro .' Leigh lage,..,.�, 4 15 UNC University Raleigh-Durham Hospital Research- - - International / 501 Triangle Park / Triangle Transit Regional Transit Centef.(RTC) �RegionalService-New N 1NM=3.Jmilaa �... BRT Regional Service-Enhanced Local Improvements many:�.n cl by B e n mw.� n o.n:rtm01 a5 Map my Pi tr�Bran d InW aeons r 09.2010 W 10 DRAFT Orange County Bus Plan Regional Service- Enhanced ti s StateN ® Regional Service- New BRT Orange County 1810 sf - - Orange Major Roads ` d� Local Improvements s N W E State HwY 1002 S � S Mebane 4 s/d co *---To Alamance County �S Hillsborough fey�y7 AS 140 140 � King Nv�y��42 State Hwy 1144 gta _ oo 140 m S m co To Durham y,. 7 9h� State Hwy 1127 - State Hwy 171 S m 6 .e'1AA o To Durham State Hwy 1731 Whi�/e/� Pickett ` Chapel Hill/Carrboro P!�' Brookv;ew 1777 (D To Alamance County E=lion -� 0 h� To Raleigh 1 o Y0 to 3 rt _ 21 � SLa�e sta �7. To Chath, n Count' J '000 0 1.25 2.5 5 Miles { �I Attachment B3 DurhammOrange (L 19ft t Rail County Corridor Dike UnnVslty Durham Rail padr 48•• • AUtemate Rail Path a Light Fall Stations Alternate ! ' CmDahaum Light l Station hrY rH't y Tech Gold 2-3nta�fiaebu - �, :, : 3 [7t?l7¢�7X1P1 m 3G7fi0B - 217tdf�h7!'�fk� ,:Ji.Yk7G60R to sudon r ! 1!2 rdikd for walk 3CCdess ,s .•, blialiel Hill Uniu of North Carolina at ChapelNill • Nat we,A,,+ J N FIGURE 3-1 "` nttachmentB3(cont) LRT Alternative, Non Interlining Feeder Bus Routes 70 Municipal Boundary Network Readsn` o�CRT Route as Feeder Bus Routes cc - i ® � ;Chapef NORTH - `��`_ 0 M 1 1.5 z hr, JUNE 2011 Durham Co. Wake Co. t II 4 Attachment 04 CI m0cr 3 f s ;tiff on � �r311i44.r1�#}r1 �- .., DURHAM 401 ORANGE ke rest RcilesvVe ?�a 441 WAKE %Afe iri'. a � 401 Holly sprTN 0.1's 11.4ils Legenc J r West D nam to Johnszf-o Count, L ne Z, eriiativ t� � se=` u w it h#ield TRANSITIONAL AINALYSIZ S STUDY CORRIDORS ,: ,. � evo al Trartsii Pfooraw J Alternatives Evaluated : Triangle Regional Transit Program Stations & Alignments our transit future LEGEND A DE � « - N Hospital Station Al ernatives ELEVATED STATION oo--- DEFERRED ALIGNMENT ¢c`. > '• , , ;�O�ea C DEFERRED STATION AF n � 1(a): Hibbard 41 (c) Hibb a� r d IS - D r.:,.Stati o n r D r. . � Station •,F . Fes, �p qq J, •. ,. `+ �, ^�` + , 's _"4 , air { ,�:..:. } .;��� "- ✓.'F'�'""`ae r�, � • � 7{ ` � k1` �ro � M'"a c t,,,,s. ,� a ' � a � " r •' lv 3(d)a Mason a'—too, warm Rd Station - 200 100 0 200 1 � a 3 1 ; tr 'R1 7 a� 'l �i"d AL te r *O 4.y b E � i _ � z-a 4 49 16 Attachment C3 Alignment Alternative, Locally Preferred Alternative Comparison C1 C2 Meadowmont Woodmont/Hillmont Increases Tax Value To Orange County Has Lower Construction Costs Lower Environmental Obstacles/Impact Has Potential for Orange County Ridership Alleviates traffic in the 54 Corridor Offers Park & Ride for Orange County Residents Potential for Orange County Property/Sales Tax Revenue via Transit Oriented Development Opportunity for (Re)Development of"Points of Interest"in Orange County Reduction in Ride Time for Orange County (Chapel Hill Area) Residents and Workers Traveling to/from Durham Key; M = No/Not Likely M = Slightly/Low = Mostly/Some =Yes/Good Attachment Dla 17 Durham-Orange Triangle Regional Transit Progi-am [In+uncial Plan Draft ASSUNIPTIONS(REVENUE COSTS, t t Coun llhltl-1:1E1 Chapel Hill Town Limit lit point for Durham-Oran p3 Light!tail OranW Pays Gateway Area -ght Rail Alignment UNC Hospital to Alston Avenue) UNCD-Hill-SSE '71- - 1.Z"r; j Sales Tax Growth Rate(2015 and beyond) 1.6r, Value Capture Revenue?(Annual) Value Capture Revenue Years Institutional Revenues?(Annual) Nw Institutional Revenues Years 1 :1 NA Opening Year Light Rail Opening Year Commuter Rail Opening Year MLK Bus Lane '()! Local Municipal Contributions Per Year County LRT Capital Cost, Millions$2011 ;+, $1,050 County LRT Annual Operating Cost, Millions$2011 $11.30 MLK Bus Lanes Capital Cost, Millions$2011 - MLK Bus Lanes Operating Cost, Millions$2011 N.N - Commuter Rail Capital Cost,Millions$20113[)) Commuter Rail Operating Cost,Millions$2012 s",; First Year New Bus Hours ?? t I`1 a Nast Three Years New Bus Hours -1.1.1 50,0(X) Total New Bus Hours 50.= 77.50,1 All New Bus Hours Obtained By 2f 1()33 Borrowing(Millions$2011) S00 X155 Debt Service Coverage Ration Tests Met? 1 Yl l's Crash on Hand Test Met?($IOM Durham, $2M Orange) y S YES Fixed Guideway Dividend Hours** a 15.[)(11)-37-15[))) Cash Balance in 2035(Millions in$2035) Cash Balance in 20'35(Millions in$2011) ' , 18 Attachment D16 I Light Rail Cost Sharing Reference Map soy Patterson Place Station eway Station r << s ' Leigh Village owmont Station Friday Center Station W dmont/Hillmont Station 025 D O.t25 0-25 03 s • Attachment D1c Page 1 19 June 13, 2011 Revenues and Expenditures' Local Revenue — estimated dollar amounts for Orange and Durham Counties. The dollar amounts reported below are the projections of revenue in 2012, expressed in 2012 dollars. Durham: 1/2-cent sales tax: $17.3 million $7 vehicle registration fee: $1.47 million $3 vehicle registration fee: $629,000 Portion of Triangle Transit Rental Car Tax: $1.15 million Orange: 1/2-cent sales tax: $5.1 million $7 vehicle registration fee: $773,000 $3 vehicle registration fee: $331,000 Portion of Triangle Transit Rental Car Tax: $560,000 For the Rail Investment Details: Explain the components that are used to derive the total investment costs. The various components for the entire UNC Hospital to Alston Line include: • Guideway and Track Elements: $423 million • Stations, Stops and Terminals: $118 million(includes $15 million additional for Leigh Village parking deck above A3/132/Cl cost estimate) • Support Facilities: Yard, Shops, Admin Bldgs: $36 million • Site work and Special Conditions: $161 million • Systems: $121 million • Right-Of-Way, Land, Relocation Costs: $108 million • Vehicles: $66 million • Professional Services: $240 million • Unallocated Contingency: $63 million • Project Reserve: $42 million Total: $1,378 million Costs for Light Rail by Segment A. Rail investment in Orange County Location: UNC Hospital to Orange County Line 1 From Commissioner Gordon's email to Triangle Transit dated July 3,2011.Information was provided my Patrick McDonough,Triangle Transit Senior Planner. 2 C �J Page 2 June 13, 2011 Distance: 2.89 miles Cost: $223 million(stations, track and systems included,maintenance facility share NOT included) B1. Rail investment in the part of Chapel Hill located in Durham County Location: Orange County Line to Chapel Hill Town Limit(assumes Woodmont/C2 alignment) Distance: 0.52 miles Cost: $28 million(stations, track and systems included,maintenance facility share NOT included) B2. Rail investment in the part of Chapel Hill located in Durham County Location: Area approaching and departing Gateway Station near 15-501/I40 interchange Distance: 0.36 miles Cost: $45 million(stations,track and systems included, maintenance facility share NOT included) C. Rail investment in Durham County but not in Chapel Hill. Location: Orange/Durham County Line to Alston Avenue Station, Excepting B 1 and B2 segments above Distance: 13.47 miles Cost: $911 million D. Other costs: Rail Operation/Maintenance Facility,Including Tail Tracks & Vehicles Location: TBD Distance: 1.6 miles of yard/shop tracks Cost: $171 million, apportioned$34 million to Orange and $137 million to Durham based on track mileage. Total capital cost: $1,378 million Percentage of Total Capital Cost, By County Plan, In the Financial Models Orange County: 24% Durham County: 76% Percentage of Total 2-County Sales Tax Revenue in 2012, By County Plan, In the Financial Models Total Sales Tax Revenue: $22.4 million($5.1 million + $17.3 million) Orange County: 23% Durham County: 77% Page 3 21 June 13, 2011 All commuter rail costs are paid by Durham County. None are shared with Orange. Combining the existing bus hours with the new bus hours proposed in the model, what will be the proportion of the bus investment and the rail investment in Orange County and in Durham County, and then the two counties combined? When combining existing bus and planned expanded bus services from 2012 to 2035, and then counting up the total investment in bus and rail in terms of dollars, here are the proportions of investment by mode in each county and combined: Orange County: 42% RAIL 56%BUS 2% DEBT Durham County: 68%RAIL 28% BUS 5% DEBT Combined Durham-Orange: 60%RAIL 36%BUS 4% DEBT Triangle Transit staff believe it is important to emphasize that Orange and Durham County, while having much in common, also have many differences in terms of geography, population size, and the goals of each transit system. The differences in the percentages reflect the policy differences in the two counties in regarding priority for transit as a proportion of community spending both looking back into the past and forward into the future. We believe that differences in percentages from county to county are not a cause for concern, but a reflection of each county's leadership seeking to reach its goals for transit in a way that is appropriate to their community. How many bus hours will be provided in Orange County and how many are provided in Durham County? The bus hours in each county plan are as follows: Orange County: 22,050 bus hours by end of year 1 of the plan 44,100 bus hours by end of year 3 of the plan 50,400 bus hours by end of the plan(2035) 2 2-DIC (CO�t) Page 4 June 13, 2011 Durham County: 25,000 bus hours by end of year 1 of the plan 50,000 bus hours by end of year 3 of the plan 77,500 bus hours by end of the plan(2035) By comparison,today Chapel Hill Transit provides 190,000, Orange Public Transportation—3,500 and Triangle Transit—32,000 annual bus service hours in Orange County. How much does each bus hour cost? Each bus hour costs approximately$86/hour in 2012. How many buses are included and at what cost for each? The Orange County plan purchases 7 buses in 2012, another 7 buses in 2014, and then 1 bus in 2031, and 1 bus in 2032, for a total of 16 buses. Every 12 years,the plan buys a replacement bus for each previously purchased bus as the vehicle reaches the end of its useful life. (12 years for a heavy-duty bus). The cost of a full-size bus in 2012 is projected to be $396,000. Mo(A w.Y4 boo Ridership Summaries and Station to Station Ridership Forecasts Table D-2 Summary of Ridership Forecasts—2035 Durham-Orange County LRT UNC Hos itais zo Alston Ave Al via Meadow+mont C1 and South S are b D7 BOARDINGS by Station and Mode of PnR KnR Walk Bus ASSUMPTIONS Element Setting Notes Access Stations Access Access Access Transfers Tout Nor>included attributes for rail +15 min Subject to FTA approval UNC Hospitals 0 0 630 1,540 Z170 Average speed 30 mph URS 1/05/2011 Mason Farm 0 0 340 60 400 Alignments and stations "modeling run alternatives determined by URS/ From URS 1/11/2010 and GIS files MAB from MAB 1221/2010 Hamilton 0 0 220 90 310 Feeder bus system Based on MAB PDF file dated 11/242010 20 min peak;40 min off-peak Friday Center 0 10 70 400 480 Guideway frequency 10 min peak,20 min off-peak Meadowmont 0 0 110 40 150 Bus consolidations Leigh Village 590 20 450 390 1450 Delete whole competing routes CHT FCX,CHT HUX,CHT S.CHT V,CHT BRT-5140 to UNC,CHT Base 4 Laurel Hills,DATA 1_5 Mt Moraih-NC,DATA 10-8 NewHopeCmn-DrhmTech,DATA 8-10 NewHopeCmri-OrhmTeeh Gateway 40 0 270 900 1,210 Delete a potion ofcompeting services TT500 WB,TT ChapelHill-RTP-402-403,TT ChapeiHill-RTP-412-113,DCHC B11,and TT Burlington-Duke Patterson Place 0 0 1 510 0 510 Walk access 0.5 miles(short walk 0.25 miles,long walk 0.25-0.5 miles) MILK 10 0 270 280 s60 Drive access Maximum drive 15-40 min,depending on P&R lot function(i.e.,end-of4ine;mid-line,etc.) South Square 6 io 0 610 240 a60 Base network 2035 LRTP(rRM V4)with three rail lines removed(UNC-TTC,Selma-Wake Forest,Apex-Cary) LaSalle 0 0 490 200 690 Average Weekday Ridership FORECASTS Estimate With LRT Preference Without LRT Preference See Note 1 Duke Medical Center o 0 810 130 940 Year2035 11,800 8.300 Ninth 40 1 0 1 280 110 430 by Trip Purpose Work(Home-Based Work) 55% 53% Buchanan 0 10 130 10 150 Shopping(Home-Based Shopping) 4% 5% Durham Station 10 0 240 370 620 School(Home-Based School) 1% 1% Dillard 0 0 190 60 250 Other(Home-Based Other) 8% 10% Alston 350 20 120 ISO 650 Non-Home-Based Trips 23% 24% College Home-Based University) 9% 8% TOTAL 1,050 6o 5.740 4.980 11.830 Notes: 1.Without accounting for rail's non-included attributes. 2.As typical for similar regional models,the TRM does not account for some transit system characteristics for rag.such as reliability,comfort, and safety,which are so-called non-included attributes.An additional rag-specific constant,equivalent to 15 minutes in travel time,was added in the TRTP model.This addition,however,is subject to the FTA's approval. 3.Further analyses are being conducted in the drive access to rail,station activities,and ridership by demographic strata.Additional adjustments are anticipated. 4.A dialog is continuing with the FTA on testing and improving the model's calibration and validation for the base year.Any changes,as a result of this consultation,will be incorporated in the 2035 forecasting,affecting the ridership forecasts. . S.Rounding was used and may lead to discrepancy in totals. Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis l July 20111 D-3 N W Ridership Summaries and Station to Station Ridership Forecasts Table D-2 Summary of Ridership Forecasts—2035(continued)BRT High i Durham-Orange County BRT UNC Hospitals to Alston Ave A3 via Woodmont(C2)and South Square a D3 BRT BOARDINGS by Stations and Mode of PnR KnR Walk Bus ASSUMPTIONS Element Setting Notes Access Stations Access Access Access Transfers Total Non-included attributes for rail +15 min Subject to FTA approval UNC Hospitals South 0 0 50 690 740 Average speed 26.7 mph Mason Farm 10 0 220 30 260 Alignments and stations "Modeling run altematives determined by From URS 1111/2010 and GIS files URS/MAB from MAE 1212112010,1/1912011 Hamilton 0 0 110 60 170 Feeder bus system Based on MA13 PDF file dated 11/242010 20 min peak;40 min o&peak and2/52011 Friday Center 0 0 30 1 40 70 Guideway frequency 10 min peak;20 min off-peak Woodmont 10 0 110 130 250 Bus consolidations Lei h Villa a 240 10 350 230 830 Delete whole competing routes CHT FCX.CHT HUX,CHT S,CHT V,CHT BRT-5140 to UNC,CHT Base 4 Laurel Hills,DATA L5 Mt Moraih-NC,DATA 10.8 NewHopeCmn-DrhmTech,DATA 8-10 NewHopeCmn-DmmTech Gateway 10 0 120 450 580 Delete a portion ofcompeting services TT500 WS,TT ChapalHill-RTP-402-403.TT ChapeiH&RTP-412.413,DCHC 871,and TT Burlington-Duke Patterson Place 0 0 210 10 220 Walk access 0.5 miles(short walk 0.25 miles,long walk 0.25-0.5 miles) MLK 10 0 200 110 320 Drive access Maximum drive 15-40 min,depending on P&R lot function(i.e.,end-of-line;mid-line, etc.) South Square a 10 0 240 40 290 Base network 2035 LRTP(TRM V4)with three rail lines removed(UNC-TTC,Selma-Wake Forest, ApeX-Cary) LaSalle 0 0 240 110 350 FORECASTS Average Weekday Ridership Estimate With BRT Preference Duke Medical Center 0 0 330 60 390 Year 2035 5,700 Ninth 10 11 0 170 100 280 by Trip Purpose Work(Home-Based Work) 57% Buchanan 0 0 100 10 110 Shopping(Hom"ased Shopping) 4% Durham Station 10 0 130 200 340 School(Home-Based School) 1% Dillard 0 0 120 20 140 Other(Home-Based Other) 8% Alston 100 10 80 150 340 Non-Home-Based Trips 24% College Home-Based University) 6% TOTAL 410 20 2,810 2440 5.63D Notes: 1.As typical for similar regional models,the TRM does not account for some transit system characteristics for rail,such as reliability,comfort,and safety,which are so-called non-included attributes.An additional ra"pecific constant,equivalent to 15 minutes in travel time,was added in the TRTP model.This addition,however,is subject to the FTA's approval. 2. Further analyses are being conducted in the drive access to rail,station activities,and ridership by demographic strata. Additional adjustments are anticipated. 3.A dialog is continuing with the FTA on testing and improving the model's calibration and validation for the base year.Any changes,as a result of this consultation,will be incorporated in the 2035 forecasting,affecting the ridership forecasts. 4.Rounding was used and may lead to discrepancy in totals. S.The ridership represents the BRT line only,and those buses running on the BRT alignment total a ridership of 20,200, compared with a total ridership of 6,700 for those routes(not running on the fixed guideway alignment)in AR3.Of the total 20,200 feeder bus ridership,approximately 11,900 would use the BRT guideway. Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis l July 20111 D-7 -baa- Cccv� Ridership Summaries and Station to Station Ridership Forecasts Tattle D-2 Summary of Ridership Forecasts—2035(continued)BRT Low Durham-Orange County BRT UNC Hospitals to Alston Ave A3 via Woodmont C2 and South S uare a D3 BRT BOARDINGS by Stations and Mode of PnR MR Walk Bus ASSUMPTIONS Element Setting Notes Access Stations Access Access Access Transfers Total Non-included attributes for rail +8 min Subject to FTA approval UNC Hospitals South 0 0 40 550 590 Average speed 25.6 mph Mason Farm 10 0 170 20 200 Alignments and stations "modeling run altematives determined by URS/MAS From URS 1/11/2010 and GIS files 1/192011 and 41712011 Hamilton 0 0 100 30 130 Feeder bus system Based on MAB POF file dated 11/24/2010 and 20 min peak;40 min off-peak 2/52011 Fridav Center 0 0 30 60 90 Guideway frequency 10 min peak;20 min off-peak Woodmont 10 0 100 100 210 Bus consolidations Leigh Village 190 10 300 180 600 Delete whole competing routes CHT FCX,CHT HUX,CHT S,CHT V,CHT BRT-5140 to UNC,CHT Base 4 Laurel Hills,DATA L5 Mt Moraih-NC,DATA 10-8 NewHopeCmn-DrhmTech,DATA 8-10 NewHopeCmn-DrhmTech Gateway 10 0 40 440 490 Delete a portion ofcompeting TT500 WB,TT Chapel Hill-RTP-102-403,TT ChapelHill-RTP-412.413,DCHC B11,and TT services Budington-Duke Patterson Place 0 0 180 0 180 Walk access 0.5 miles(short walk 0.25 miles,long walk 0.25-0.5 miles) Garrett 0 0 10 10 20 Drive access Maximum drive 15-40 min,depending on P&R lot function(i.e.,end-of4ine;mid4ine,etc-) MLK 10 0 180 80 250 Base network 2035 LRTP(TRM V4)with three rail Imes removed(UNC-TTC,Selma-Wake Forest,Apex-Cary) South Square a 10 0 190 30 230 Average Weekday Ridership FORECASTS Estimate With BRT Preference L.aSatle 0 0 190 90 290 Year 2035 4,600 Duke Medical Center 0 0 270 50 320 by Trip Purpose Work(Home-Based Work) 55% Ninth 10 0 140 80 230 Shopping(Home-Based Shopping) 5% Buchanan 0 10 80 1 10 100 School(Home-Based School) 1% Durham Station 10 0 100 160 270 Other(Home-Based Other) 9% Ditlards 0 0 90 10 100 Non-Home-Based Trips 25% Allston 80 10 70 120 280 College Home-Based University) 5% TOTAL 340 30 2260 020 4,650 Notes: 1.As typical for similar regional models,the TRM does not account for some transit system characteristics for rail,such as reliabiliy, comfort,and safety,which are so-called non-inducted attributes.An additional rail-specific constant,equivalent to 15 minutes in travel time, was added in the TRTP model.This addition,however,is subject to the FTXs approval. 2.Further analyses are being conducted in the drive access to rail,stacon activities,and ridership by demographic strata.Additional adjustments are anticipated. 3.A dialog is continuing with the FTA on testing and improving the models calibration and validation for the base year.Any changes,as a result of this consultation,will be incorporated in the 2035 forecasting,affecting the ridership forecasts. 4.Rounding was used and may lead to discrepancy in totals. S.The ridership represents the BRT line only,and those buses running on the BRT alignment total a ridership of 19,600, compared with a total ridership of 6,700 for those routes(not running on the fixed guideway alignment)in AR3.Of the total IS,600 . I eeder bus ridership,approximaWy 11,700 would use the BRT guideway. Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis i July_2011 A D-8 N CJ7 FIGURE 2-12 HILLSBOR UGH - —r= _ =- TRAVEL PATTERNS BETWEEN _- SUBAREAS (2035) <' o u lip Downtown - f'j 43,000 Durham - - 27,000 Duke 25,000 West Durham _ J Cow' 7,000 shape►H'u DOWNTOWN DURHAM East Chapel Hill/ Southwest Durham _ 7,000 3,000 Q 60,000 Chapel Hill _. _._ Interstate WEST DURHAM y Q US Route a' DURHAM \ �., a NC Route ,�-- 5,000 r Local Road - ra0�ate 1 Railroad x Map illustrates travel flows that are equal to 15,000 or greater than 5,000 daily trips. HAPEL ILL 6,000 13,00 0 L HILL/` LL 57,00 � . HAPE ., - CARR Ra SOUT HWEST*DURHAM NORTH t d. _ej9h R� 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mi. _A 14,000 - I-f i f-I-f s-r-I-3-i-i-I am gNrj, DECEMBER 2010 4 _ TOTAL DAILY TRIPS -- (color represents production zone) # Between subarea- Durham-Orange a Durham range County Corridor Within subarea��—�" � � _�__---- —'^ ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Attachment D2b 27 2035 Employment and Population Projections (Sept 3 2010) s 1 4 c u 'ti } �.6 Z J d t AC ' ` k3P t94 I FIGURE 2-4 _. kw HILLSBOROUGH 70 � 157 501 501 ¢~� EXISTING (2005)AND O O FORECAST(2035) w z --S 4 EMPLOYMENT DENSITY z � a � 15 00 70 ', 98 51 a Study Area Interstate DURHAM 147 70 US Route NC Route 15 CHAPEL HILL DURH --- Local Road _ '�' W AM CO CARRBORO sa AKE ailroad CO.C +--f—�+ __._..__v 86 -� -O Employment Density — RALEIGH (Jobs per square mile) p' 0-500 _ 501 -1,000 2005 GARY _ 1,001 -2,000 2,001 4,000 70 157 - HILLSBOROUGH sot sal ) ® >4,001 U U W TAZ Boundary 2 Q {' 147" r 0 70 15 _ 55 } k DURHAM NORTH 0 1 2 3 M. �{ CHAPEL HILL 15 � OU DECEMBER 2010 RE AA1 CARRBOR �. wgKZ Co.CO. s ss s5 RALEIGH 15 GAR Durfiavk>ranp County Condor ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS i I a.�,�►m�,�+ c Lam') FIGURE 2-2 HILLSBOROUGH 7o mm 15a 501 501 =° EXISTING (2005)AND FORECAST(2035) z 4 _ POPULATION DENSITY r 00 70 is Study Area 'DURHAM - 7 Interstate 147 70 ADS Route NC Route 15 O CHAPEL HILL OV yAM R Co. -- Local Road WJ kE +—H� Railroad CARRBORO 54 Co. .. - Population Density ss - RALEIGH (Persons per square milel 0-1,000 CARY 1,001 -3,00® F 0 075 3,001 -5,000 I 5,001 -7,000 HILLSBOROUGH ao 157 501 Q. O 501 >7,001 Eu 147 L--J TAZ Boundary l rr. 15 tva "t Ora xx ° d 70� s1 _ 15 55 l ® DURHAM °' r , , f 147 7a NORTH ° 0 1 2 3 Mi. , - CHAPEL HILL 15 D'JRIIAIW DECEMBER 2010 O WAKE CO CARRBORO , 5a a6 rr:. _ ss RALEIGH 'frm"lr. 15 �=- CARY �� Durham-orange County Corridor -« =�� CIO ANALYSIS 30 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAKE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSIT PLANNING This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is dated and is among the City of RALEIGH ("Raleigh"), the Towns of APEX ("Apex"), CARY("CARW'), FUQUAY-VARINA ("Fuquay-Varina"),, GARNER ("Garner"), HOLLY SPRINGS ("Holly Springs"), KNIGHTDALE ("Knightdale"), MORRISVILLE ("Morrisville"), ROLESVILLE ("Rolesville"), WAKE FOREST ("Wake Forest"), WENDELL("Wendell"), and ZEBULON ("Zebulon"), all of the above being municipal corporations and public bodies politic of the State of North Carolina (herein sometimes collectively referred to as the "Municipal Parties"); and WAKE COUNTY(the "County") a body politic and political subdivision of the State of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Wake, City of Raleigh,the Towns of Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Morrisville, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Wendell, Zebulon and NC State University have determined that it is in their best interest to COORMNATE PUBLIC TRANSIT PLANNING, EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION (herein referred to as the "Wake County Transit Plan") in order to provide efficient and effectively linked transit routes to the residents, employees, employers in and visitors to the Wake County area; and WHEREAS, these parties have determined that an efficient and effective transit system is crucial, in concert with other transportation and land use initiatives,to maintaining a high quality of life, appropriately supporting future development, and providing transportation options to the current and future residents, employees and empioyers of the Wake County area; and WHEREAS, these partics understand that new county-wide fax levies enabled by the North Carolina General Assembly will be paid by the residents and businesses in all locations within the County; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Article 20, Part I of Chapter 160A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual goals and promises contained herein, and the mutual benefits to result there from, the parties agree as follows: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WAKE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSIT PLANNING This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is dated and is among the City of RALEIGH ("Raleigh"), the Towns of APEX("Apex"), CARY("CARY"), FUQUAY-VARINA ("Fuquay-Varina")„ GARNER ("Garner"), HOLLY SPRINGS ("Holly Springs"), KNIGHTDALE ("Knightdale"), MORRISVILLE ("Morrisville"), ROLESVILLE("Rolesville"), WAKE FOREST("Wake Forest"), WENDELL("Wendell"), and ZEBULON ("Zebulon"), all of the above being municipal corporations and public bodies politic of the State of North Carolina (herein sometimes collectively referred to as the "Municipal Parties"); and WAKE COUNTY(the "County") a body politic and political subdivision of the State of North Carolina. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Wake, City of Raleigh,the Towns of Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Morrisville, Rolesville, Wake Forest,Wendell,Zebulon and NC State University have determined that it is in their best interest to COORDINATE PUBLIC TRANSIT PLANNING, EXPANSION AND CONSTRUCTION (herein referred to as the "Wake County Transit Plan") in order to provide efficient and effectively linked transit routes to the residents, employees, employers in and visitors to the Wake County area; and WHEREAS, these parties have determined that an efficient and effective transit system is crucial, in concert with other transportation and land use initiatives, to maintaining a high quality of life, appropriately supporting future development, and providing transportation options to the current and future residents, employees and employers of the Wake County area; and WHEREAS, these parties understand that new county-wide tax levies enabled by the North Carolina General Assembly will be paid by the residents and businesses in all locations within the County; and WHEREAS,this Agreement is entered into pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, Article 20, Part 1 of Chapter 160A; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual goals and promises contained herein, and the mutual benefits to result there from,the parties agree as follows: 1.APPROVAL OF THE TRANSIT PLAN: The parties to this agreement understand, support and agree with the Wake County Transit Plan dated . The plan details the bus service expansion strategy,the local rail priorities, governance structure, and the financial implementation plan. 2.TRANSIT SPECIFIC FUNDING SOURCES: The parties agree that additional funds for transit are needed locally and that new local tax sources of revenue, as allowed by the North Carolina General Assembly,should be pursued. The type of taxes that should be considered are: a. An additional %cent sales tax for all non-exempted goods sold within Wake County. This source shall require the approval of over 50%of the voters in a referendum to be enacted. b. A new$7.00 vehicle registration fee on all vehicles registered within Wake County. c. A$3.00 increase in the existing vehicle registration fee on all vehicles registered within Wake County. This fee would only go into effect if Triangle Transit Board of Trustees approve the increase. 3. GOVERNANCE: The parties agree to assign future decision-making authority on the Wake County Transit Plan to the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). The parties agree to abide by the final decisions of this agency. a. Information on major votes related to the Wake County Transit Plan and the Wake County local transit tax revenue shall be distributed to all parties at least 45 days prior to decision-making. Votes related to funding sources, investment priorities, and financial bonding shall be considered major votes. b. Elected officials representing any of the parties may request a "directed vote"from their Governing Board representative. When this type of vote is requested the representative may only vote in the way directed by a majority vote of the elected body. c. All proposed changes to the Wake County Area Transit Plan shall be routed through the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations standard plan modification procedure. This procedure shall include review by the Transportation Coordinating Committee, applicable public outreach, a public comment period and public hearing. 4. CONTINUANCE OF EXISTING LOCAL FUNDING: In accordance with NCGS 105-510 the parties of this agreement agree to maintain the dollar amount of non-sales tax local transit investment at or above the level budgeted on July 1, 2009. To meet this expectation a financial report detailing the amount of non-sales local tax money spent and verifying that at least$18,229,000 was spent will be produced annually. a. In the early years of plan implementation it is expected that the majority of the non- sales tax funds will come from existing sources as detailed in table 4.1. In future years the source of funds may be shifted based on employment and population and as determined by the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). Table 4.1 Municipality Anticipated Funding Level City of Raleigh $16,275,000.00 Town of Cary $1,804,000.00 S. PERFORMANCE OF TRANSIT: The parties agree that every effort will be made to ensure that provided transit services are safe, reliable and efficient. At a minimum,transit services will be evaluated annually by transit providers and reported to the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). These periodic evaluations will be a collaborative and cooperative process between the jurisdictions receiving transit service and the transit service providers with a goal of making services successful. The Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee) will utilize the transit service performance standard guidelines and ridership trend data compiled by the transit professionals to make a determination as to whether any changes to transit services are warranted. 6. ROLE OF THE WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISIONERS: The parties agree that the Wake County Board of Commissioners receive annual reports about the status of the plan and may periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this Interlocal agreement and the Wake County Transit Plan. The Board of Commissioners evaluation will be based on municipal input, public input, health of the transit financial plan, and the status of transit project implementation. If issues are identified,the parties to this agreement grant the Board of Commissioners the power to request special reporting from the service district, the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee) or any transit provider. Once special reporting is requested the Board of Commissioners may, with a supermajority vote,veto any use of Wake County generated local funds until the identified issue is addressed. This Agreement shall become effective on , and shall remain in effect until legal termination or 50 years,whichever comes first. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,The Boards of the respective Parties have approved this agreement and have caused it to be signed by the Chairman or Mayor of each Board and attested to by the Clerk of the Board,the year and the day first written above. COUNTY OF WAKE By: Paul Coble, Chairman ATTEST: Clerk CITY OF RALEIGH By: Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF APEX By: Keith H. Weatherly, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF CARY By: Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF FUQUAY-VARINA By: John W. Byrne, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF GARNER By: Ronnie S. Williams, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF HOLLY SPRINGS By: Dick Sears, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF KNIGHTDALE By: Russell Killen, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF MORRISVILLE By: Jackie Holcombe, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF ROLESVILLE By: Frank Eagles, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF WAKE FOREST By: Vivian A.Jones, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF WENDELL By: J. Harold Broadwell, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk TOWN OF ZEBULON By: Robert S. Matheny, Mayor ATTEST: Clerk INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ON TRANSIT FUNDING FOR WAKE COUNTY Updated Draft November 01, 2011 1.APPROVAL OF THE TRANSIT PLAN: The parties to this agreement understand, support and agree with the Wake County Transit Plan dated . The plan details the bus service expansion strategy, the local rail priorities, governance structure, and the financial implementation plan. 2.TRANSIT SPECIFIC FUNDING SOURCES: The parties agree that additional funds for transit are needed locally and that new local tax sources of revenue, as allowed;by the North Carolina General Assembly,should be pursued. The type:of taxes that should be considered are: a. An additional %:cent sales tax for all non-exempted goods sold within Wake County. This source shall require the approval of over 50%of the voters in a referendum to be enacted. b. A new$7.00 vehicle registration fee on all vehicles registered within Wake County. c. A$3.00 increase in the existing vehicle registration fee on all vehicles registered within Wake County. This fee would only go into effect if Triangle Transit Board of Trustees approve the increase. 3. GOVERNANCE: The parties agree to assign future decision-making authority on the Wake County Transit Plan to the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). The parties agree to abide by the final decisions of this agency. a. Information on major votes related to the Wake County Transit Plan and the Wake County local transit tax revenue shall be distributed to all parties at least 45 days prior to decision-making. Votes related to funding sources, investment priorities, and financial bonding shall be considered major votes. b. Elected officials representing any of the parties may request a "directed vote"from their Governing Board representative. When this type of vote is requested the representative may only vote in the way directed by a majority vote of the elected body. c. All proposed changes to the Wake County Area Transit Plan shall be routed through the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations standard plan modification procedure. This procedure shall include review by the Transportation Coordinating Committee, applicable public outreach, a public comment period and public hearing. PROPOSED ELEMENTS Draft 10_10_2011 Page 1 4. CONTINUANCE OF EXISTING LOCAL FUNDING: In accordance with NCGS 105-510 the parties of this agreement agree to maintain the dollar amount of non-sales tax local transit investment at or above the level budgeted on July 1, 2009. To meet this expectation a financial report detailing the amount of non-sales local tax money spent and verifying that at least$18,229,000 was spent will be produced annually. a. In the early years of plan implementation it is expected that the majority of the non-sales tax funds will come from existing sources as detailed in table 4.1. In future years the source of funds may be shifted based on employment and population and as determined by the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). Table 4.1 Municipality Anticipated Funding,Level City of Raleigh $16,275,000.00 Town of Cary $1,804,000.00 S. PERFORMANCE OF TRANSIT: The parties agree that every effort will be made to ensure that provided transit services are safe, reliable and efficient. At a minimum, transit services will be evaluated annually by transit providers and reported to the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee). These periodic evaluations will be a collaborative and cooperative process between the jurisdictions receiving transit service and the transit service providers with a goal of making services successful. The Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Or (The Transportation Advisory Committee)will utilize the transit service per standard guidelines and ridership trend data compiled by the transit professionals to make a determination as to whether any changes to transit services are warranted. 6. ROLE OF THE WAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISIONERS: The parties agree that the Wake County Board of Commissioners will receive annual reports about the status of the plan and may periodically evaluate the effectiveness of this Interlocal agreement and the Wake County Transit Plan.The Board of Commissioners evaluation will be based on municipal input, public input, health of the transit financial plan, and the status of transit project implementation. If issues are identified,the parties to this agreement grant the Board of Commissioners the power to request special reporting from the service district,the Governing Board of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (The Transportation Advisory Committee) or any transit provider. Once special reporting is requested the Board of Commissioners may, with a supermajority vote,veto any use of Wake County generated local funds until the identified issue is addressed. PROPOSED ELEMENTS Draft 10_10_2011 Page 2 DRAFT Orange Countv Bus and Rail Improvement Plan Timeline Attachment G Participants L-gl�llllllll gills Pg � . • kl' , •e!1 £ iN u.:r?Fq[�, E2: ':�.F .:Kftt'.�il�"t' IerV... + BOCC;( nE.noun#y B C Transit AICt"Catiu , cali .Pf 'irr ' ::Itertiv € is::uIQ. *_ NMI Planta� giff,Trianle :Nrark Sess�nn E Qrdt1g County �JS:and Rail:inuesmen :Planes% T Mkt 4y '� + a:� y }y,' y}, E ry, vE i• } .j uEns.,f;> s s}' ,�' y� 3a` n .: :' � �QCBARIP • + + Orange County, UNC; Meetings Alignment Alternatives, locally Preferred Alternative, Discussion Vn- + Local Governments` OCBARIP • + lrrt Cc"unty t'lannlr� E Publ� aimm �t Aitnt�.rEocally_Prf+arred Altenat�ve tSuiori . k F Statf Qrange County, , ©utreacl� q,9€ > esi ents } 4� IE . Ait + BOCC BOCC Mee#ing alignment Alternatives, Locally Preferred Alternative, MPO Representative oCBARIP Guidance �,, "nh :W,Eat • • + I /A�r ,tOC Meeting AIigBant Alterntives Focally Frefi�rrellterr�at�ve0 B' R�p A� roual� rfY'. kt* d m f r I P3 + a £' OCBARIP ki .. a,,,...,. a..,.W • : + BOCC:MPO DCHC MP0 C+CBARIP OCBARIP Approval Representative, DCHC Meeting MPO .r. E. �n Early wk Feb PQ h B4�Rl MP© OCBARI " NEI , .,j t E OCBARIPAp royal . + �, �Mr�l1jton it y 4 tk },E n y a'}�rE .,:.�. .__.., _ .. i x.f sv,r_i'�, .•..... .'�� E�. kN., • + Triangle Transit Application Light Rail New Starts OCBARIP Approval KW Preparation.. Awl a ,t.: !?i yp axx { s }:-' p� I.2c tae. E F t; ,„._ .f7 u 3 r i nr p Feb- Qrange County, Loaf 3 L ; eetinRs Memcrrgn.,_Urn � deC andlnR for i �BA iP n 1VI� 1 A rural �gi+ oernments'and? AE x _x . k E _.. 1►r!P�Iap�+eMtatlpAreetent Qf QCBA IP'F, s _a: LpFn31, �.. .W e.. • BOCC BOCC Meeting /'cent Mobility Tax Referendum Deoision May—June jil ��,�_ � :a"e4� ";'i Y"" a ;,qs �s fR :; r K •n :,. � F s f gran a 4ont l`onal En a ement y cent IVIo6i�li Tax Refereodu'm '" i _ E E � f_ . R g + Transpo�tat�ort Alliance; f E 4 E , •, x�.t £a d 9�!'ry y�� '` s ��2'�y .' ,�€rc,' v y �; y. 1�,�k`k,_�s,=< '� 4 .:,x, t a," +i ..y ��' L� .,i z,n F �� .. N.�. r�.r m iii 1 • + h&le Transit A iication Light Rail Plan { pp Approval Submission • + range;to�rplY� Blection'Day rm�ent IVlobilityTax Referendbm = Uo i g � ._.,. il .._ w.. a w �? s a .. ... ._ „. ... _ .-se s