Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-08-2011 - Attachment 2Attachment 2 APPROVED 8/23!2011 EXCERPT Mi1VUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING May 19, 201.1 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met on Thursday May 19, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at Department of Social Services, Hillsborough Commons in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The purpose of this meeting was to hold a public hearing on the County Manager's Recommended 2011-2012 Budget. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pam Hemminger COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey. Interim Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) 1_ Opening Remarks-Chair Pelissier Chair Pelissier said that the Board and the public will receive the budget presentation from the Manager and Finance Director. She dispensed with the reading of the public charge, but asked the public to abide by it. 2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2011-12 Budget (PowerPoint Presentation) Frank Clifton referred to an orange hand out about a summary of all 100 counties and their statistics and he reviewed some of the categories. Among all 100 counties, Orange County is fifth highest for the tax rate, twenty-first in population, first in per capita income (in 2008), 24'h in school population, first in total school resources (including the special tax in Chapel Hill divided by total students, so that is not necessarily accurate for the whole County), fourth in current ADM expense, fifth in total capital ADM, and eighth in debt service associated with education. This information is based on the budgets from last fiscal year. Financial Services Director Clarence Grier made the PowerPoint presentation. County Manager's Recommended FY2011-12 Annual Operating Budget and Capital Investment Plan Presentation Department of Social Services, Hillsborough, NC Orange County, NC May 19, 2011 Recommended General Fund Budget •Totals $177.3 million •Represents an increase of $2.0 million from original current year budget of $175.3 million, which is a 1.1 percent increase from previous year original budget. •Represents a $3.9 million decrease in the current year's amended budget Guiding Principles - 3 •Meets Board directives .Balances County's operating budget without a property tax rate increase sales tax not be removed until sales tax revenues have recovered from the recessionary levels. She thanked the County Commissioners for their past support. She hopes that the County Commissioners will fund a continuation budget for CHCCS. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 4. Orange County Transit Plan: Draft Financial Plan for Rail and Bus Investment Chair Pelissier said that Triangle Transit would be on their way shortly. Chair Pelissier said that in the meantime, she gave the Board a summary of the recent Orange County Leadership Transit meetings to discuss the Orange County Transit Plan. The goal is to develop a financial plan to be brought back to the individual elected boards. She said that they have discussed this issue and the bus plan. She said that there will be acost-sharing with Durham County and Orange County that is agreed upon by both counties. They are having this work session because the timeline has been sped up, since Durham County has decided to put both a'/4-cent sales tax and a %2-cent transit tax on the ballot in the fall. She wanted Orange County to have the same discussion. One of the issues that came up this week at their meeting is that with the %rcent transit tax, Durham County was to make their decision before the end of June, but then it got changed to the end of July. The Board has received some information in the packets that was briefly discussed on Tuesday. There are some general plans for the light rail Chair Pelissier suggested talking about the bus plan until Triangle Transit representatives arrive. The bus plan was just presented to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday and none of this information has been presented to the Towns in Orange County. The Towns would have to buy in before moving forward. Planning Director Craig Benedict-said that about a year ago, Orange County took a stronger role in the Orange County Transit Plan. He showed some maps of the Triangle region. It has been decided that there would be two systems -one from UNC to Alston Avenue and then another system in Wake County that would go from Cary to North Raleigh. More recently, a commuter route element has come about that would connect the dots between the light rail. There is an idea in the group that maybe Orange County should pay for 20% of the line between UNC and Duke and maybe Durham County could pay the remainder. Regarding a fair share financially, Triangle J was hired to do an analysis of what they called a Shared Benefit Area, and Craig Benedict showed this area on a map. They finally came to the conclusion that Durham County would pay for the parts that are in Durham County. The scenario discussed tonight is suggesting that Orange County pay for portions of light rail within Durham County, but within the Chapel Hill Town Limits. He went through Attachment 4 which was the Durham-Orange Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial Plan Draft. He said that staff of Hillsborough, Mebane, Carrboro, Orange County, Chapel Hill, Triangle Transit, and UNC met on a regular basis for about six months to determine which bus routes need to be augmented to provide better service. The group came up with goals and priorities. David King, Executive Director of Triangle Transit, made a PowerPoint presentation. The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan Maps of peak hour volumes (red is bad, yellow is getting bad, and green is ok) In the next 15-20 years, the red will increase significantly if something is not done to alleviate the volume of traffic. Forbes -Raleigh-Durham Named America's Biggest Gas Guzzler "The cities and suburbs of `The Triangle' are close enough that people don't think twice about driving from one to the other. Yet in doing so, the average household racks up 21,800 miles per year. Assuming an average 20.3 miles per gallon, that means burning through 1,074 gallons per year, about $4,200 at current prices." -Christopher Helman -Forbes -May 2011 Quick Background - Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAG) - 2008 - Joint MPO Long range Transportation Plan - 2009 - Passage of HB 148 Congestion Relief and 215` Century Intermodal Transport Fund - 2009 - County Bus Planning - 2010 to 2011 - Alternatives Analysis - 2010 to 2011 Bus Planning - New service - Increased frequency - Park and ride - Amenities Public Input Alternatives Analysis - Light rail - Commuter rail - Stations - Cost estimates Financial Model - Balance of bus and rail - Settings for variables - Use of borrowing - .Plan must be affordable! Elements of the DRAFT Bus Plan 1-5 by Year 1 1. LOCAL -Service Improvement CH, C UNC in the 15/ 501 corridor 2. REGIONAL -Carrboro-CH-Durham Express (Route 405) 3. REGIONAL _Mebane -Hillsborough -Durham Express 4. LOCAL -54 Corridor Improvements (Orange and Durham Counties) 5. LOCAL -Support existing services 6-15 by Year 3 6. LOCAL -Chapel Hill -Carrboro -UNC Sunday Service 7. LOCAL -Hillsborough Circulator 8. LOCAL -Chapel Hill -Carrboro -UNC Saturday Service 9. REGIONAL-Route 800 -SW Durham (Southpoint) -Chapel Hill peak 10. RGP-Improve service in unincorporated Orange County 11. LOCAL -Extend evening service in Chapel Hill -Carrboro-UNC 12. REGIONAL -Carrboro -Chapel Hill-Durham Express (Route 405) -Saturday 13. REGIONAL -Chapel Hill -Regional Transit Center via Southpoint (Rte. 800) Saturday 14. LOCAL -Hillsborough Circulator 15. REGIONAL -Hillsborough -Chapel Hill (Route 420) -peak 16-19 by 2035 16. RGP -Improve service in unincorporated Orange County 17. REGIONAL EXP - Pittsboro -Chapel Hill Express 18. REGIONAL -Route 805 -RTC via SW Durham (Woodcroft) 19. LOCAL -Improve peak hour bus frequency Chapel Hill Carrboro UNC BUS INVESTMENT - New bus hours by end of FIRST year - 22,050 hrs - New bus hours by end of THIRD year -44,100 hrs - Total number of new bus hours by 2035 - 50,400 hrs - MLK Busway Improvements completed - 2017 - Potential Rail Dividend Bus Hours - 30,000 to 45,000 RAIL INVESTMENT - Opening year of Light Rail - 2025 - LRT Capital Cost - $330 million - LRT Annual Operating Cost - $3.2 million *Sales Tax Growth Rate - 3.6% Financial Resources available for Transit - Local revenue in Bus and Rail Transit Investment Plan o '/z sales tax _ o $7 vehicle registration fee o $3 increase in Triangle Transit vehicle registration fee o Rental car tax revenue - State participation - 25% assumed - Federal participation - 50% assumed Approval Process DCHC MPO - Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan Triangle Transit Board of Trustees - Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan. Orange and Durham County Commissions - Approves Bus and Rail Investment Plan - Authorizes referendum *All municipalities within Durham and Orange County must receive copy of Bus and Rail Investment Plan for review Proposed Schedule -Orange County - DCHC TAC Bus and Rail Investment Plan Review -May 11 - BOCC Review Bus and Rail (B&R) Investment Plan -May 19 - Carrboro Board of Aldermen Review B&R Investment Plan -May 24 - Chapel Hill Town Council Review B&R Investment Plan -May 25 - BOCC Review of B&R Investment Plan -June 7 - DCHC TAC consideration of D/O(Durham/Orange) B&R Investment Plan -June 8 - Hillsborough Town Commission Review B&R Investment Plan -June 13 - BOCC Approval of Orange'B&R Investment Plan and Authorize Referendum -June 21 - Triangle Transit Board Approval -June 22 Commissioner McKee said that he does not want any of his questions to be taken as personal attacks. He said that he would not be willing to ask the Orange County voters to vote on two taxes in the same year. He does support the bus service and the County just had a reduction in bus service between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough due to reduced ridership. He said that he would prefer to expand the bus service within Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Durham County rather than go with a light rail system. He said that the population base for Durham County and Orange County does not even match those of Wake County, so it would make more sense to start the light rail component where the population base is, in Wake County. Commissioner McKee said that he understands that extensive development will occur around the rail line, and he does not have a problem with that. His concern is that this extensive development might siphon development away from the rest of the County. David King said that the Route 420 reduction in service was around the midday route, but there was more growth in other times. Regarding the density in Wake County, it is about 900,000 and Orange County and,Durham County together are only 450,000. He said that the connection between Orange County and Durham County would be a commuter rail. He said that, in Mecklenburg County, the development community did a lot of development in anticipation of that rail line. He said that he would anticipate the same thing for this area. Commissioner McKee said that he understands the arguments, because this area will grow. The point is that he does not want to create a financial black hole with a rail component at this time. He looks at it as two different components -bus and rail. He is in favor of the bus component at this time. A bus system is much more flexible than a rail system. He said that he does not know what kind of answer he can give to the rural areas of Orange County as to why they should pay a %2-cent sales tax when it may end up taking more sales tax in the future to support this proposed light rail system. That is why he prefers abuilt-out bus system. David King said that the $3.2 million annual cost for light rail is for 2025 and they grew this with inflation. He said that the segment in Orange County that is proposed will be the best in the area. Commissioner McKee asked if this was a $1.4 billion project for the total cost and David King said yes. Commissioner McKee said that this will be an ongoing expense for the County and the Towns. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is a lot of material to digest all at once. He said that he does not think this is the right time for Orange County to go to the voters for a %2-cent sales tax at this time and would make it very difficult for either of these taxes to be approved ('/4-cent or %2-cent). He said that he agreed with Commissioner McKee that this is the most expensive way to provide this service. He said that it seemed that this light rail is not serving a very dense area with the exception of the universities and the hospitals. This is not like downtown Charlotte. He does not believe that this is 'the right time to go to the voters to ask for a %2-cent sales tax. Commissioner Gordon said that they are talking about the timing of the transit investment, so it is important to figure out what they want in bus and rail systems and how they can join regionally with their partners. She said that in the longer term she hoped the Commissioners would agree to do something to enhance public transportation. She said that the compressed time schedule is daunting. But regardless of when they schedule a referendum, the Commissioners need to come to a consensus on what assumptions they will make, and what they see as their future and then to adopt a plan. She said that she does not want to stop the planning even if a fall referendum is not scheduled. ,She suggested taking up Triangle Transit's offer to meet one-on-one for more information. She said that the compressed timeframe is making this all more difficult. Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners need to focus on the transit plan before they decide to put anything on a ballot. She summarized some of the principles: • Cost sharing between Durham County and Orange County -this is vital to the plan and the concern is whether the cost sharing is reasonable. She feels it is reasonable. • Does this cost sharing give them sufficient monies to do the bus plan in the first three years? • Need feedback on the prioritization of the bus service from the Towns. Chair Pelissier said that she wants to know what needs to be discussed about the plan. This is the homework that they all need to do regardless of when they put the transit item on a ballot. Commissioner Foushee said that she has been part of the process and Chair Pelissier's comments are on point. She said that a lot of the time they have spent in this process so far has been on the bus service. She said that Commissioner Cordon's comments about planning for transit is one of the most crucial points of all. She does not want Orange County to miss out on being part of the solution for regional transportation. She said that right now there is no commitment from Durham or Wake Counties to put this on the ballot in November. However, she would not want to stop the conversation about the future of transit. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the number of parking spaces at the rail station and said that 4,000 spaces may not be enough in the long-term. He needs to see the information about how this will all work out. David King said that the information does exist. He said that Triangle Transit has been leading this effort but the land use decisions are made by the jurisdictions themselves.- He said that he would be glad to sit down with the County Commissioners and talk through this further. Chair Pelissier said that her peers have different areas of experience with the concept of light rail. She suggested that Board members meet individually with Triangle Transit to learn why they need light rail or at least schedule a work session to learn this information. Commissioner McKee said that he would prefer having this information be presented to the Board versus individually.. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he would like a presentation focused on the light rail component and assumptions on the land use. Frank Clifton said that it will be difficult to explain to the public and there will have to be a high level of trust developed between the County and the public over this plan because it will be 15 years before the train runs. Commissioner McKee asked about the rider fee and what percentage of Triangle Transit is fare free. David King said that 100% of the service requires a fare. Chair Pelissier said that this is one of the areas that lack clarity. Chapel Hill Transit is free, but TTA is not free. It is not totally clear how this is going to work with the additional bus hours. She said that the Towns' expectation is that it would be an expansion of Chapel Hill Transit and would be free. Discussion ensued about the assumptions of the Chapel Hill Transit being fare free. Commissioner Yuhasz asked for more information abou# when the tax is implemented and the light rail comes to fruition. David King said that it is built into the financial model. He clarified that the elected boards decide and TTA implements it. Chair Pelissier said that the one thing not fixed in the plan is the bus route and they still need public comment about it. Overtime, the light rail might take ridership off the 54 .route, and then there would be dividend hours. The County is responsible, but the Towns are large stakeholders. This is not yet clear. She does not think the Towns really understand what this model really does and how the change would be made to the bus model to be sure all the needs are met. David King said that they cannot decide what they are going to do with bus routes in 2020. They have tried to be more specific about the earlier years. Frank Clifton said that there is no formal agreement between Chapel Hill, Carrboro and UNC about the public transportation and how the costs are divided. It is pretty much a handshake and an annual discussion. There is no written document. He also said that all of the projections on the sales tax are very conservative. Any change in the dynamics of this community will have a major impact on this transit plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners needs to talk about the timing, whether or not it will be putting this on the ballot or not, at the next meeting. He does not think that this decision can wait any longer than the next meeting. Chair Pelissier said that she has heard from four people that they do not want it on the referendum this fall. Commissioner Jacobs said that this needs to be communicated to the public and at a meeting where the media decides to shgw up. Chair Pelissier said that the current plan was to review the financial plan at the June 7m meeting. However, they may not want to adhere to that schedule now but to add to the June 7m meeting a discussion of transit and a plan of how to proceed and whether or not to put it on a referendum. Commissioner Gordon asked for confirmation about whether Durham County was going to vote in July about the referendum. David King said that the current plan in Durham County is to make a decision on June 27'n There are public hearings and public outreach going on now. Commissioner Jacobs said that, with all due respect to Durham County, there was an article in recent paper that it was ready to go with the %rcent sales tax. Orange County needs to tell the public what it is doing and the timing. Chair Pelissier agreed and said that they can do this at their June 7fn meeting. She said that the Board's priority is the %<-cent sales tax this year for economic development and the schools. She said that she has received feedback from various sectors of the community that if this %-cent sales tax is on the ballot, it diminishes the support tremendously for a'/4-cent sales tax. Commissioner McKee said that he would like to see this back on June 7m Chair Pelissier reiterated that the County Commissioners need to proceed with developing a transit plan. She said that the cost sharing is solely on the Board of County Commissioners, but it still needs input from the Towns on the actual plan. 5. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board APPROVED 8/23/2011 EXCERPT MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 7, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Bany Jacobs, Earl McKee and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey, Interim Assistant Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately) 't. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Pelissier went through the items at the County Commissioners' places. - Cream-colored sheet -revised cover sheet for this meeting - Light blue sheet -edits to minutes for item 5-a, Minutes - Pink sheet -letter from Durham County Chair of the Board of County Commissioners regarding item 8-c; Further Review and Decision Regarding Half- Cent Sales Tax for Transit - Aqua blue -letter from UNC-Chapel Hill and UNC Healthcare regarding item 8-c - Three sets of handouts for item 8-c - PowerPoint presentation, Bus and Rail Investment Plan, and Annual Operating Costs for Transit - Lavender sheet -revised face sheet for item 12-c; Agricultural Preservation Board -Appointments - Yellow sheet -revised membership roster list for item 12-f; Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors-Appointment PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda John Robinson lives in Mebane and said that he had a fight with Orange County about 6-7 years ago about his road being torn up and plowed. He ended up going to the District Attorney, who took care of this situation. He said that he was out of town on Memorial Weekend and when he returned his garage doors were open, his tool box was open, and his storage bin doors were open and broken into. He called- the Sheriff's Department and a VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Further Review and Decision Regarding One-Half (1/2) Cent Sales Tax for Transit The Board continued discussion and making decisions regarding the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan draft associated with the Triangle Regional Transit Plan (1/2 cent sales tax), received updates on municipal meetings and developed a schedule for the Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP) implementation. Craig Benedict introduced this item. This is a continuation of the work session on May 19th with Triangle Transit. There will be a vote on this on June 22"d, and the comments need to be in before that time. Commissioner Gordon said that the MPO will be holding two public open house meetings in Orange County -June 14th at the Chapel Hill Town Hall and June 16th in Hillsborough at the Orange County Library. David King, Triangle Transit Executive Director, said that they hope to review questions that the Board of County Commissioners mentioned before and others that may arise. He stressed that this whole process has been a collaboration. Patrick McDonough, Senior Transportation Planner with Triangle Transit, made a PowerPoint presentation. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan: Responding to Questions What We Heard: Questions Regarding Financial Planning - Does rail investment have the potential to crowd out bus investment, especially if there are cost overruns? - How can we effectively control costs and project delivery? - What is the proportion of spending on bus and rail by year? Questions Regarding Light Rail - Are 4,000 parking spaces along the line enough? - Will development around LRT stations compete with economic development opportunities in northem Orange County? - Does light rail make as much sense in Chapel Hill as it does in the region's largest city? (Raleigh) - Meadowmont was designed for light rail. Why study another route? Other Questions - Which services most benefit northern Orange County residents? Financial Plan: Being Fiscally Conservative Approaches to Financial Conservatism: Cost - Rail cost estimates: Specific 30% Cost Contingency on: o Construction, Right-of-way Acquisition - Unspecified additional general contingency: 4.6% - Use Inflation of Federal CBO/OMB, but add 0.5% long term 9 Approaches to Financial Conservatism: Revenue - Plan for minimum balance of $3 million/year (approx 60% of %Z-cent annual proceeds) while running buses, planning for rail - Use long-term revenue growth assumption (3.6%) below historical average (4.0%) and economist projections (4.5%) - Assume no interest on cash. balances in plan - Use bond-market acceptable debt service coverage ratios Financial Plan: Mix of Rail and Bus Investment (graph) Are 4,000 Parking Spaces Enough for Light Rail? Triangle Transit Onboard Survey, 2009 - How do you get to the bus stop? o Walk - 40% o Drive - 27% o Another Bus - 18% o Dropped Off - 11 o Bike - 3% Charlotte Light Rail, Rider Access Summary, 2008: - Walk to transit trips each day: 10,800 - Drive to transit trips each day: 4,000 Rail & Economic Development in N. Orange New Business Profile: Mystery Brewing - 620 Valley Forge Rd, Hillsborough o New local craft beer brewery o Brewing in Orange County, distributing to Triangle, Triad, Charlotte, NC Coast, Asheville, & more - Owner lives in Chapel Hill, close to proposed Gateway rail station. Chose business location for proximity to I-85/I-40 "t want to be on the highway in 5 minutes when distributing my beer. I want my customers to be able to enjoy drinking my product without having to drive home." -Erik Myers, Owner - Sees densities created by rail as future market opportunity - Sees Hillsborough as best place for brewing/distribution logistics before or after rail being built Is Chapel Hill travel heavy enough for light rail? Daily Riders by Transit Company, Triangle 2011 - Chapel Hill Transit: 27,400 - Durham Area Transit Authority: 17,500 - Capital Area Transit: 16,000 o NCSU wolfline: 14,000 - Triangle Transit: 5,100 10 Annual Riders per Municipal Population - = Riders x 251 weekdays/population - Chapel Hill/Can'boro: 94 annual rides/resident - Durham: 19.2 annual rides/resident - Raleigh: 18.6 annual rides/resident Is Chapel Hill travel heavy enough for light rail? (maps) Why study an alternative to Meadowmont? - Federal Lands - Army Corps of Engineers Property - Environmentallmpact - Uncertainty of impacts before EIS makes a backup path prudent Benefits to N. Orange: Duke Employees/EDDs - Brown =Mebane to Hillsborough to Duke/Durham Route - Buckhorn, Eno EDDs potential stops - Link via Hillsborough circulator to County Seat, Durham Tech @ Waterstone Benefits to N. Orange: UNC; Hillsborough Employees - Brown =Hillsborough to Chapel Hill - Improvements in Chapel Hill / Carrboro help those who P/R in towns - Improved frequency from Hillsborough adds choices for N. Orange UNC Commuters - Local Circulator aids parking in Hillsborough Questions and Discussion www.ourtransitfuture.com Mila Vega, Transportation Planner for Orange County, made a PowerPoint presentation. Orange County Transit Plan: Bus Service Component Discussion Overview - Background - Stakeholders - Identified Need - Goals and Strategies - Bus Service Plan Highlights Background - Multi-level approach o Planning Staff 11 o Elected Officials Plan Stakeholders - Plan development process: Staff level and Elected Officials Local Governments: Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane Educational Institution: University of North Carolina Transit Providers: Chapel Hill Transit, Orange Public Transportation, Triangle Transit Metropolitan Planning Organization: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Bus Service Needs - County-wide service needs - Available resources - Bus projects ranking Goals and Strategies Goals - Improve mobility in the region - Provide geographic equity - Support improved capital facilities - Support transit supportive land use - Provide positive impact on air quality Strategies - Improve connectivity - Increase frequency in peak hours - Improve weekend, night services - Fill in gaps in existing service - Maintain existing services Plan Phases Year 1 22,050 bus hours Year 3 44,000 bus hours Year 4 and beyond (2035) 50,400 bus hours 12 Year 1 - 20,500 hours - Enhanced service in the US 15/501 corridor o Expend existing Chapel-Hill Transit routes o Expand hours of service - Enhanced service on Triangle Transit Route 405 o Increase peak-hour service frequency - New Mebane-Hillsborough-Durham Express - Enhanced service in NC 54 corridor o Expand existing routes within the corridor - Existing service support Year 3 - 44,000 hours - Expanded Hillsborough Circulator Route service o Enhanced peak-hour service o New Saturday service - New and enhanced weekend & evening service in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, 8~ UNC o New Sunday service o Enhanced Saturday service o Enhanced evening service - Enhanced rural service - Enhanced service on Triangle Transit Route 800 o Increase peak-hour frequency o Expand Saturday hours of service - Enhanced service on Triangle Transit Route 405 o Expand Saturday hours of service - Enhanced service on Triangle Transit Route 420 o Increase peak-hour frequency Year 4 and beyond 50,400 bus hours - Enhanced rural service o Continue service expansion - Enhanced service on Pittsboro-Chapel Hill Express o Increase peak-hour frequency - Enhanced service on Triangle Transit Route 800 o Continue peak-hour frequency increase - Enhanced weekday service in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, &UNC o Increase peak-hour frequency Chair Pelissier asked for information that is important to the financial plan and the principles of the cost share proposal with Durham County and bus rapid transit. Patrick McDonough said that this is amulti-county investment and there are benefits and costs on both sides of the County. The question is what would be an equitable distribution for both entities to pay for the infrastructure. A lot of transportation officials and County staff got together and assessed this. There is a pretty even split on the ridership. The compromise was that Orange County would pay for the investment that was in Orange County or within the 13 Town limits of Chapel Hill. All of the investment within Durham County will be paid for by Durham County. Regarding the bus rapid transit in Chapel Hill, there is a park and ride lot on Eubanks Road and Chapel Hill Transit is proposing some bus-only lanes on Martin Luther King from Eubanks Road down to Estes Dnve, which is three miles. The preliminary cost is $25 million for this. Commissioner Gordon said that Triangle Transit staff was helpful in getting her information and she had asked for some specific information that needs to be shared with the Board of Commissioners. She then shared some information about the cost of the rail line. For the segment of the line in Orange County, the cost for 2.89 miles is $223 million; in the part of Chapel Hill that is in Durham County, the cost for 0.88 miles is $73 million; and in rest of Durham County the cost for 13.47 miles is $911 million. She thinks that all of these numbers need to be verified. She said that the cost per mile that Orange County is paying is more than the cost per mile that Durham is paying. She thinks that this is an excellent overview, but some of the details are still needed to fully understand this. PUBLIC COMMENT: Patrick Mulkey is a resident of Bingham Township. He said that there has been change since the election in 2008 and every level of government is suffering. He said that he does not share the optimism for the economy that the speakers have. He said that they are in for some long-term changes in how things are done. He said that this is amulti-million dollar plan over a 20+ year commitment. He said that in the past, the County Commissioners have always said they cannot make those types of long-term commitments. He knows that this %2-cent sales tax will eventually come up on a referendum, but he does not think this is the time. He also asked if the 3.6% sales tax growth was per year. Patrick McDonough said that, with the sales tax growth, they are looking at long-term and short-term growth rates. The 3.6% is not until 2015. Regarding borrowing, the rail infrastructure in Orange County will be $330 million. They are looking at borrowing 10% that will begin in 2019-2022. He is happy to share the financial information with anybody. Chair Pelissier clarified that the capital investment for the light rail presumes federal and state monies, which is why the County would not be borrowing that sum of money, because it presumes that there would be money from other sources. Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners have before them a request from the Dufiam County Board of County Commissioners to adopt in principle the financial plan. She said that the Orange County Board of Commissioners has not said that it is comfortable with the financial plan. She asked what it means to adopt the financial plan in principle. She is concerned that this financial plan makes assumptions about cost sharing, and if it is adopted in principle, she is worrying that it is agreement to acost-sharing. John Roberts said that he would recommend that the Board of County Commissioners not adopt anything in principle until it has been reviewed by the Finance .and County Attorney's offices. Commissioner McKee said that he is not yet comfortable with the financial plan. He is concerned that if the County Commissioners adopt anything in principle that it would .mean that they are implying that they are supportive of the plan and signaling that a %rcent sales tax would be put on the ballot. He would prefer to have public hearings about this. Commissioner Gordon said that it would be hard to adopt tonight without due diligence about this plan but there is another meeting. on June 21 S', which is before the MPO vote on 14 June 22"d. She said that staffs have givengood overviews tonight. She suggested having a discussion and moving forward on June 215. Chair Pelissier said that she would like to see comments on the balance of the additional bus hours and the capital expenditures and if this plan meets the needs of the Orange County residents. The other area is the cost sharing and what is being proposed. She said that they might want to consider the varying costs of the light rail line versus bus hours. Commissioner McKee said that there seems to be a significant increase in bus hours in the first three years. He asked what these usage projections were based on. Craig Benedict said that the total plan is 75,000 hours distributed regionally, locally, etc., and there are several iterations. Commissioner McKee said that if there is any part of this plan that he supports it is the bus component. He said that he is concerned that routes and bus hours are going to be increased without an increase in unique riders. Craig Benedict explained that this will be reevaluated as it becomes a living document. Commissioner McKee said that the Chapel Hill Transit system is fare free and he asked if it is sustainable in the long run to have a fare free system. Patrick McDonough said that the key point is that the fare is being paid for by taxes but this policy drives the ridership. It is the assumption that only Chapel Hill Transit will remain fare free. Commissioner Yuhasz said that this is overwhelming since he has not been involved in this process over time. He asked to see a chart with the numbers of the different levels of spending. He said that this financial plan assumes something greater than 90% funding is coming from someone else. He asked if there was a Plan B if the.90% disappears. David King said that this is the question that is on everyone's mind. He said that they are on version 8 of this plan. If the funding falls through, then there would only be buses and no light rail. Discussion ensued on the different financial iterations. Chair Pelissier asked for Commissioner Cordon's perception on bus hours with this financial plan. Commissioner Gordon said that she would like for the County Commissioners to look at the information and give her some feedback. She would like to move forward as a Board with this when there is consensus. This plan is important for mobility and for the environment. Chair Pelissier said that the County Commissioners should keep in mind that both the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have endorsed this financial plan, which means that they like the number of bus hours. This is an important point. The Town of Hillsborough has not yet reviewed it. UNC is also supportive of this financial plan. There certainly needs to be public input on the bus plan. Commissioner Foushee said she agreed with all the points made by Commissioner Gordon and she would not want to miss an opportunity to put a plan forward. She said that she has some of the same concerns as Commissioner McKee related to what to expect from the federal government. As the region grows, she wants the County to be a part of the planning process. She wants to move forward with a transportation plan that works for Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said that, for the most part, he agreed with Commissioner Foushee. He also wants to ratify the comment that the Chair made regarding the fact that the Board has not heard from the public yet. He said that he would like to try and have a schedule to make a decision in some manner that the County Commissioners can signal to Durham County so that it can put it on the ballot knowing that Orange County is supportive too. Fie said that no one can predict the future, but they should try and get to a place where they are 15 generally comfortable as a group to let Durham County know that Orange County is interested in a regional plan. Commissioner McKee said that a regional plan is not a regional plan unless the largest player is part of it. The largest player -Wake County -has decided to take .itself out of the equation. Orange County is depending on two assumptions -that the federal government and the state are going to come to the table with 75% of the money to finance this light rail: He would like to have this in two parts: a bus plan and a light rail. He is not supportive of a light rail at this point. Commissioner Hemminger said that this has been the most informational session. She said that she has to be realistic and she is interested in the bus component of this plan, but she is not ready to move this on the ballot in the fall. She still has not heard about the license tag fee arid she would like a timetable. Chair Pelissier said that she is hearing that there are some who are uncomfortable with a financial plan for light rail because of the uncertainties of the state and federal funding. She said that if there is no plan for light rail, even though it makes an assumption, then there will be no light rail. Plan B would be a bus system only, if there are no monies from the federal and state governments. She said that the County Commissioners want more details. She said that there is no outline in the plan what happens with the obligations of the %2-cent sales tax. For example, the %rcent sales tax cannot be used for supplanting existing services, but only for new services. There are a lot of things that have been discussed and it needs to all be in one place and one document. All of the regional bus routes, including which ones are fare free, should be in writing. Commissioner Yuhasz said that they all see the value in participating in a regional transportation plan. However, with the financial plan, he is not prepared to make a decision on that during this budget season. He said that all of this information should be brought to the Board over the break so that the County Commissioners can make a decision when they return in the fall. He said that he does not want to place the %rcent transit tax on the ballot in the fall. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger to not proceed with a November 2011 referendum on the %2-cent sales tax and set a date later this year for discussion of the new timetable and get 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 our continued interest in pursuing participation and in enhanced regional public transportation system. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Gordon asked about June 21St and Chair Pelissier said that the motion did not specify when to receive more information. Chair Pelissier asked if the Board wanted to look at the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Foushee said to leave this document until later. David King thanked the County Commissioners for their time and they have taken a shot at putting information in writing for a plan. He said that he would provide all of this information to the County Commissioners.. Commissioner Foushee asked to have the draft interlocal agreement available for the County Commissioners to see. Craig Benedict said that the draft is in the packet, but it is edited on a daily basis by multiple parties. The additional information can come to the Board on June 21St Frank Clifton said that he understands what the Board is asking for, -but there are limitations of staff and there are two more budget meetings between now and June 21St 16 Attachment 3 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 be 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. 3. Provide more detailed description of the bus rapid transit -- leneth of line exact start and end point. Would BRT be viable and economical options for the hieh volume corridors of Hwv 54 15-501 and MLK to be part of a reeional 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- 501since 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 be an 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.e., cannot be used to supplant existine 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. 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 alienment 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 inbuilt. 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 reauested? 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 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 Oranee 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 Hi(I 4 0 Hamilton Rd Orange Chapel Hill 0 _- 0 Friday Center Orange Chapei 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 LPA 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. 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 analvsis 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 accordinely. 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 monev and no federal monev for rail? 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 program to accomplish would be to drive to Gateway park and ride, light rail to transfer Durham commuter line. commuter to TTA rei°ionat 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, sihce 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 Agreement (ILA) help provide management and oversight to any changes 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 4 EXHIBIT A: ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT PLAN BUS ROUTES N 0 V d V C d ~.. C .~ .a C ~4 Q !4 C C a C 7 O V d >~ C C l4 a_ wC W O Q d V ,d ~ N O m Q d ~ Z 3~ CO Q W W V A O N O m 0 0 f0 CO ~ 7 V O N m W V sinoH anllelnwnp a o V . r O v a e N m o ~ o l a ~ N eh h i '1~ N e9 M , eo o e a ~ V af n a a m a N m n ~_ O O ~7 t0 t0 I~ N m ~ f0 ~ ~ Ol 'Q (O f0 10 O ~ M t0 O) r 1f1 A i0 O 1~ M O p tp N 1~ LL~ LL7 In p1 (O N OD isop dp lenuuy M O N O) N •T W ~ a OJ 7 ~ N ~ •-- N ~ m V N O) N O 40 A N m N W m M M R tO A ~ A M V m fA M b9 t9 b9 b9 to f9 b9 t9 d! df t9 f9 h ti ~ ~ n n i- ~ ti n ~ ti ~ ti res ~Hpsop °'» °'» °'» W~ W~ °' W~ °'» ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °i» N O t+f N W ° tp o O m V ~ N ° N M O t+! p1 (7 a~ey$ dlunOp a6us~p 1O- o ~ o o ' vi i n o m o H ~ v N o n M n v ~ M O N aD cO m m N N N 0 M T M t0 O N O siH MaN lelol M m H O M O O c.i W O u~ O N ~ sF N ~ O y) E O M M m m t0 (p O N IA v (p N ~ M v. M sReplloH g s~(epunS lenuuy '~ '~ s~(eWn3eS lenuuy s/(ep~laaM lenuuy N N N N N N N N N sJH unS MaPI O N O N s~F{ 3eS MaN O ~i sinoH ly6!N ~I!ep MaN 0 o 0 0 SJH ~ePP!W ~llea MaN 0 <d 0 ~ 0 cc 0 ~d 0 s~l.l dead ~lleo MaN ri 0 m 0 ao 0 ~i 0 ~ 10 m 0 0 ri ~ 0 ~ MaN ~o pa°ueyu3 z w z z z z z w w w z z z o- c ~ o U ~ 0! U U Z m Ul ~, v _ c ~ ? E (q H ~ O -Q O ~ .~ 0 L O O U ~ O 2 U - ~ o ~ 0 ~ U O W N d N U y O. ca y U L 'O O H d c o ~ ~ c o - o ~ L ~ v =_ x y = Z ~ W d Z -~. w e m m c ~ o E m w . m. t. E m d U _ _ m ` m - ~ o ` a ° o y U r .. d o u~i m U m = ~ H ~ a °~ o ~ ~ ~ d S x o 2 c .Z ~ ~ ° c ~ ` o W f 2 ti 3 ° m y ° m m ~ = = m Z 2 a o O 5 `. . W ~ a- ` 5 m H w m ~ m a S ~ U ~ U ~ U ~ c m 10 = O y ~ _ = y ~ d ~ 0 ' m a 0 ` d Q W Y m m ° a o ~ a y -o o ~. .~ o a m o ~ a ;g m c m E E m " N 3 E c L L = ... ~ N O 'O ~ y 2, U 2 E a w ¢ x 0 ~ d ~/~l ~ N d b d W W = W W l0 d (6 N d !O N O ~ O O' ~ O O - - J ~ d' J J d'. C J Q' Q' J 2' J J ~ N M O 10 f0 h 00 O) O r N M V 10 t0 h OC O) O ~ N M ~ ~O t0 h OD C '- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ N N N N N N N N N W T 0 m N C E 0 E `o v 0 U .o ~ m m~ c w Y c N L Q ~ N N O] J .~ ~ ~ W O o `o U C U a "££ ~'~T ~ H ~~ U 5 ~ ZU U 2 > > > O O O O = _ _ J J J J ~~~ O d d d d m C 'O 'O 'O 'U ~U ~U O` Q: ~ ~ Q: lW ll ti O. ~ ~ 'O V C C C C w w w f0 W W f0 N N H mmmciaaairHHQ EXHIBIT B: LIMITATIONS ON USE OF HALF-CENT SALES TAX IN HOUSE BILL 148 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 apart 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 Treasurer's 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. 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. 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 EXHIBIT C: DURHAM COUNTY BUS AND RAIL PLAN: ADOPTED BUS ELEMENT N ++ N Q V d V C r C .~ L ~, d a~ L ~ ~ ~ J Q = L 0. J +, a C N R C V ~ ~ L ~- ~ O N = /~ ~` W ~ ~ ~ d C $ W O H U~ ~ °' ca ~ .` a 7 ~ ~ U m o - ~ > o m ~ ~ o 7 b Q m 2 Z 7 U ~ o m c °o C R O ~ c m U n Q d v o ,,, .~ m 7 O Z p H = a ~ m U C 0) nz Z L C O` W m L C 0 d y M as 2 ',F ~ 0) O 2 ~ N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD OD OD (h f~ N ~ O) r M 6~ ~ r M M M r tp N V7 !~ N h N O O ch O d) r ~ (p f~ h O 00 00 01 O O N M V (O 01 O N M t0 t~ O r N N N M M M M M ~ ~ V ~ V b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 ur 0 ~n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n o N CO O M m M M N N N O ' 10 10 O OD (O I~ M ~ O O M M M N m M us N ~ N e3 r 64 N ~s r Fss r d~ Eq fA ER ti9 b9 N9 r Ess CD of N to b4 is~ in N ts> r t» in i» ur us N ~ O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i 00 O O 10 V ~O ~ N N N fD f0 f0 N O O 00 ~O O M N O t0 iCi ~['f f+J M M M r M r r O M M r M a N U a N U a N U a N U a N fl a N U a N U a N U a N f..) a N U a N U a N U a N U a N U a N U a G~ a N U ay f..) a G~ a N U a N U a C m L C m L C m L C m L 3 C m L C m L C m L C m L C m L C ns L C ns L C m L C m L 3 C m L C m L C m L 3 3 C m L C m L C m L C m L C m L C m L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C O> C C C N N C C C C C C W W W W Z W W W W W W W W W Z W W W Z Z W W W W W W ~. N E N T y O p Y p ~ c `- a c ~ m a L ~ c ' . rn •~ O X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C .~ ~ y N ~ y ~ N a c o c o a c o o c~ ~ L 0 X 0 7 ~ 7 0 ~ Z p v C o m 0 D o a> ~ -o 0 0 o cn m a 0 0 y c w N 7 Y ~ ~ 7 O O ~ m 7 O ~ 0 7 O m ~ 7 O N N p 01 o ia ~ o m o y ~ n 3 c ~ ~ ~ ~ C O 10 C O y ~ O C X W Q _ E 0) N M ~ •0 O O~ •~ O N O 7 ~ ` y i ~ 7 O ~ d C O ~ 7 ~( N L 7 0) 7 0) 7 L 7 N 7 x LLJ C 3 C ~ L 7 d C y ~ 10 N ~ _ O ~ W Y p ~ 1 ' ' y p U U x ~ O C ~ 7 0 VJ Q .... Q' f/J Q .... M U O ~ o > ~ 3 ~ > ~ H > > aci d X > ~ ~` 2 70 c ?~ ~ r ~ °: y ~ ~ ~ ~ V in o m aai c c 3 ~ ~ 'n 3 ~ O C d 3 0 C ~ C ~ R O O C ~ N ° ,0 y t N ~ 7 p o p U c U c ~ a U 30 0 7 c 7 0 ~ W C N 'n •N U W 'y (,, ) N C O ~ 'y N U d Q ~ N d' U ~ ~ C ~ ~ O ? ~ O ~ •N 7 N , •N R' Q = N ~ 7 7 N A N C > > C . C U ~ ~ O Q i O (n X ~ ~ C O F- C Q ~ •C d F p ~ ~ a ~ D Y O C f 3 _ L y C W _ N y R ~ 0) p L L Q (n 7 ` ~° o o ~ O ° ~ m 3 0 gy ~ a~ E p o g .o c c c L ~ a~ ` o Y - ~ o U m 0 = m C ~ ° 7 d '` O E f6 01 O C OS O_ d L 0 C .0. t 03 O p W ' O ~ N y N 2 U U~ 7 d N -_ -_L 0)r Q' r U = 0) d' 0 U ... C d R' ~ . C = 7 2 C O U 03 N J l0 L Q' d ` Z O a ° O ~ f0 2 2 03 ~ wp OL ~ ~ ° E E 2a N C ~ E W E C U 7 E C) t e a •c~ 2 L > m m m OS y a p OS OS L O 03 Q U ~0 ~ N 2 U O7 O7 ~ OS y L N 7 Z 3 r O) 03 OS 7 I ~ 7 OS L L 7 'E ~ t0 Z L N O t 7 U t 7 ~ N 7 p m O fn U Z W O U y N Z O Z L f- L U L p UlA 7 p ~L OS U L U 7 ~ 7 ~ 0 tq 7 ~ 7 ^ y U y ~ ~ ~ Z O Q W OL ~ m ~ m E m •N c es ~ ~ ~ w E m •N c m •f// c as •N c m •N c m ~N c m ~N c m c m m 0 c m ~y c c` L71 c m ~ c m c c~a m m m y c ~ L L L F L L L F F F--. F F F Q L L ~ F.- F• F, O L L L L ~ 0 0 0 °°-' 0 0 07 m a~ m m a~ m U m 7 o " N w O .••, y U ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ > ~ ~ c 0 0 0 C o 0 0 C C al C C C C C m o `o N t0 C y y ip N fq ~ m o 0 0 0 C ° ~ ~ ns ~ m ~ m c m c c U U U ~ U U U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p U U WH ~ WF- W F~ ~ U U U U ~ ~p Oy ~p W C OS 01 f0 OS C O3 C 03 C OS C fO C 0) C ~ QS 07 f0 C _ (O C (d C ld C ~p f0 07 R OS _ 03 C O U J U J U J U J U J U J O_ O O O O O 0 O 1 01 _ U J U J O_ O ~ O .O O O p' V J U J V J V J ° 0) N N 0) N N N ~ O) N N- N ~ _~ Q w } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V C1 I~ h N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O of tfi ~ ~ a e m 'n ~rw fR h V1 Y ~ C n m E ~ c - ~ ~ . U O ~. m 0) ~ ~. N 0) d t/1 U ~' 7 `_ m ~ m N ~, 7 y .m>; ~ 7 ~ '6 m nT. C (O 7 R C m ~ O 6 .~.~ m O J R' F 0 a d 7 y m I{4 y 7 ~!E! L f O7 ,~ N M . O o U ~, N m ` z°I N C V d +~ N U ~ ~_ ~_ ~~ ea V ~ ~ J ''^~^ ~ .~ v+ i ~ Ri Of a~ }~ ~CC ~,G L ~ r+ m •y N ~~ L C a ~ W V ~ ~ d ~ fl. 0 V - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O ~ o ~o o o a ~ w?L ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ In O . N (p O O l17 CO O N t0 CO (p X 0 0 0 O 0 O ~ ~ 'O J d ~ ~ O to ~ (p EA CO fA CO fR '7 ER O N M ~ ~ M O ~O f ER EA ~ ~ ~ Q 3 ~ ER 64 N N N M ~ M M M N O O N ~ O ~ f0 ~ ~ O H ~_ _~ _~ T T T O" O ~ O O O E E E ~ .D ~ ~ ul m o- o. a a o. a n n °~ a d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 fYOI O O O l0 O LO O ~ O M O M O M O N O N O N O N O M :: E» M EA M ER M to LC) ER In ER l() ER N fR N EA N fR N b9 EA T ~ 0 L O ° 0 ~ 0 ^ Z ~ a0 N Z ° ^ ` c6 n~ •_ ~ c~ O T T 3 Z ^ O ~ 2 0 O C C = p Q Z ~ ° ~ 'j ~ N ~ o o ~ N ~ c ~ c m c ~ N v V ° m c ~ N N O ° O U n O O O fl. O V O N Y 3 ~ 7 ~ ~ `' 3 ~ W W ~ ~ o Z o N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z p ~ m^ Q~ U +~ c c ~ o QfA > 0 0= o c ~ •> c o ~' o `n o p c ~ p f6 U m 3 0 3 3 v w E ~ ~? fo`- c 3 d 0 3 c o c a~ X c ~ ^ ^ a ~ ~p O N ca O ^ ~ ^ 0 ~ c 0 41 W O J m ti~~ mU VU c c ' c ' c o VU ~ ^ rn 3 ~ ~ p Y . o •m ?~ C 3 C 3^ Y m L ul C ^ ^ Y ° n y o c y O O O p O L ~ C j C -a .: c .: ~ c^ ^ ° -2 ^ m ~ ~ ~n Q m rn m c 3 rn m ^ rn a~2 ^ to .= O ^ ~ m o E E~ m o m c °° ca ^ m o m o 0 °~ ~ o a Z t o ° _ °~ °~ ° j m ~ m ~~ ~ o o V ° N O O N L Z , -Y O O pOj - 7 L O L L 7 U L O L O O N O_ N L O p ~ ~~ UQ fn~' n U~ H ^ Z ^ H~ ~~ U2 H rn a ° a~ m `-° c o p s > m N ~ ~ L O L O 00 J _m n ~ fn ~ H ~ ~ ~ N C N O N a~ ~ w ~ ~ N L m L O O C 'o 2 ~ ~ rn .n ~ ~ p m 3 ^ ~ ~ > o U ~ c o m c_ n m a ~ ° c m _ c ~ fn n E ~ f0 , ~ c~ Ia _ On ~ O` ` =_ > ~ L > L ^ N ~ ~ d ~ L 3 O ~ O L O O N ' ^ ~ o c ~ o o ~ Z N to ~ ` ~ ` a U ~ . . O O p N E N 7 O m L a ~ ~~ o w .. o . -~ C . . C . .. C C Q ° ^ a ~ o o o a_ -a ~N -a m U m U m U m U T .r c ~ ~ ~ ` ` c c ~ o U 0 0 U= 0 U c c ~ c 0 0 0 ~ ~ .~ m° .~ ~o m o .~ m ; m ~ m H ca ~ m ~ °~ m a ~ a~ a ~ m a ~ a~ ~ o a ~ t ~ nQ L•O n y ~ L= n m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o ° Q v v -a ~ ~ -a -a E o E~ E ~ ~ L ~ c c c c c c Win W ~ W `O a° a a ~ o ' Q C U L L L L N N ~ C ~ Y Y Y Y C C L ~ Id d a a d H m H~ F= m Z z z Z d U W a O ^ W H U W J Q F- a Q U EXHIBIT D: FORDHAM BLVD WHITE PAPER- WHY RAIL ALIGNMENT WAS CHOSEN September 3, 2010 TRIANGLE REGIONAL TRANSIT PROGRAM Durham to Chapel Hill Corridor Alignment West of 1-40 September 3, 2010 BACKG ROU N D 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 %: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 September 3, 2010 Figure 1-Alignment Options F - Garrett R<i 50: Patterson Place ~ate,rr Durham 1` Alignment 3 15; ''~ AlignmQnt 9 Chapel Hill - high Viila.~~ ~: tvt~,adov~nnont /. Naniihnn kd O ,`~"~~. ~. Fii~l.ry i-.r~itvr i.$~,end ~! Steslon c o.~~ ~ ~ es Tti9le +a{ "~aan~it Prrx~r~m A ~r-__~rrrr 2 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 L 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 I-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. September 3, 2010 Figure 2 -MIS Recommended Alignment 1 ~~~. ~ ~ )rx~ib~tES-2 '~ US 'i5-S0i IRIS ~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~, Pt~att II "' ~ ~ ~° Transit Gort~itiar e ~. ~ ~ ~ W ,~ ~ .-~. ~~r ~ _ x _~ _,~ , .-x~ ,,,,~h~ f /~ .~~ p _"'~7, LEGEND ~,. .~~. ' ' ~W r. a s~ax~is ~..~ 1 ~ es s~ w, ^~~~.` .' ~~~ 3. be ~ r~minM r , Ghapei iii!! t ~°"'~ ~ ~~ J , F'---~yV/°` ~ i ,~y;. ~ ~ ~'S~ ~ ~~ 5a'- ,_~_ '~~ ~~ : ` . . .,wr. '-=~` 4 i _~.~ .< t D ~~ ~_~- ~ ~. ~ ~ ~# a a~~ s HNTB ,T • 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 I-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 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 1-40 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 I-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. September 3, 2010 Figure 3 - 2035 Employment and Population Projections M,,.~, ~ , z ~r ~~ ,a 1; a~ ~.h s ~ t l.E ~ Z.. ~ %~ ~.,.3 Z ~. l . `.. h .,yam I I ~ II I~ ~ ~~ 7 i • ,~. +. 946 4Y S ~~. ~ I' i !'"~~ I'1 I III III 1i ~ x 13f` 1 1 1 <'.5`.i ~ ~'. t Wii: ~. a ~'LS ~.. ~ . ~Y~- 5~ ..Ny . n~.u< ,~ i,a, n ~ ~~ -~ :,. r N ^,i 1 ..~ ~. t ,~ w. .. `.. .. "I } i ~y J a k .l' ", vti~ 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 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 for 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 s4 Alignment Paper 090310.doc 7 EXHIBIT E: ORANGE COUNTY DRAFT FINANCIAL PLAN: ONE-PAGE SUMMARY Orange County Transit Financial DRAFT Plan: November 7, 2011 Sales Tax Growth Rate (2015 and beyond) Enhanced MLK Bus Lanes Capital Cost Light Rail Capital Costs Attributed to Orange County, Millions $2011 Annual Light Rail Operating Costs Attributed to Orange County, Beginning 2025, Millions Federal Share of Light Rail and Bus Lane Capital Costs State Share of Light Rail and Bus Lane Capital Costs Enhanced MLK Bus Lanes Light Rail DT UNC Hospital to Alston Avenue Annual Rail Train-Car Hours (UNC Hospital to Alston Ave) Rail Dividend New Annual Bus Hours* Bus Capital Investment, Millions $2011 (first five years) Total New Annual Bus Hours by 2025 Total New Annual Bus Hours by 2035 Debt Service Coverage Ratio Tests Met? Cash on Hand Test Met? ($3m Orange) Cash Balance in 2035 (millions in $2011/$2035) 2.5 $22.1 $330 $3.2 50 25% 2018 2025 44,000 15,000 to 25,000 $3.0 44,100 50,400 YES YES $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" Prepared by Triangle Transit Staff Updated 11-07-2011 Attachment 5 ,: `~ ~` '~~ ~ r 4." ~~ w'7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................ES-1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................................................ .......... ES-1 . ............. EVALUATION RESULTS ............:................................................................................... ....... ES-2 LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) RECOMMENDATION .............................................. ........:. E5-5 1. Introduction ... .........................................................................................................................1-1 2. De#inition of Alternatives . ..... ...................................................................................................2-1 2.1, NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................................................2-1 2.1..1. Roadway Improvements .....:.....................................,..,., . . 2-1 2.1.2. ....... . ................,..._..,...._... Bus Network .............:........................................................... 2-2 2.2. ..................................... TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE ......................_...,..,......,....,.......,.....:..,.._....2-4 2.2.1. Technology ...............................,..........,.,,................,....................... . 2-5 2.2.2. ......,............. ..... Alignment ..:...:...:............................................................:....:........:..........::................2-5 2.2.3. Bus Stops and Park and Ride Locations .......................:.......,......,.......,....,,..,..........__.2-7 2.2.4. Bus Network ..................:...............................................................,.......,............::. 2-7 2.2:5. .... Roadway Improvements . ......:.. .:.._,... ,............................... ..... . : . 2-9 2,2.6. . .... ......,. , ........ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ..........................................................2-9 2.3. LRT AL TERNATIVE .............................................................._............,.........,...........,.....,......... , 2-10 2.3.1. , .. Technology ..........................................................................................:.........:..:......2-10 2.3.2, Alignment ............ .................... ......... .......................................... . 2-10 2.3.3. ............... . Station Locations. ..,...,. ...................................... ...................... ......... ... 2-14 2.3.4. ........ Bus Network.....: .........................................................,.......,....,...............................2-18 2.4. BRT-NI GH ALTERNATIVE .........................................................................,.....,.,....,.,..,......,...,,,...2-19 2.4.1, Technology ..............................................................................................................2-20 2.4.2. Alignment ..................................,.....,..........,..,.........,...,.........,.,,.......,..,...................2-20 2.4:3. Station Locations .................................................. ..................... .......................2-20 2.4.4.. Bus Network .........................,.....................,.,....,.................,.,........................... . 2-20 2.5. . .... BRT-LOW ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................:...........2-22 .. 2.5.1. Technology ............................................................................................._................2-22 2.5.2. Alignment ................................................................................................................2-22 2.5.3.. Station Locations .....................................................................................................2-24 2.5.4.. Bus Network ............................................................................................................2-26 2.6. OPERATING PLANS ...........................................:........:.........:.....,...................,........,..,.......,.......2-26 2.6.1. Service Levels ......................_......,..,.........................................................................2-26 2.6.2. End-to-End Operating Characteristics ...............................................>,.............:......2-26 2,6.3. Station-to-Station Distance, Speed, and Travel' Time ..............................:..............2 26 2.6.4. Fleet Size.....,.,. ...............................................................,<..........,....:..,.........,...........2-28 2.7. STORAGE YARD AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY ...................................................... .:....... ..........2-28 3. Evaluation of Alternatives ..........................................,.,,,,......,......,...........,..........................,,..3-1 3.1. DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA..... ...... .....:... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......................:3-1 3.2. EVALUATION RESULTS .. ..................,............ ..,.............................. ........, ..,..,......,...........3-2 3.2.1. Ridership ............................................................,,.......,............................................,.3-2 3..2..2. Transportation Operations ...,.. ................ ......... ..........._...,........_......... .,,.......3-11 3.2.3. Expansion Potential ......... ......... ....,..,. .......:. .......,. ......,.,............,........,..3-16 €~.u ;~a,~-O ~ ~su~au .~r. ,- ~ ;,r~ ...~>~~ ,At; >ws ~,lc:. "~°`1 ~ i >n c • o~° 3.2.4:. Public and Agency Support ................................:...:....:.........:..................................3-17 3.2.5. Economic Development PotentiaL ..........................................................................3-18 3.2.6. Environmental impacts ......_.,....._ ...........................................................................:3-25 3.2.7. Cost ..............,........................................... ...........................,....,..........................3-36 ,... 3.2.8. Summary of Evacuation Results ..................:.:..........................................................3-41 4. References. .................. .............. ...................,...................................................,............4-1 Appendix A -Station Evaluation Appendix B -Construction Impacts LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Evaluation Results far LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low Alternatives ..................... ES-3 Table 2-12035 LRTP Roadway Projects in Durham-Orange Corridor ... ......... ........:::.........: :.......::..,2-1 Table 2-2 Na-Build Alternative Bus Network ..........................................._.................................................2-2 Table 2-3 TSM Alternative Bus Network Changes from the No-Build Alternative ....................................2-8 Table 2-4 Proposed LRT Station Locations ........................,,...................................................._................2-15 Table 2-5 LRT Bus Network Changes from the No-Build. Alternative .......................................................2-18 Table 2-6 BRT-low Station Locations...:.:.:.,.. ........ ........................................................................2-25 Table 2-7 Summary of Service Characteristics for Build Alternatives ......................................................2-26 Table 2-8 End-to-End Operating Characteristics ................................................:.:..,.............,..................2-26 Table 2-9 Station-to-Station Operating Characteristics ........................................:..................................2-27 Table 2-10 Build Alternatives Fleet Characteristics .........................................:........,...........,........,.........2-28 Table 2-11 Summary of LRT Maintenance Sites .................................................:.:...:....:........................2-31 Table 3-1 Build Alternatives Evaluation Criteria ...........................................:::........,.,:.....................,........3-1 Table 3-2 Potential Forecasting Uncertainties with Triangle Regional Model ..........................................3-4 Table 3-3 Forecast 2035 Daily Boardings .................................................................................................3-10 Table 3-4 Forecast 2035 Daily System-Wide Transit Trips .......................................................................3-11 Table 3-5 Traffic Impacts Rating .........:.....:....:............................:............................................................3-15 Table 3-6 End-to-End Travel Times for Build Alternatives .......................................................................3-16 Table 3-7 Expansion Potential Ratings,........ .......................................................................:.....................3-17 Table 3-8 Public and. Stakeholder Support Rating ......................................,...............,....................,...:...3-18 Table 3-9 Summary of Potential Economic Benefits ............................................................................:...3-21 Table 3-10 Summary of LRT Property Impacts ................................................................................:...:...3-26 Table 3-11 Summary of Property Acquisitions ...................:. ._.:.:... ........,........................ :........,.3-27 Table 3-12 Summary of Visual lmpacts .................:..................,...............................,............................._.3-28 Table 3-13 Potential Impacts to Streams and Wetlands for LRT Alignrnenf Options ... ........................3-29 Table 3-14 Summary of Stream and Wetland Impacts ............ ......... ......... ...............:......:.............3-33 Table 3-15 Summary of Potential Seetion 4(fj Resource Impacts .......................................::..................3-35 Table 3-16 Air Quality Impacts ..................................... .:..::................................................................:..3-35 Table 3-17 Construction Impacts Ratings ........................................................................:...:.... ............3-36 Table 3-18 Capital Costs for LRT Alignment Alternatives ........ ......... .•..•.•..•..•••••••••.••••-•-••••• ••••••••~•••3-37 Table 3-19 Capital Costs for Build Alternatives. ..,...,.. ......... .• ....... .........._....................... ••••••••••••3-38 Table 3-20 O&M Cost Estimates for Build Alternatives (2011 bollarsj ............:....:.::..............................3-40 Tabte 3-21 Comparison of O&M Costs for I.RT &BRT for Alternate Peak Hour Capacities... :.................3-40 ,fiific :al iec~rt Table 3-22 UNC Chapel Hill Alignment Options Opportunities & Constraints ........................................3-41 Table 3-23 MeadowmontjWoadmontAlignment Options Opportunities &Constraints.,. ....................3-42 Table 3-24 South Square Alignment Options Opportunities & Constraints ............................................3-43 Table 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation .........................,..........,....,.............................3-45 LIST OF FIGURES figure ES-1 Durham Orange Corridor Recommended LPA ...................................................................... ES-6 Figure 2-1 T5M Alignment .........................,...........................................:...........,,,.,..,,.....,..,.,,,..................2-6 Figure 2-2 lRT Alignment .................................,..,............._.........,.....................,..............,.......................2-12 Figure 2-3 BRT-High Alignment ......................................._.................,...................................................,..2-21 Figure 2-4 BRT Low Alignmen# .................................................................................................................2-23 Figure 2-5 LRT Storage Yard and Maintenance Facility Alternatives....... .......... ......... .......................2-30 Figure 3-1 LRT Alternatives Feeder Bus Routes .........................................................................................3-6 Figure 3-2 BRT Alternatives Interlining and Feeder Bus Routes ................................................................3-7 Figure 3-3a Environmental Features ................... ......... ,.,................., ......,,..,..,......,...........,....,.........3-30 Figure 3-3b Environmental Features.... ..................... ..................... ...............................................3-31 Figure 3-3c Environmental Features ........................................................................................................3-32 us- _~r.- , :r:_~.~, err _ ,. ~:.;°-a . > ! __ ;t #sii Executive Summary The 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan adopted by the Durham-Chapel Hilt-Carrboro and Capital Area Metropolitan Planning .Organizations in April 2009 iden#ified corridors for major investments in fixed guideway transit over the next 30 years. Through a Transitional Analysis,. the first step in the Alternatives Analysis (AA) process which was begun in Mareh 2410, three priority corridors were setected for further consideration: the Durham-Orange Corridor; the Durham-Wake Corridor and the Wake Corridor. In order to identify the most appropriate initial investment or Locally Preferred Alternative {LPA) for each corridor, a broad range of transit techno{ogy and alignment alternatives were examined. through the Conceptual Evaluation of Alternatives. " This Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report presents the results of the Conceptual Evaluation of Alternatives and a recommendation for the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) which includes the preferred alignment, transit technology and station locations for the Durham-Orange Corridor. ~~. "t~ e In addition to the No-Build and Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives automatically advanced from the .conceptual alternatives screening, the transit technologies and alignment options remaining after the conceptual alternatives were combined into three fixed-guideway alternatives for detailed evaluation: Light Rail Transit (LRTi Alternative This alternative would operate light rail vehicles between University of North Carolina {UNC) Hospitals and east Durham and tncludes alignment options in .UNC Chapel Hill (A1 -UNC Hibbard Drive and A3 -UNC Southern), Meadowmont/Woodmont {C1 - Meadowmont Lane and C2 -George King Raadj, and South Square {D1-Westgate Drive and D3 - Shannon Road). A total of 17 station locations are .proposed. Bus Rapid Transit (BRTi-Nigh Alternative This alternative would operate BRT between UNC Hospitals. and east Durham, generally following the same alignment as LRT and including the same station locations. The only deviation would occur through downtown Durham. to the end-of-line at Alston Avenue in east Durham where fihe BRT-High option would utilize Pettigrew Street, while the LRT would run in the rail corridor. During the Special Transit Advisory Commission's (STAG) deliberations representatives of CSX Transportation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Corporation {NS) stated that they would not accept the operation of busway/high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in any railroad eorridor in which they operated. North Carolina Railroad {NCRR) advised fihe STAG that they too would not support busway/HOV lanes in the NCRR corridor. Existing Pettigrew Street is technically within the 200-foot railroad right-of-way but is currently utilized by vehicular and bus traffic. The BRT-High would operate similar to conventional bus in mixed traffic along Pettigrew Street,. but would transition to exclusive running along a new Pettigrew Street. connection to be :constructed as part of this project between Campus Drive and Duke Street.. Should BRT be selected as the Locally Preferred Alternative, the new guideway connection between these intersections would require coordination with the operating railroads and, potentially, further engineering and design analysis. BRT-Low Alternative A second BRT alternative was developed in consideration of the greater flexibility offered by BRT operations. The BRT-Low Alternative alignment mare closely follows existing roadways with less. aerial structures and more mixed-traffic segments. The BRT-Low alignment is similar to the BRT-High alignment but would deviate from the BRT-High alignment in the following three segments: Hamilton Road Station to Leigh Village Station (BRT-low Alternative 1), Gateway O+ E -- ~ ;f~ii Sta#ion to MLK 1r. Parkway Station (BR7-Cow Alternative 2), and Shannon Drive to Pickett Road (BRT- Low Alternative 3). A total of 18 station locations are. proposed. The alternatives were evaluated based on seven evaluation criteria directly related to the project goals. These .criteria were Ridership,. Transportation Operations, Expansion Potential, Economic Development Potential, Public and Agency Support, and Environmental Impacts. Table ES-1 summarizes the evaluation results.1 A discussion of how well the alternatives performed relative to the project goals follows the table. 1 Public and agency support is excluded from the summary table because of the limited amount of data available for evaluation. See Section 3.2.4 of the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report for more information. L9st~ ,.::. :;. ~ a : w ~"„ „~¢,a {"',fit. ~. e' ~, i;~ . : , •: 2(l^'4, i "?'_ Goal 1: Improve mobility 6Ri route: S,IUQ** Bk i mute: 4,600** through and within the Ridership: Daily Project Interlined Buses: interlined Buses: study corridor. Boardtngs (Section 12,000 11,900 11,700 Goal 2: Increase transft 3.2:1) Tota1:17 600 Total: 16 300 ', efficiency and quatiiy of , , service. '; Goal 3: Improve transit Ridership: System-wide Trips'"' (Section 3.2.1) 140,500-141,600 142,800 141,100 connections. - '~ Transportation i I Operations: Traffic Low Low Moderate ii Impacts (Section 3.2.2) ~ Transportation Operations: Travel Time 35 minutes 39 minutes 44 minutes (Section 3.2.2) No engineering Could be Could be inconsistent Expansion Potential constraints & inconsistent utith ' wi{h regional. (Section 3.2.3} consistent with connectivity regional connectivity goals regional plans gaols Goa14: Support local and regtonal economic Economic Development Demonstrated ability Unproven ability to Un raven abili to p ty development and planned Poteniial (Section 3.2.5) to influence influence influence development growth management development development initiatives Goal 5: Foster Moderate property Moderate property _ High. property environmental stewardship acquisitions, high acquisitions, visual acquisitions, low visual Environmental Impacts visual impacts, moderate impacts, stream/wetland & impacts, low stream/wetiand (Section 3.2.6) stream/wetiand & construction impacts, impacts, moderate construction impacts, tow air qualify consiructton & low air no air quality impacts impacts quatiiy impacts Goal 6: Provide acost- Estimated Cost (2011 $) $1;378 $960M $810M effective transit -Capital (Section 3.2.7) investment. Estimated Cost (2011 $) - d&M Cost (based on offered peak hour 800 pax/hr. $14M 800 paxthr. $11 M 800 pax/hr: $11 M capacity of 800 and 1500 paxlhr: $15M 1500 pax/hr: $13M 1500 pax/hr: $13M 1500 paxfir -Section _ 3.2. TJ *Evaluation criteria include references to sections or the report wnere more rnTormarran can ae ~uunu. t ~u„y hoardings for BRT-Nigh and BRT-Low routes without interlined buses could potentially be higher as the model estimated the ridership assuming interlined buses. Interlining refers to the abilityof focal bus routes to use of the guideway in addition to the exclusive BRT service. The BRT numbers thus do not account for passengers that would transfer from feeder buses to BRT if the feeder buses were not sharing the BRT guideway / ***System-wide £rips refer to Iota(transit trips in the three county Triangle Region (Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties). ~t~ ~°--T~ratlp°° f", ~;^1'< Crsrri~t~r ~, .. ~ :=;na+; ,. { Ja. . 2" ~, } ~ F.. ;: ' art Based on the information presented in Table ES-1, the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives clearly rate well in their ability to meet Goal 1: Improve mobility through and within the study corridor, Goal 2: Increase transit efficiency and quality of service, and Goal 3: Improve transit connections. In terms of ridership,. a -significant difference between LRT and BRT is that local bus routes can make use of the guideway in addition to the exclusive bus rapid. transit service. This is termed interlining. The interlined buses include not only feeder buses, but also additional bus routes that could make use of portions of the bus guideway (busway). Riders could opt for aone-seat ride along the guideway onboard the feeder buses or could transferto another route at one of the busway stations, thus potentially double-counting the boardings for BRT where the LRT would only see one boarding. it is not surprising that the sum of the ridership from the interlined bus routes and the BRT exceeds the LRT ridership. When. looking at total transit trips in the region, however, this phenomenon is equalized between LRT and the BRT Alternatives. All three alternatives would increase system-wide transit trips in the region by a comparable amount. The end-to-end travel time for the BRT Alternatives is slightly longerthan the iRT Alternative; however, travel time does not seem to be a major differentiator with regard to passenger pre#erence, as ridership on the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives exceeds that of the LRT Alternative, even with a longer travel time. tt should be noted that the travel time estimate for the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives assume that the BRT-High Alternative will be permitted. to run. along the. existing and proposed Pettigrew Street, which is within the NCRR corridor. If the alignment is not permitted to operate within the rail corridor, alternate alignment options could increase travel times by 3 to 4 minutes. Additionally, while BRT-Low would result in marginaAy worse traffic impacts than LRT and BRT-High, traffic. impacts are also not a major differentiator among the Build Alternatives. Each of the three alternatives -LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low -meets Goal 5: foster environmental stewardship; however, the use of fossil fuels by buses makes LRT a more sustainable and desirable technology over the long term. And, while each would result in limited impacts. to the natural and built environments, environmental impacts have not proven to be a major differentiator between the alternatives. From a cost perspective, the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives best meet Goal'. 6: Provide a cost- effective transit. investment by providing a lower capital cost investment and O&M costs within the. planning horizon for the proposed project. In terms of capital costs, while LRT presents substantially higher costs than BRT, the cost of the LRT Alternative is still within the range of affordability as detailed in the Financial Plan being- prepared for Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties. For O&M costs,. as noted in Section 3.2.7, decision-makers must also consider that long-term, the O&M costs of the BRT Alternatives will likely escalate higher than those of the LRT Alternative due to the shorter life span of buses compared to trains, operations (driver) costs, and, potentially, fuel costs. U'Itimately the decision of whether BRT or LRT is acost-effective technology choice will depend Largely on ridership. Currently, the .BRT Alternatives do have slightly higher forecasted. boardings but, as discussed' in Section 3.2.7, as peak hourly volumes reach the range more comparable to existing LRT and BRT systems, LRT can meet the increased demand at a lower capital and O&M investment than BRT. While the BRT Alternatives have demonstrated ability to be competitive regarding most project goals, the LRT Alternative clearly surpasses the BRT Alternatives under Gaal 4: Support local and regional economic development and .planned growth management initiatives. The LRT Alternative has demonstrated public support and a proven record of producing local and. regional economic fur ~,.t .:,~ °~e ..,~~ ,_~.~rrtdor A ~~nx~`=9-,a Ar~~i=. ~~ I ,~,alv ~ .'i°'° l `~ etasla _ ~ development benefits by enhancing .and focusing growth within LRT corridors. LRT enhances. opportunities for transit oriented. development (TOD), and the resulting development can achieve rental rate premiums and higher land values over non-light rail served properties. Impressive levels of development have been constructed along LRT lines in many examples across the nation., As demonstrated by the dollars of investment with LRT corridors such as the Charlotte Blue Line, developers are interested in constructing TOD at LRT stations, as they see the value in the transportation advantage afforded by LRT. Further, in support of planned growth management initiatives, LRT's proven ability to focus growth would, in the long run, have a more substantial impact on mobility because the land use impacts will result in more choices. ~zc1~• "' ." '~ _,_ ..' . '~_' _~l _ Local and regional stakeholders place a high. level of importance on economic deve opment potential and focusing growth within the proposed transit corridor through TOD. LRT has consistently been proven to bolster economic development and focus growth. These potential development dollars are .not insignificant. The LRT Alternative alone can fully address the stated Purpose and Need for afixed- guideway investment in the Durham-Orange Corridor; it can enhance mobility, expand transit options between Durham and Chapel H311, serve populations with high propensity for transit use, and foster compact development. For these reasons, the project team's recommendation is to carry forward the LRT Alternative as the LPA. The LRT Alternative is recommended for advancement with alignment options A3, C1 and C2, and D3 and. the associated station locations for the following reasons: s Alignment option A3: As the preferred alignment option, supported by Town of Chapel staff and UNC &UNC Hospitals, this alignment and a future extension of the A3 option would mitigate the constraint of the extended walking distances to existing major employment and student centers. Alignment options GI and C2: Alignment option. C1_is the preferred alignment because ifi serves Meadowmont Village, an existing community that was designed to be a TOD, Long-term plans for fixed-guideway service within Meadowmont Village are also evidenced by the dedication of right-of-way, which would result in fewer private property acquisitions for alignment option Cl relative to alignment option C2. In addition, it should be noted that the ridership potential of Woodmont relies on potential development rather than on an existing community as in the case of Meadowmont. Although the alignment option C1 is recommended, the crossing. of wetlands and US Army Carps of Engineer (USAGE) owned property to the east of Meadowmont Village warrants additional coordination with the USAGE and continued dialogue with. community stakeholders to fully vet this issue. There#ore, the project team also recommends advancing alignment option C2 through to the Preliminary Engineering {PE)/N'ational Environmental Policy Act {NEPA) phase in order to provide an opportunity for continued study. Alignment option D3: The potential for development for alignment.. option D3 and the surrounding land uses is, in the opinion- of the project team, a very significant factor for the recommendation of D3 above and beyond the constraints cited in Table. 3-24 of the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Technical Report. Figure ES-1 illustrates the recommended LPA. 4 ,ll _.. . ,... ...._. l ~~ ~ o - sa ~~ 1 ~ G~~~ ~ '~ 1 ~~_~ n W LlF ~ ~ ttl W O W ~~a d~-~ ~ J W ~ V Q 0 c ` = O ~ W ~ N C m W N N 5 ~o m° v o ~ ~ o ~, ~ o j ~ a o U - 3 m ~,, c z ~ c3 F°- v v v a c~~ ~~ J9 ti\ _ L ~ 7 `/___ ~__ ~ ,. ~, ~~ j ~~~, e 4~~~~1 ~~- ~~, _ _ ~, { , ~5 i, ~ tI-z S ~yt t ~ N ~ t 1 \4 ~-- f 1 H ~ 1 ~ i , ^ ' ~ j 1 ,, _ \ ~,, _. ~~.~ ~_ ,1 ~ a a ~ ~~~, ~ ~1: ~ , ._ _ . 0 ~ ~, s''' r -.,1-~ ~ ~,~ ~ __ _. _ ' ~~' ~ :~ c U7 ` ~ l~ ~ l. ~,) B ~G 2> 11 ~/ ~j ~ ~ ~ 3 ~~ ~~ ,i_ ,i y 'F F~ ?~ [~ r , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - -r~ ~ ~\ N N Durham-Orange Alt. Analysis -Triangle Regional Transit Program http://www.ourtransitfuture.com/index.php/get-involved/reports/durham-... Attachment 6 TRiANG~Ei~~iiflN,4ittAiS173RFiflptlY THEViStt3P7 CETiNVq..VEI7 R'SC7 ^QES8L1A9K5 NEVVSi2~JPA C i,'a-:T t,~, i .ap, f _°: .. r ~,. ~.... ~ ~ . .. .. . : r -_ a ~ L3urharn.~Iran,t ~#1t. AtsaIy~i~ ~ ~ . ~ r-ir°i `~~~ A Aga€; ~~ -= ~ t~, ~areiclcr ~It A€saty~is NEWS & RECENT HEADLINES . November ti9, 2011 Transit. tax passes "Great day for Durham;'. Bell says. Woters...made Clurham County the second community inu,rstatew,ihtheauthorty.tolevy a fiat[ percent,... REPORTS Qurham-Urange Alt.. Analysis November 09, 2091 Durham okays new sales !axes b't3 percent favored a half--cent transit sates tax, e a ~.: ae t t and 37 percent seal yes to a quarter-cent education lax ,_ • - , November 02,.2091 WUMC radio sWry on ~:~ . ,_ to @083. .. s ~ 3$ axr ^, ,, busirail improvements. in Durham WUNC Fht aired a radio story on busfrait improvements in Durham. You can also order a printed copy of or a DVD step voAxmes to sit t/rra,a corridors. !bY cricking ..Note:.. You wtii need to craate a :aimpis Now tlaer fD and ward to grace your orscier: t~uicrc l.lNas • i~me •. Can#acY tJS • Project Materials • Photo 8 ~c Gallery • FAQs • OnlirnB Comment Form ilbitatne 1, t?et~ted tlriinit3eut of Aitsrnatrve Technical Report presartts the rasutts of the t3e~i~i 3 Evaluations 9t Alternatives and proY~es a r~omrttestdalieon for Ore (.ocaAy Pre~rrrd Alternative (LPA) for each corrkkrr for the prrtrrrrd trc n alogy, alignrr~ltt and sPabcm bt~tions. TRlAt~fit.E REGt~+IAL TRANSIT PROGRAM Address: Post OfOce Box 3~ Morrisvitle~ NC 27360 Phone: 8tXi.816.7817 Srolume 7. Concaptuai plans and Profiles err atgtrxrirnt plans and profltea at &te proposact transk Email: into~ourtransitfuture.eom tvarekfors. The plan set bebw irtciudes drawkig index, iocat~n maps. Key maps, typicN cross 5ectdarrs, light flail Transit plans and. prollies. Bus Rap#i Transit grans, and. Gyauts of pcdential akemadlve Rail i Operaliais and Mainienanee Facilities. ~. , FACEBQAK Flies YQt;ETUBE ~. ~ 7WtTTEF2 >& ' FLiGKR S4J BSCRIBE'ft3 RSS ttolwne 3: Capital Coed Estlmates, t~teretbtts aril'M~lMen~ce Cost Es~nates, Travel Thrus and Distartcs CaFctt~Nwts, Ridershlp Surntnar3es and Station to Station. Rk9ership i=crrscasts. TY~ Gap#al Cats Ottctixlea detail. on unit costs and quantit~s. The 0 8 M cost estimates inc(ut~ det~l on stafiMig revels and costa roc adminlsRa#on, operations arni ma~ance at ttm proposed system.. Travel hrnes are beard on vehic~ pertormancr data... Ridership is based. on Ors. Transit Regional model... ltaltune 4: TransR-G r ietited ttevett tTOD) Assesstnen! Rttport provides additions! intamration that ~,r <w ms ~ AA praoess and the cc~rtds in!!u?ncing TOD devebptatent pote~ntiat within. eaoh Station Area along. the various corridars. 1 of 2 12/2/2011 2:17 PM Durham-Orange Alt. Analysis -Triangle Regional Transit Program http://www.ourtransitfuture.com/index.php/get-involved/reports/durham-... r~ b: Ttafic Analysis 7echnkrat RepaRpaavtoes err evalsratibtt of tip ir~arsectitxtS along. the propasetl camidar i'~Sad gn the ditteretft attQnntent options. Tratt~ coun#s, trams praj~tiotrs, trait~C cap!ac#Y analysis„ and hip drstrbu3ions are. pf+esanted. The trat~ analysts hdud~ an evaluation of conceptual mr5g rtmasures ror cerCain interseclbns tt> lessen. ar sYr~rwte traffic impacts. Traffic Bub-fielder with. Appendices Addendtatt to i~taited t7ttirritktit ati Arefatlves Rspait •_ Vatut~ t HOME Transit Today The Vsion Get Involved Resources & Links Newsroom Contact Us Sitemap Select Langt Powered by laz-~~; Translate 2 of 2 12/2/2011 2:17 PM