Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-24-2012 - 8eORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 24, 2012 Action Agenda Item No. 8.e. SUBJECT: Update on Triangle Regional Transit Program -Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative DEPARTMENT: BOCC, Manager's Office & Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) ATTACHMENT(S): A. Questions Regarding the Orange County Transit Plan Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative B. December 8 Agenda Outline and Key to Attachments INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank W Clifton, Manager-245-2300 Craig Benedict, Planning Director- 245-2575 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 245-2579 Darcy Zorio, Transportation Planner, 245-2582 PURPOSE: To receive additional information and questions on the Triangle Regional Transit Program -Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and identify any remaining information that may be required for the Board. BACKGROUND: Last year (May 19, June 7 and Dec 8) the BOCC held a work session and regular meeting regarding the Triangle Regional Transit Program (TRTP) and the localized Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP) and also known as the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBARIP). _ The Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the Triangle Regional Transit Program projects in the Durham-Orange, Durham-Wake and Wake County Corridors were completed in July 2011. The findings and recommendations developed through the AA process are contained in three Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports. Each report covers an alignment plan and profile information about the attributes of different technologies [i.e. Light Rail (LRT), Bus Rail Transit High and Low (i.e. BRT-H &BRT-L)], cost estimates, travel time, traffic analyses, and assessment of station's capacity for potential transit oriented development. A recommendation from Triangle Transit for the most appropriate initial fixed guideway transit investment, known as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for each corridor, is also included. In July 2011, the multivolume reports for each of the corridors (i.e. Durham-Orange and Durham-Wake) were posted along with all of the other information generated through the AA process: www.ourtransitfuture.com. In late August, 2011, as a result of ongoing technical evaluation, public involvement and discussions with government agencies, the MPOs and other key stakeholders, an Addendum was prepared for each of the Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Reports. This additional information is also posted on the aforementioned project web site. ~~ Triangle Transit has stated that the LPA must be approved by the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) by mid-February 2012 to make the deadline for federal New Starts applications (mid-August 2012). Attachment A, Questions Regarding the Orange County Transit Plan as it Relates to the Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative At its November 15, 2011 meeting. the BOCC received a presentation on the Triangle Regional Transit Program -Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and identified additional information in preparation for tonight's work session. Since the December 8t" 2011 Special Transit Work Session, county staff has met with a majority of the Commissioners and compiled a list of questions concerning the Alternatives Analysis and the Locally Preferred Alternative. The questions are organized into general categories including ridership, commuting patterns, the preferred corridor (including Orange County economic development potential) and technology (i.e. LRT vs. BRT). Prior to this meeting, Triangle Transit was forwarded this list of questions and will be available to respond. Attachment B, Agenda Outline and Key to Attachments Attachments (1-6), as referenced in Attachment B, were part of the December 8, 2011 Special Transit Work Session. Additional materials were also included that Board members may wish to review. Please bring this information with you to the meeting. It is available on the county website under the December 8, 2011 Special Transit Work Session agenda: http~//www co orange nc us/OCCLERKS/111208.htm This discussion could lead to an informal vote of the BOCC on February 7, 2012 related to the best technology (i.e. LRT or BRT) for Orange County as studied in the AA and the best corridor for Orange County as reported in the study area of the LPA. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the additional information; 2. Discuss and ask questions; and 3. Identify any additional materials that may be required to provide guidance to Commissioner Gordon, Orange County MPO representative on Transportation Advisory Council, for a proposed vote on February 8, 2012 by the DCHC MPO TAC. ATTACHMENT A QUESTIONS REGARDING ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (OCTP) ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (AA) and LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) RIDERSHIP 1. How many riders from Orange County are projected to board in Orange County and alight to destinations in Orange County? 2. Of the projected 1540 bus transfers (i.e. boarders) to LRT at UNC Hospitals, what is their projected destination? If destinations are attracted to employment zones and the vast majority of employment zones are along the proposed LRT route in the 15-501 corridor, would it be a logical travel pattern for riders to take the bus to and transfer at Gateway LRT station which is more direct, less time consuming, and less expensive? 3. Is the decrease in park and ride spaces at Leigh Village from 3,000 originally, to 1,000, and now to 500 spaces in the NC 54 Corridor Study addressed in the AA as it could affect ridership volumes? What are the consequences in ridership? 4. The ridership forecasts (Table D-2 of AA) for boarding (via walk access) in Orange County at: UNC 630 Mason Farm 340 Hamilton 220 Friday Center 70 Meadowmont 110 TOTAL RIDERS 1370 These numbers appear high since most populations in UNC are students who would not be leaving Orange County via LRT for employment. Is there any other insight on these numbers? 3 Page 1 of 5 4 COMMUTER PATTERNS/CORRIDORS 1. Due to the shape of Orange County and the proposal for light rail alignments in its extreme southeast corner, many county residents with destinations in Durham will continue to drive directly. Although a majority of the County's residents reside in the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area, approximately 45% live elsewhere (See Map). 2. The AA reflects a strong bi-directional commuter pattern between Chapel Hill and Durham. However, there are additional commutes between Chapel Hill and Research Triangle Park area that are not served via the regional transit plan. Should there be two fixed routes to serve this unique condition? 3. Will the increases in park and ride spaces at Gateway and Patterson Place be sufficient for commuters traveling from south Durham and western Wake County -along I-40 and will it be difficult for commuters to drive 3 miles past their destination route of NC 54 to UNC to back track with LRT along the same I-40 route? 4. The corridors could be (and not in order of importance): a. Martin Luther King, as suggested in the existing OCTP but needs further cost refinement and timed to address the north-south needs of Chapel Hill Township and Carolina North with potential interlined use of the Hillsborough 420 route. b. 15-501 corridor which would service the needs of Chapel Hill and Carrboro residents to businesses in the Orange County corridor as well as employment connections further northeast to Durham. The AA supports the benefits of this corridor because it is within the broader `study area' although it was not studied for a specific route or ridership potential. c. NC 54 corridor which would service the high commuter traffic pattern into UNC from south Durham and western Wake. NC 54 is being studied for expansion in the timeframe of the OCTP. New lanes should be dedicated for dedicated bus ways. The BRT corridor would extend to I-40 and/or NC751 which would correct overcapacity traffic conditions that LRT would not correct or service. Page 2 of 5 5 CORRIDOR STUDY 1. The LPA notes the environmental issues associated with the C-1 and C-2 alignments in the NC 54 corridor and through the Jordan Lake federal lands of Little Creek Bottomland, page 3-28 thru 35 of "Volume 7: Detailed Definitions of Alternatives Technical Reporl". 15-501 would not traverse federal lands in Orange County and improve the risk assessment of the feasibility of LRT or BRT. Can 15-501 be included as a locally preferred alternative? 2. The AA notes the higher acquisition of properties for BRT High and Low versus LRT on page 3-25 and 27. If BRT can be designed within the scheduled or current expansion of existing road corridors of 15-501 and/or NC 54 as either HOV, dedicated bus way, mixed traffic or bus on shoulder (BOSS) why is BRT reported as having higher properly impacts? 3. The September 3, 2010 `white paper' from TTA regarding the Triangle Regional Transit Program and the Durham-Orange Corridor notes that "The Town requested that Alignment 3 (i.e. 15-501) be considered since (a) over 10 years elapsed since the adopted alignment was initially selected, and (b) redevelopment along the US15-501 corridor within Chapel Hill has become a higher priority for the Town. Orange County agrees with this assessment that economic development within Orange County has been greatly accented in recent years (after 2035 LRTP decisions were made) because sales tax distribution is based more on point of sale versus population based. Therefore the revenue sharing for other sales tax receipts as well as a potential % cent mobility sales tax has new relevance and revenue based on location. Since revenue sources for regional mobility are county based and initiated, the return on mass transit investment needs to be linked to economic development tax base return within the same county. 4. Investments have been made along the NC 54 corridor in anticipation of fixed route service. BRT can service that same investment and match investment with the land use density that is proposed or exists in the corridor. Is greater than 25 dwelling units per acre proposed to support LRT in Hwy 54? BRT high has also shown to positively affect land use patterns. 5. The NC 54 Leigh Village Alignment (C-1 or C-2) parallels in large part I-40 thereby limiting access (from population or employment) from one side. In addition, that alignment traverses a wide environmental area where no access is possible. The efficiency and investment is therein decreased as evidenced by the higher levels of ridership from Gateway to Alston from the AA. Page 3 of 5 6 6. The September 3, 2010 report (page 5) from TTA notes that Leigh Village representatives `have indicated a willingness to accommodate park and ride' of an amount mentioned previously, 3500 spaces. This is no longer the case (suggested at 500 parking spaces) and therefore LRT and park and ride would not serve the high traffic flow along the NC 54 corridor. 7. Park and ride opportunities are reported to be difficult in the NC 54/I-40 region (now and in the future; page 5 -September 30, 2010 TTA Report), however, due to the unserved direction of fixed route to the RTP area, vehicles will need park and ride to switch to LRT or BRT. This need is noted in the NC 54 corridor study. 8. Right-of-Way Availability, (page 7 -September 30, 2010 TTA Report), notes that alignment right-of-way has been `preserved' at `possibly no cost' in the C-1 alignment. That may be true for the area in Meadowmont but not along the majority of the route including the traverse of federal environmental lands. 9. Since the New Starts application is a six-month process for its first submittal and decisions about `final' alignment may still be 3 to 4 years out, could 15-501 be offered as a preferred alignment since it is within the study area of the AA? BRT/LRT DECISIONS If it is decided that fixed route (LRT or BRT) would better serve Orange County and its connection to Durham County via the 15-501 corridor as a complement and/or a supplement to the NC 54 corridor, what process is suggested? 2. BRT cost estimates for the Durham-Orange Route appear to be about 55 million a mile vs. 81.2 million a mile for LRT. Although the BRT cost is 31 % lower, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) study of 2001 (and 2009) and US General Accounting Office (GAO) of June 2003 report that BRT is typically $13.5 million for dedicated bus way and $9.0 million for use with high occupancy vehicle lanes. Could BRT routing be designed in such a way to reduce capital costs, and thereby allowing multiple BRT links in 2-3 corridors as noted previously? 3. Assuming revenues of approximately $5 million per year from'h cent sales tax and $700k from vehicle registration fees and on the expenditure side, $4.9 million for bus hours countywide, how will Orange County accumulate $82.5 million for LRT within the timeframe proposed? That represents only approximately $1 million per year after expenditures to "save" for LRT or BRT. Page 4 of 5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/FINANCIAL Both the Durham and Wake County transit plans propose a commuter rail component that would be scheduled to be operational in the mid-term (2018) versus the longer term (2025) for potential LRT. Could Orange County be studied and monies estimated for Commuter Rail to Hillsborough as part of the longer term? Paul Morris, NC Deputy Secretary for Transit spoke recently of state interest in upgrading commuter lines and freight lines to assist in economic development, which would be the case in the Efland-Buckhorn economic development zones west of Hillsborough. 2. Could a circulator route be added to the bus service element within the Chapel Hill and Carrboro area to provide better access to shopping opportunities within Orange County for Orange County residents? Bolstered sales revenues can be reinvested within Orange County. STAFF POST NOTE Although it is difficult to summarize the technical and philosophical questions from the BOCC related to the AA and LPA and how it comports to the unique challenges of multiple travel patterns and corridors and status of economic development opportunities in Orange County, staff has made a reasonable compilation. In summary, they asked how can our regional fixed route transit investment of over $80 million, not including the $5 million annual investment in bus service, be spent to serve the needs of Orange County residents and businesses in a manner that will create return benefits of land use, environment and economic development that matches the vision of Orange County residents (i.e. matching the corridor and technology to the appropriate scale of the Durham-Orange corridor). Page 5 of 5 I ( ' 9 ! i i _-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------� I !� I i i I ! ! ! ! I ! I I � , I , i City,of 1 i Mebane' ` I I Town of i i Hillsborough v i , r 7 ® .. i N y Durham / I , rs,. '1Town ofr "I i `,,Chapel'Hill i Town of Carrboro ---------_-_ l -------------- ------------ l ' 7 City of 7 Raleigh S 1 1 I , 1 inch=4.5 miles RDU Airport 0 1 2 3 Hospital ®Miles / Orange County Planning and Inspections Department J Clty uf711tS ; GIS Map Prepared by Brian Carson.1/20/2012 Attachment B Orange County BOCC Transit Work Session -Thursday, December 8, 2011 Agenda Outline and Key to Attachments (Please see December 8, 2011 packet for referenced attachments) A. Mobility Regional Purpose 1. House Bill 148 (Attachment A1) 2. Local (Att. A2) B. Alternatives Analysis (AA) (Mode of Transit) 1. Bus Plan (Att. B1) 2. BRT (Att. B2) 3. Light Rail (Att. B3) 4. Commuter Rail (Att. B4) 5. UNC - D (Att. B5) C. Locally Preferred Alternatives (LPA) (Corridor) 1. C-1 - Meadowmont (Att. C1) 2. C-2 - Hillmont 3. Alignment Alternative Comparison (Att. C3) D. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (Financial Plan/Model) 1. Cost Sharing Discussion a. Durham/Orange Triangle Regional Transit Program Financial Plan Draft (Att. D1 a) b. Cost Sharing Map (Att. D1 b) c. Revenue Sharing (Att. D1c) 2. Ridership a. Assumptions (Att. D2a, incl. 4-charts) b. Demographics (Att. D2b) c. Employment and Population (Att. D2c) 3. Plan A; Core Transit --Bus (See Att. B1) Plan B; Enhanced Transit --Light Rail --BRT --BRT (See Att. B2) --Bus --Commuter Rail (See Att. B4) E. Intergovernmental Agreements or Memorandum of Understanding 1. Municipalities (Att. E1) 2. Triangle Transit (Att. E2) 11 F. Referendum Decisions G. Timeline (Att. G)