HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-07-2012 - 8cORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 7, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. B-c
SUBJECT: Orange-Durham County Corridor, Triangle Regional Transit Program -
Alternatives Analysis and the Locall Preferred Alternative Decision
DEPARTMENT: BOCC, Manager's Office & Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) 0
ATTACHMENT(S):
A. Questions Regarding the Orange
County Transit Plan Alternatives
Analysis and Locally Preferred
Alternative and TTA Responses
B. Eval. Criteria Summary (Durham-
- Orange Counties)
C. UNC D Alignment
D. C1/C2 Alignments
E1 and E2. Monograph
F. Summary of Detailed Alternatives
Eval. (with OC Staff Notes)
G., H., I., J. Misc. Supporting Maps
K. Draft Resolution
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank W Clifton, Manager-245-2300
Craig Benedict, Planning Director-
245-2575
PURPOSE: To receive additional information and questions on the Triangle Regional Transit
Program -Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and to
approve a recommendation providing guidance to commissioner representatives on the DCHC
MPO and TTA Boards.
BACKGROUND: Last year (May 19, June 7, Nov 15 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
reports:
(1) Transitional Analysis - 9/24/10,
(2) Purpose and Need Report - 12/9/10, and
(3) Volume 1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report - 7/2011.
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 and their consultant URS for the most appropriate
initial fixed guideway transit investment, known as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for
each corridor, is also included on Page 3-46 of the last report. 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).
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
the BOCC identified additional information for upcoming work sessions.
Since the December 8th 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) and submitted to
TTA on Friday afternoon, January 20, 2012 for their responses for the January 24, 2012 regular
BOCC meeting. TTA was not able to respond in writing at that time but pledged to have
answers by noon on Thursday, February 2, 2012. In the absence of a response, Orange
County staff makes the following comments:
Attachment A. Questions Regarding the Orange County Transit Plan as it Relates to the
Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative and TTA responses received
Thursday 2/2/12 at 5:OOpm. Staff will comment on this information prior to the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
The agenda item relates to the following:
• Transitional Analysis Report of 9/24/10
• Purpose and Need Report of 12/9/10
• Volume1: Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report of July 2011 prepared by
consultant URS prepared for Triangle Transit
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and AA includes intertwined 3 facets that are specific to
the Durham-Orange County Corridor and Study Area:
1. The end points of the corridor
2. The approximate alignment within the study corridor
3. The technology of the fixed guideway meaning light rapid transit (LRT) or bus rapid
transit (BRT high or low) and/or in some cases commuter rail (e.g. between Durham and
Wake)
Staff comments are as follows regarding the 3 aspects which are linked by number to the
aspects:
1. End points
The suggested corridor is known as Durham-Orange Alternate 4 (D-O A4) which is a
17.4 mile length between UNC Hospitals and Alston Avenue which is east of Duke and
Durham downtown. The approximate cost is $1.4 billion or over $80 million a mile. The
other alternates are shown in Attachment B, all with mobility, socio-economic, land use
and financial rankings. Staff believes these end points of D-O A4 are appropriate
because of the strong employment anchor UNC hospital and university at the southern
terminus within Orange County.
Durham-Orange Alternate 6 is another corridor segment that ranked well. This corridor is
10 miles from Gateway (east of Blue Cross-Blue Shield) to Alston Avenue estimated at
$750 million dollars (9/24/10). However, this alternate does not enter Orange County.
2. Alignment
a. Orange County staff agrees that the alignment near the southern terminus of the
corridor near UNC should be UNC(D) station. The alignment would allow for future
LRT or BRT expansion to the west into Carrboro. Other alignments closer to UNC
hospital created more dead-end scenarios, (Attachment C)
b. Orange County staff notes that two alignment options near and east of the Friday
Center known as C-1 (through Meadowmont) and C-2 (along the south side of NC 54
past future Hillmont) are both challenging alignments from environmental, cost and
traffic standpoints. C-1 has invoked strong community concerns, as well as DENR, in
regards to the traversing of Jordan Lake federal environmental lands. C-2 would be
preferable to move forward since it parallels NC 54 right-of-way. (Attachment D)
NC 54 is scheduled to be widened within this transit program planning horizon and
fixed guideway corridors or lanes should be part of design and highway investment.
The farther this NC 54 alignment can continue further to the east towards I-40 and
Durham County based redevelopment opportunities at Falconbridge Shopping
Center, the greater potential to reduce traffic on NC 54 by creating a travel mode shift
from car to LRT, if the corresponding park and ride (P&R) lots can be created. If the
appropriately sized P&R lots cannot be found in this corridor, then BRT is a better
alternative to pick up passengers in the I-40/751/Southpoint and/or NC 54/Woodcroft
park and ride areas with direct transport to UNC area via the protected and reserved
BRT fixed guideway or mixed where necessary corridor.
c. Irrespective of the challenges noted with alignments C-1 and C-2, Orange County
staff believes that another alignment should also be studied within the existing
corridor study area. The study area presently includes socioeconomic data and traffic
data along US 15-501 which could be an alternate route between Hamilton Station
area (roughly Fordham and NC 54) and Gateway Station. This research may be
prudent alternate knowing the risk assessment plan (part of the New Starts
application) and upcoming draft environmental impact study (DEIS)/NEPA review
often values alternate proposals to achieve a balance of mobility, environmental,
economic development, land use, financial and community inputs and aspects.
In any event, whether C-1 or C-2 is eventually approved for LRT or BRT, this 15-501
analysis could be used to support future public transit investments within Orange
County. Investments that could provide both economic development return,
additional retail service opportunities and public transit for nearby citizens and
businesses within Orange County.
Bolstering the need to analyze 15-501 is the attached monograph prepared by
Orange County staff from information noted in the URS Purpose and Need Report of
12/9/10 (Attachment E1 & E2).
As a comparable note, the section of US 15-501 within Durham County has a
planned corridor alignment that is parallel but offset southeasterly from 15-501 within
neighborhood and business areas. This alignment has been requested to be
analyzed and possibly moved closer to right-of-way of 15-501.
3. Technology - (Whether LRT, BRT -High or BRT -Low)
This aspect is very complex because there is variation in some aspects but not in all.
cases. The following general comparisons can be made (not necessarily in order of
importance).
Capital Costs
LRT - $1.4 Billion
BRT -high $960 million
[*This number has been asked to be re-examined since the Government Accounting
Office (GAO) (2001) and other FTA sources (2009) would translate to $13.5 million a
mile average or $250 million]
Average Speed
LRT - 29.6 MPH
BRT -high 26.7 MPH
End to End Travel Time
LRT - 35 minutes
BRT -high 39 minutes
Storage Yards and Maintenance Facilities
LRT - Yes New
BRT -high No Existing Bus Facilities could be expanded
Ridership 2035
LRT - approximately 11,700 boardings
BRT -high approximately 5,700 with another 11,900 riders on other buses using BRT
guideway (aka Interlining) for expediency which furthers the use and
investment in the BRT guideway; 17,600 boardings
2035 Daily System-Wide Transit Trips
LRT - 140,500 - 141,600
BRT -high 142,800
(Note: This may be another measure to contrast with the interlined
criteria)
Traffic Impact Rating
LRT - High Performing
BRT -high High Performing
Expansion Potential Ratings
LRT - Medium Performing
BRT -high High Performing
Orange County staff differs on this subject in comparison to the URS analysis on page 3-
17 of the Alternatives Technical Report. Flexibility is the hallmark of BRT because of
lower costs, more flexible engineer design alignments and extensions into other corridors
(for example MLK to Carolina North, 15-501 to support economy in Orange County and
NC 54 to address high commuter travel pattern into Orange County from south Durham
and western Wake and Orange County out to RTP.
Image
LRT - High Performing
BRT -high High Performing**
Orange County Staff research from recent FTA publications agrees with conclusions
drawn therein that BRT-H with all of the amenities of LRT offer comparable benefit and
experience and accordingly offers a higher ranking than URS. **
Ability to Influence/Economic Development and TOD
LRT - High Performing
BRT -high High Performing **
Orange County staff believes investment and implementation can be faster, as
permanent and less speculative than LRT especially when LRT could take 15 years to
analyze and put into operation.
Capacity
LRT - High Performing
BRT -high High Performing
Operating Costs
LRT - > 2000-2500 Passengers per peak hour
LRT may have cost efficiencies
BRT -high < 2500 BRT is less
BRT Cost savings with 800 PAX/HR of approximately 20%
The Durham-Orange Corridor is projected to operate with BRT better operating efficiency
levels.
Environmental Air ~ Wetlands
LRT - Medium Performing depending on source of electric which is coal at this
time
BRT -high Medium Performing however most BRT new orders are hybrid electric
BRT can be routed to be less invasive to off corridor (right-of-way) environmental areas.
Summary
FTA 2009 publications (see link: http://www.nbrti.or~/cBRT.html) note and Orange County
staff agrees that a community should match the technology with the need based on land
use and the ability to financially build and maintain. BRT-High is such a system that is
complimentary to these precepts in the BRT ability to remain flexible to changing
conditions and locational needs including the exponential rate of green technologies.
Although Orange County and the municipalities are expected to grow in population and
jobs over the long term planning horizon (25± years), the estimates do not create high
intensity skyscraper urban environments because of the limitations with other natural
resources such as water and the costs of public services. (Attachment F)
Additional Supporting Maps - (Attachments G, H, I, J)
Resolution/Orange County StafF Recommendation - Attachment K is a draft resolution for
the DCHC MPO Technical Advisory Committee's consideration at its meeting tomorrow,
February 8, 2012. Orange County staff is recommending changes, as shown in red, "tracked
changes" format.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This action, although not the approval of a financial plan or '/2 cent
referendum, begins a process outlining a potential financial commitment of local (Durham and
Orange Counties) state and federal of $1.4 billion and an ongoing 1/2 cent commitment from
Orange County residents.
Orange County's commitment to fund the transit program can only be through voter approval on
November 6, 2012 after the legal requirements of a referendum are set earlier in the year.
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
and Commissioner Pelissier for the TTA Board meeting of February 15, 2012.
DECISIONS
4. Proceed with Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) study area known as Durham-
Orange Corridor Alternate 4 from endpoints UNC to Alston Avenue (17.4 miles —
$1.4 billion). NOTE: If FTA review suggests a shorter segment, the BOCC
reserves the right to reanalyze its decision.
5. Proceed with LPA alignment and station suggestions of:
a. UNC(D) which could allow potential future extension to the west to Carrboro
b. Proceed with C-2 (Friday Center along NC 54 easterly past proposed Hillmont;
aka George King Road alignment). NOTE: Extend easterly as close to 1-40 for
another potential P&R station if Leigh Village P&R is suppressed in NC 54
Corridor Plan.
c. Proceed with a detailed study and report for a third alignment consistent with
the Alternatives Analysis for US 15-501 from Hamilton Station to Gateway
Station.
1. This alternate alignment provides another option to avoid the environmental
challenges noted in C-1 and C-2 corridors along NC 54 and the federal
wetlands and would bolster economic development opportunities within
Orange County which would be the source of the countywide financial
commitment.
2. Incorporate findings of this study into the development of the 2040 Long
Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which is in progress, so that this study
may inform the 2-3 year New Starts application process with the most
current data and community/local government mindset.
6. Proceed with the submittal of LRT in the Durham-Orange Corridor A-4 noted above
at this time. NOTE: Over the next few months, the NC 54 Corridor Plan, the
requested 15-501 Alternatives Analysis, and the development of an Orange County
Transit Plan Core and Enhanced Program may support the need for BRT High in
one or both corridors (NC 54 and US 15-501). This information will be critical over
the next six months as the Risk Assessment Phase of the New Starts Application is
prepared to include financial sustainability and environmental impact. In any event,
BRT could be part of a complementary corridor development to support LRT if LRT
is funded similar to the present inclusion of BRT in the draft OCTP financial plan in
the MLK Boulevard corridor of Chapel Hill.
9
ATTACHMENT A
Triangle Transit Staff Response to Orange County Questions
February 2, 2012
Orange County questions in black.
Triangle Transit responses in blue.
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?
The home county and destination county of riders is not a primary output of the
travel model.
Travelers generally do not make decisions about where to go based on which
county their destination is in. This data can be obtained but will take
substantially more time to produce.
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?
There are multiple factual errors and unsupported assertions contained in this
question. First, the number of employment zones and their land area in a
community is immaterial compared to the concentration of employment, supply
and price of parking, and urban design in terms of capturing transit trips.
For this reason, most of the 1540 bus transfers from LRT at UNC hospitals are
headed to destinations on the UNC campus or in the immediate area. URS and
MAB consultants remarked on these bus transfers that most of the bus rides
were likely 1-2 minutes long at most.
Page 1 of 13
10
Second, there is no data to suggest that a bus from the Gateway station to UNC
Hospital will be faster than the train in the future, especially when congestion has
grown in the region. The travel time for Light Rail from Gateway Station to UNC
Hospital in the AA documents is 13.2 minutes. (Durham-Orange Docs:Volume 3,
page C2) The travel time on today's Chapel Hill Transit D bus, which follows
Franklin St and the NC 86 corridor to UNC Hospital is 28 minutes from Sage Rd,
which is even closer to campus than the Gateway area. Future congestion
projected along Fordham Blvd suggests that the Franklin St-Columbia St path is
likely to remain the better option into the long-term future, so even with a bus
transfer and a 7-10 minute bus ride from the UNC Hospital station, the passenger
will experience faster travel times and less trip time variability by riding the train
all the way to UNC Hospital and transferring to the bus there.
Third, this question asserts that using 15-501 is "less expensive." It is not clear
from the question whether this means that a bus/rail combo fare is assumed to be
lower than a rail-only fare, or whether the question refers to the capital cost of
infrastructure, or something else.
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?
Demand for use of the Leigh Village station is driven by several large scale
fundamentals in terms of travel patterns and the lack of alternate routes to UNC
from South Durham due to the presence of Jordan Lake. Changing the number of
parking spaces at the station will not significantly alter the ridership projections
as long as a parking option of any number is assumed.
If a station area has demand for 2000 parking spaces and only 500 spaces are
provided, there will likely be spillover effects in terms of illegal parking in
adjacent areas, people switching to buses, etc.
Furthermore, there has never been any "official" number of parking spaces for
any rail station in any of the three corridors in the region because the numbers
used are all for preliminary planning estimates, and are further refined in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. So there is no "decrease" or
"Increase" in spaces at any station, including Leigh Village, since those numbers
are years away from being finalized.
Finally, this question assumes that the draft recommendations of a study (NC 54
Corridor Study) that has not been adopted by any of the governments that
commissioned it—are FINAL. This is not the case.
Page 2 of 13
11
Demand
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?
This question mistakenly assumes that people who walk to and from stations are
by definition Orange County residents, and/or students. In fact, few of those
walking to the station are likely to be on-campus students.
Instead, many of the people walking to and from the UNC Hospital station are
most likely workers at the hospital complex or other facilities on south campus
such as the Thurston Bowles building, Neurosciences Research Center, or
Ambulatory Care Center.
While we cannot tell the county of origin of riders in the data (see question 1 on
page 1) we can guess that with 75% of the UNC-Alston light rail line being
physically in Durham County, a significant portion of those walking to and from
the UNC Hospital station live outside of Orange County.
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).
This is more of a statement than a question.
Page 3 of 13
12
A map did not accompany this question so we cannot respond to it. We did
gather data from the 2010 Census and found that 66% of the county population
lives within the Chapel Hill township, which contains Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
National data (see Table 3-7 from TCRP Report 95, Chapter 3, page 3-32 below) for
park-and-ride on frequent rail systems like light rail indicate that about 50-60% of
commuters are willing to drive up to 5 miles to access light rail, while another 20-
30% of commuters are willing to drive up to 10 miles to access light rail or similar
services, and another 15% are willing to drive more than 10 miles to access light
rail or similar services.
i
Table 3-7 Distributions of Distances Traveled to Park-and-Ride Lots
Locale(Year of Data) 0-5 miles 6-10 miles 10.20 miles 20+miles
Maryland(1988), 53'X. 28% 13'X. 6%
Sacramento(1989) 60% 22% 18%
Tri-Rail—Florida(1993) 56% 30% 10'X, 4"u
If we consider the Gateway station, which is an optimal point for many Orange
County residents to ride the train to employment or other activities (DPAC,
Durham Bulls, etc) in Durham we find that nearly the entire Chapel Hill township
is within 5 miles of the Gateway station, and that if you extend the radius to 10
miles, significant portions of Hillsborough and Eno townships are also served.
From the Mason Farm station, which is presently assumed to have up to 300
parking spaces, the 10-mile radius also covers a significant portion of Bingham
township.
Overall, we estimate that close to 75% to 80% of Orange County residents are
located within the traditional park-and-ride market sheds for light rail, or are
located along a feeder bus route to rail, or both.
An additional point of interest from UNC's most recent commuter survey also
shows that 57% of UNC park-and-riders drive more than 10 miles to get to their
park-and-ride lot. This indicates that the capture areas for the Durham-Orange
light rail line may be potentially larger than other light rail systems in the US
based on the existing behavior of current residents who use park-and-ride.
2. The AA reflects a strong bi-directional commuter pattern between Chapel Hill and
Durham. However, there are additional commutes between Chapel Hill and
Page 4 of 13
13
Research Triangle Park area that are not served via the regional transit plan.
Should there be two fixed routes to serve this unique condition?
A fixed guideway transit investment between Chapel Hill and RTP is not
warranted by the travel demand. This question was addressed by both the
Special Transit Advisory Commission in 2008 and the DCHC-MPO 2035 LRTP
planning process, neither of which recommended fixed guideway investment
between Chapel Hill and RTP.
Page A-9 of the STAC report provides the most succinct comparison of the
Chapel Hill/RTP corridor with corridors selected for major transit investment in
the LRTP. Here are some relevant statistics from page A-9 on in-corridor trips per
acre, which best describes the propensity of a corridor transit investment to
capture trips and generate ridership:
In-Corridor Trips Per Acre (2035):
• Central Raleigh to North Raleigh: 23 trips/acre
• Durham to Chapel Hill: 20 trips/acre
• Durham to Patterson Place: 21 tripslacre
• Chapel Hill to Patterson Place: 33 trips/acre
• Chapel Hill to RTP: 9 trips/acre
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 1-40 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 1-40
route?
This question is based on the same misunderstandings about the level of finality
of park and ride-planning in both the AA and NC 54 study processes. See the
previous question on this issue on page 2 for more details.
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
Page 5 of 13
14
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 1-40 and/or
NC751 which would correct overcapacity traffic conditions that LRT would
not correct or service.
This is more of an opinion than a question. The statement "NC 54 is being studied
for expansion in the timeframe of the OCTP. New lanes should be dedicated for
dedicated bus ways." would need to be evaluated for reasonableness and
feasibility by NCDOT staff.
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 1: Detailed Definitions of
Alternatives Technical Report". 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?
The Fordham Blvd approach to UNC was studied in 1998 as part of the Major
Investment Study for the 15-501 corridor stretching from Durham to Chapel Hill,
and then re-evaluated again in 2010 through the white paper that has been
circulated multiple times since then. In both 1998 and 2010, the Fordham Blvd
alignment was found lacking as a location for a major transit corridor compared
to the NC 54 corridor to address the purpose and need of the project. It was
dropped from detailed study in 2010 after this assessment.
A directive to complete detailed study on 15-501/Fordham Blvd as an additional
alternative is a directive to go back to the beginning of the Alternatives Analysis
process and start over.
Triangle Transit would be required by Federal Law to repeat the steps with local
governments and citizens through public involvement that as a region we have
completed over the last 18-21 months. It should be noted that Orange County
staff were represented at virtually every TCC meeting, every TAC meeting, and
every Triangle Transit board meeting during that period, and were also present at
many of the public meetings for both the AA and NC 54 study. Until the last two
or three weeks (in early 2012), Orange County staff did not make any comments
with respect to the inclusion of 15-501 in the analysis, even during the time in
which the Chapel Hill town manager actively pursued the question in 2010.
Page 6 of 13
15
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 property impacts?
On page 3-26 of the AA report for the Durham-Orange corridor, the report states:
"The BRT-High Alternative is expected to have the same property impacts as the
LRT Alternative from Chapel Hill to west Durham," which naturally includes the
entire portion of the line in Orange County. The primary area where a BRT
alternative increases property acquisitions is in West to Central Durham, where
an expanded construction of Pettigrew Street would require taking land and
buildings.
There are significant challenges to BRT implementation on existing roadways on
NC 54 or 15-501, including the following:
1. NCDOT owns both of these roads and has plans for them that are detailed
in the TIP and other planning documents that likely preclude the option of
putting bus only lanes in the right-of-way.
2. HOV lanes are rarely, if ever placed on arterial-style corridors such as NC
54 and 15-501; they are nearly always placed on freeways. Every HOV
facility in North Carolina that is either built, previously studied, or currently
under study to our knowledge is on a freeway facility. Therefore, HOV
infrastructure is almost incompatible with these roads and their many
access points and curb cuts. Additionally, there is no funding for HOV
lanes in our region for the foreseeable future. Due to the lack of funding for
HOV lanes, any managed lane facilities are likely to be toll roads such as
the Triangle Parkway. However, these types of projects also face
challenges since tolling on existing facilities is currently illegal under NC
state law.
3. The Bus On Shoulder System (BOSS) is not compatible with NC 54 or 15-
501; it is a system principally designed for interstate-style freeways or
expressways.
Finally, it should be noted that the AA documents are structured to compare
the alternatives that have been studied, not those that are not likely to be
feasible for reasons such as 1, 2 and 3 above.
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
Page 7of13
16
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 Y2 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.
This is an opinion and not a question. We note that recent statements from
elected officials indicate that the municipalities of Chapel Hill and Durham seem
to be of a different opinion.
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.
This question contains the unsupported assertion that Bus Rapid Transit can
generate the same type of land use impacts as Light Rail in the United States.
While Bus Rapid Transit has had success affecting land use patterns in the
developing world, particularly in countries where as few as 1 in 7 people own a
car and there are far weaker private property rights, that success has not been
replicated in the United States.
The city with perhaps the longest-existing BRT network in the United States is
Pittsburgh with its system of busways. Between 1981 and 2004, a period of 23
years, Pittsburgh saw approximately $663 million (in $2011 dollars) in private
development along its 9.1-mile East Busway. Charlotte's 9.6-mile Blue Line light
rail, which began construction in 2005, has already seen $1.45 billion (also in
$2011 dollars) in new or planned development (predicted to be open by 2013)
adjacent to its stations.
Comparing these two transit projects, the Pittsburgh East Busway BRT has
helped generate approximately $29 million per year in development while Light
Rail has helped generate approximately $181 million per year in development.
Page 8 of 13
17
5. The NC 54 Leigh Village Alignment (C-1 or C-2) parallels in large part 1-40
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.
This is more of a statement than a question, and its intent is unclear. The
question asserts that ridership from Gateway to Alston is higher than something
else, but the object of comparison is not listed.
It also suggests that the presence of the Little Creek (C1/C2) environmental area
is somehow detrimental to ridership, theoretically compared to other corridors, if
we are to guess at the question's meaning.
Numerous pieces of data show this to be untrue, perhaps most notably the 2010
UNC Campus commuting survey, which indicates that both for car commuters
and bus commuters, the Fordham Blvd approach to campus is the 4t" ranked
corridor in terms of demand behind NC 54, MLK, and 15-501 South towards
Chatham County. The NC 54 is the top corridor for UNC commuters, with nearly 1
in 4 employees traveling to campus using NC 54 by either car or transit to
commute to UNC.
Percentage of UNC Commuters to UNC by Major Corridor(Source:UNC Commuter Survey 2010)
NC54(from
1-40 at exit MLK(North of 15-501 S (South of 15-501 N
273) campus) campus) (Fordham Blvd)
Car Commuters 24.5% 16.9% 16.7% 13.7%
Transit Commuters 24.5% 16.4% 15.2% 8.6%
�I
i
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.
This question has been addressed twice previously in this document, on page 2
and page 5.
7. Park and ride opportunities are reported to be difficult in the NC 54/1-40 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.
Page 9 of 13
18
Addressing Park-and-Ride demand in the NC 54 corridor is a key issue for both
the ultimate size of any parking facility at a future Leigh Village station but more
importantly, for meeting the mobility challenges in the NC 54 corridor in the next
three to ten years. A committee including MPO staff and transit service planning
staff is already looking how to utilize investments in the Orange and Durham
county bus plans address some of these needs.
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.
This comment contains a misunderstanding about right-of-way costs in regards
to Federal lands. Assuming an alignment is chosen that crosses Federal lands,
the Federal Transit Administration, assumed to provide 50% of the funding for the
line, will not pay another Federal department for right of way. The most likely
outcome is an easement of some type provided at zero cost for access, but with
costs to the transit agency for maintenance of any environmental mitigation
actions that may or may not be required to build the line.
Town of Chapel Hill staff have documented that virtually the entire alignment from
UNC Hospital to the Friday Center is on UNC property, and has been assumed to
be provided at no cost.
These assumptions have been included in the AA documents from July 2011,
which supersede any assumptions from the September 2010 white paper
regarding Fordham Blvd.
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?
It is impossible to submit the 15-501 corridor as part of the AA without redoing
the last 18 months of work with local governments and the public, since the 15-
501 corridor was screened out early on in the process and all of the costs,
benefits, impacts, and ridership analyses would need to be redone.
BRT/LRT DECISIONS
1. 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?
Page 10 of 13
19
The possibility of a rail alignment along 15-501/Fordham Blvd was first studied as
part of the 1998 Major Investment Study for transit in between Durham and
Chapel Hill. The 2008 STAC process did not propose a rail connection in the 15-
501/Fordham Blvd corridor, nor did the 2035 DCHC-MPO Long Range
Transportation Plan, which was completed in 2009. Both documents received
affirmative votes from Orange County members when they were adopted. In the
summer of 2010, at the request of the Chapel Hill Town Manager, the 15-
501/Fordham Blvd question was studied again and addressed in a white paper
released in September 2010 that concurred with the prior studies that the 15-
501/Fordham Blvd alignment was an inferior approach to link Chapel Hill to
Durham when compared to the NC 54 corridor.
If Orange County decides that it prefers that fixed guideway transit follow the 15-
501/Fordham Blvd corridor to either the C1 or C2 alignments recommended for
further study to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, the recommended
process is to communicate to the DCHC-MPO, Triangle Transit, NCDOT, DENR,
UNC- Chapel Hill, UNC Hospital, the towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough,
the City of Durham, Durham County, and the citizens that attended over 21 public
meetings on this topic in the last 2 years that Orange County requests that we
repeat the entire Alternatives Analysis process again to see if additional study of
the 15-501/Fordham Blvd alignment in comparison to the other alternatives on the
table would generate a conclusion different than those reached in 1998 by the
MIS, 2008 by the STAC, 2009 by the LRTP, in September 2010 by the staff and
consultant technical team, and again on January 25, 2012 by a near-unanimous
vote of the Technical Coordinating Committee of the DCHC-MPO.
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?
It is generally considered not a best practice to compared average costs per mile
from 10 years ago with specific alignments and costs in areas with environmental
complexities today.
"Bus Rapid Transit" is a term that has been used to describe a wide variety of
projects in the US, from $700-million underground projects in Boston to newly
painted buses and unpatrolled "bus-only" lanes in Kansas City where cars
double-park and prevent the buses from being rapid. Triangle Transit designed
Page 11 of 13
20
the BRT-high service to attempt to replicate a light rail level of performance by
intentionally not reducing the exclusivity of operation and design quality to
reduce costs.
There are surely ways that capital costs could be reduced for the BRT alternative;
the question is what type of reductions in service quality would Orange County
be willing to accept to get those lower costs. Generally the things that make Bus
"Rapid" Transit fast are costly, such as grade-separated bus only roads, whereas
those that might help with marketing (stylish vehicles, nice lighting and shelters)
are not. If the bus is very slow and unreliable, however, no amount of marketing
will overcome a system that cannot perform its intended function to provide fast,
frequent, high-capacity and high-quality transit service that will support regional
growth, mobility, and economic development for decades to come.
3. Assuming revenues of approximately $5 million per year from % 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.
The financial model has revenue growth in it each year, and 75% of the light rail
cost is assumed to be paid by state and federal sources. The revenue growth rate
is larger than the cost inflation growth rate for most of the model, and this allows
the increasing cash balances generated by these conditions in the model to pay
for the Orange County share of the light rail, AND to operate it into the future,
AND to pay off the bonds issued to build the project. If desired, we would be glad
to sit down with any of the Commissioners to explain how it works in detail.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/FINANCIAL
1. 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.
Analysis of travel markets conducted in the Transitional Analysis that was
completed in autumn of 2010 indicates that this question would be best
addressed after the initial line was opened and its level of success was
established. In the meantime, including commuter rail service to Hillsborough in
Page 12 of 13
21
the fiscally-constrained LRTP or in the CTP is a good way to keep this under
consideration.
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.
This is a service planning issue best addressed to Chapel Hill Transit staff. There
are already routes that link residents to shopping areas with greater frequency
than most circulator routes in much of Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
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).
Triangle Transit staff post note:
How best to serve Orange County citizens is the clear objective we are
collectively seeking. As the Commission considers all the options it is important
to remember that a rail (fixed guideway) project is primarily a transportation
infrastructure investment. If the project isn't the right fit, it will not compete well
for federal and state funding, resulting in nothing being built. Non-transportation
benefits such as environmental protection, safety and economic development are
positive corollary benefits for the rail but not the core purpose of the investment.
We believe a clear understanding of current and future travel demand markets for
Orange County and the region, together with accurate knowledge of the costs
and benefits of available options to meet the strong future growth in travel
demand will lead to support for the 25 year bus and rail investment plan proposed
for Orange County. We look forward to reviewing with you how the proposal
plans for new and improved transit options for roughly 75% or Orange County
citizens by providing connections to key employment centers, healthcare,
education and shopping throughout the county.
Page 13 of 13
AtftachmentB '
~
Triangle Regional hansitYhogram '^N
'
KDu rha000 range Counties
Six nOnidoro in Oudhomn and Orange counties vvena evaluated and the rwouUo can be GS3O in
TabieES.2. A summary of the findings fo1|ovva the table.
Conclusions
Results of the analysis indicate that Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 (from UNC Hospitals to
A|G0Qn Avenue), 5 (8n[n UNC Hospitals to Gateway) and 0 (from Gateway toAlston Avenue) are
the overall highest performers (note that Alternatives 5 and 5 are subsets of A|LS[not|xe 4).
Primary discriminators between the alternatives include nnobi|itv, snoio-economics and cost-
effectiveness, as dioouaaod here:
°
Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 have the highest daily rail trip eodmn@t8S on a per nni|m
bGSiS. with 394 and 398 n8i/ trips per rDi|8 respectively. This primarily reflects the high
employment at ONC and UNC Hoapito|a' Duke University and Duke Medical Center, and,
downtown Durham. Several Significant nniumd-Uom developments also exist or are planned
within the corridor.
�
Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 8. both of which terminate at Alston Avmnue, are the most
effective at reaching transit-dependent populations.
° The jurisdictions in the region have adopted strong policies supportive of transit-oriented
development in the p|8DDad transit Cn[[idnrS. This is o direct naSu|t of the ongoing
comprehensive planning process that incorporates the LRTP into the comprehensive plans
for the niUSS, t0VvRS. and COunUoa in the region. The analysis Of the land use plans and
policies and Zoning by Right |||uatreta that the pO1mndo| for higher densities of population,
households, and -employment is relatively strong in all of the proposed corridor alternatives. |i
then bmoonnea the issue of identifying the best performing corridors. In an effort to summarize
the economic and demographic hsctnns. n Flm|otivm Future Density/Growth (ROFG) Factor was
formulated and normalized on a per mile basis. /n this analysis, DO O /Ga[avvey to Alston
Avenue) has the highest factor of the Durham-Orange corridors. The regional oorridor. O{l 2
(Duke Medical to Downtown Raleigh) also performs vve||' but in just under DO 0 and slightly
Uettarthon DO 4 (UN[} Hospitals toAlston Avenue).
�
From a cost perspective, Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 are na|oUva|y more expensive
to build compared to other corridors ($68K8 per mile and $80yW per mile respectively). This is
because these corridors are primarily on new alignment that requires more right-of-way
acquisition and infrastructure improvements than alternative corridors that use existing
railroad right-of-way (e.g.. Durham-Orange Alternatives 1 and 2).
Although they are higher on o capital cost per mile basis than other corridors, Durham-
Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 perform better in terms of coat effectiveness due to their strong
ridership. The capital 0001 per transit trip for Durham-Orange Alternative 4 and 5 is
approximately $55 and $53 per transit trip, respectively.
Durham-Orange Alternative 4 is the combination of Durham-Orange Alternatives 5 and 0, and
hence, advancing this longer corridor o||owo for the most optima} starter !ine analysis for
submission for Federal funding.
Transitional Analysis E3'7 DRAFT
9124110
Atttachment B 23
Triangle Regional Transit Prograin ''s
Durham-Orange Alternative 2 (from Duke Medical Center to Downtown Raleigh)was average in
terms of socio-economic and strong in land-use factors, but not strong in terms of mobility and
costs. Cost-effectiveness would improve if costs could be reduced. The ridership may have
been low in part because the ridership model assumed light rail-type service rather than
commuter rail-type service, which may be more appropriate for this corridor. For this initial
study, costs assumed light rail transit, which is significantly more expensive than commuter rail,
which uses primarily existing infrastructure. If connecting the region is a high priority over
maximizing the potential for federal funds, then consideration should be given to this alternative.
However, if federal funds are achieved with the other, better performing corridors as noted
above, then full build out towards Wake Forest and Chapel Hill will occur sooner. If these
corridors fail to be competitive for federal funds, then the decision can be revisited on which
corridor to advance into preliminary engineering. The opportunity for Federal funding will
become evident relatively soon after the New Starts submittal in the fall of 2011.
Transitional Analysis ES-8 DRAFT
9/24/10
44 A !#a_4B
7, <a LL
.0 12 °
1 £ 0 4) 0 \ ( 3
l 2
�fm ,
!;k
\}\2 $ D 0 U \ \
)\! 0 @ o U £ U
\ U O £ £ 0
/
\}) U g c U 0 . / 7
f
G klE2 � 0 o o c
I )k/)
o / �f ]f
|i
� \ .
■
f } A @ @ O 0 ) ){ |
o & ! )
� f .
§ - -
*O# � o g o o o �� LU
E \\a ■ § \
R | 2
_ k |$ } ! !
i} U c U o 09
ui
2
k( U c 00 q / 1 k
) \ ;
/k o O c 0 0 c \ \ \ )
)\$ C O U g 0 \ \ \ {
!- ! _ ,
q )
�\ } \ \ \ \
,� ■m.4 ■ ! " " "
\| 2¥� )kIA \
� |) |) !\!) !\ !
#{ ) ,7lFf!!!y 7 \
;!t! ■g) ;) ;!: . % ! §2
\
Attachments
IV Pedestrian
Bridge f
Ak
.4
„
r
,
3
Cardinal -t e
Existing5 ` Deck„
Concrete
Load ing a ood
Area
Deck
New
drays
w « (TYp•)
Potential
I
Future LRT '
Extension
.
Genetic
Medicine • Ops, Center
Research
U
r.
A
s. ..5 '
LRT ,' '"'�
Alignment
Chiller
41 1
n
t
r
w�
New Access
Road to
°° Chiller Area Signalized
Proposed Intersection
New Buildings
(as per UNC End-of-Line Concrete Bus Bays for
Master Plan) Double-Sided Z Articulated Buses
Elevator and Center LRT
Staircase for Platform at
Access to
UNC (D) Pedestrian Street Level
:`.' LRT Station Bridge N
26
C14
C�
IL
N x� rn
d
w
2
a ;nzM. .... ...
r
�C
ATTACHMENT E127
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN (OCTP)
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (AA) &
LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA)
SUGGESTION: LRT or BRT in US 15-501 and
BRT in NC 54 to 1-40 Park & Ride Trafficshed Area
SEGMENT OF CORRIDOR
FIXED GUIDEWAY US 15-501 NC 54
PURPOSE (& FORDHAM) (& FORDHAM)
Traffic
V/C Ratio am peak: 1.39 V/C Ratio am peak: 1.10
V/C Ratio pm peak: 1.89 V/C Ratio pm peak: 1.31
Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis, Purpose
and Need Report Table 2-15 2035 Segments or Areas with V/C
Ratios at or over Capacity (page 2-45
Economic Development
(Property Value
Economic Development
Sales Tax Potential
Environmental Impact
Land Use Pattern in Orange
Coun
Chapel Hill/Orange County
Community Vision
Durham City/Durham
Coun!y Communit y Vision
Transit Dependent
Population "Medium-Low" -"Medium" "Low" "Medium"
Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis, Purpose
and Need Report Figure 2-3 Transit-Depended Populations
2000 (page 2-6
Financial Stability
Commuter Patterns
Countywide Regional
Transit Benefit Both the 15-501 and the 54 corridors are only accessible to
Northern and Western Orange county residents via park-and-ride
and/or bus transfer or by driving counterproductive route.
Cost
Distance
The segment from UNC Hospital to the Gateway Station is
approximately 4 miles via 15-501 and 5.1 miles via the proposed
54 alignment.
Orange County Perspective— Dark Green (Most Favorable); Green (Favorable); Yellow(Limited Benefit);
Orange (Negative Influence)
January 2012
28 ATTACHMENT E2
Purpose and Need Report
Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternative Analysis
Triangle Regional Transit Program our transit future
Revised Draft
December 9, 2010
Prepared for Triangle Transit
Prepared by URS Team
Rationale for research into 15-501 corridor as part of LPA and/or integration into 2040 LRTP
Issue A
15-501 has a higher population density existing and forecast (2005 & 2035) —figure 2-2
issue D
15-501 has a higher transit dependant population —figure 2-3
Issue C
15-501 has a higher employment density existing and forecast (2005 & 2035). [figure 2-4]
Issue D
15-501 has a higher existing acreage amount of retail. [figure 2-5]
Issue E
15-501 is within the 2035 LRTP from i-40 north to the 15-501 bypass as a "freeway conversion".
[Section 2.3.3]
Issue F
Travel Pattern-Ridership is (8,000 approximately) is similar between 15-501 and NC 54 in 2005. The
2035 travel pattern increase to 20,000 in 15-501 corridor is 14,000 in NC 54. [figure 2-121
Issue G
15-501 shows higher volume to capacity ratios in a.m. and p.m. peaks than NC54 in 2035 identifying
higher need for public transit. [figure 2-13 &2-14]
Issue H
Goal 1 15-501 achieves all three aspects of goal 1 more favorably by addressing higher traffic
congestion in Orange County and creating a shorter intra-city route.
Goal 2 15-501 shows higher transit dependent populations and more retail employment and
shopping opportunities.
Goal 3 15-501 is projected to have a higher travel pattern draw with Durham. NC 54 which also
shows a considerable travel pattern could also have a fixed guideway/busway option.
Goal 4 15-501 since it resides in Orange County provides an economic development return on
transit investment consistent with local planning policies.
Goal 5 15-501 provides a better environmental option avoiding the New Hope Creek corridor. In
addition, the rights-of-way are liberal in this corridor versus off corridor parallel routes which traverses
neighborhoods and wetlands.
Goal 6 15-501 is a shorter corridor to connect Orange County/Chapel Hill to Durham
County/Durham City thereby reducing capital costs. Operating costs per mile because of high travel
demand would be similarly cost effective.
29
ATTACHMENT F
Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report
Table 3-25 summarizes the evaluation of detailed alternatives.
'fable 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
yL Alternative
Ridership 2035 Ridership forecasts(without
interlining on BRT)*
2035 Ridership forecasts(with interlining
on BRT)
2035 System-wide transit ridership
Transportation Traffic impacts
Operations —-
Travel times `
Expansion Ability for alignment to be extended in o
Potential future i
Stakeholder Public and agency suppor'r`"
Support
Economic development potential
Environmental Property acquisitions
Impacts
Visual impacts
Wetland and stream impacts `� 4
Section 4(0 resources impacts
Air quality impacts
Construction impacts
Cost Capital costs wi
Operating costs
'Daily boardings for BRT-High and BRT-low routes without interlined buses could potentially be higher as the
model estimated the ridership assuming interlined buses. 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.I"Note agency support has not been evaluated at the time of this report. Ratings only include
public support.
The BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives clearly rate well in their ability to meet the first three project
goals. Both BRT Alternatives outperform the LRT Alternative in their ability to meet Goal 3: Improve
mobility through and within the study corridor, Goal 2: Increase transit efficiency and quality of service,
and Goal 3: improve transit connections. The end-to-end travel time for the BRT Alternatives is slightly
longer than the LRT Alternative; however, travel time does not seem to be a major differentiator with
regard to passenger preference, as ridership on the BRT-High and BRT-Low Alternatives exceeds that of
the LRT Alternative, even with a longer travel time. Additionally, while BRT-Low would result in
marginally worse traffic impacts than LRT and BRT-High,traffic impacts is also not a major differentiator
among the Build Alternatives.
Each of the three alternatives – LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low also meet 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
Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis I July 201113-45
CA .ma
W
to �
rn
V C y
Je
ED
.ge
Q
E
e
A? m 2�.
co
E
r,. 3
an
crs
as ""
LL!
CL ,4
CL
rD
T.
.a
CL
0
31
O f
+i9 °
N
I 541t�
L
"03,' '
f
103 efluea�
h`
S
! 410
,
s
W �m ;g,
Z N C m
1F W . in N L�
s
J m �° a° o c 0- ®O Z
m
U Fes- U u U
Q
32
F
uf _^ y
L €
U
m sn
t ,
oSP zi (�.
N
co
IFa—
kyx F
I '
j cl
in
tV
N ty
LL z
0 d
im J —i
33
LM
11 Ifl,t�i�'� �
Cd
.�
'^ e
t
(I c O
� � 1
LL O
Qj
r
0
CA
i3FIT�Y3, r � .
O 2� i!
to
2.
CIS
4 J
r
C � O
p ..
O
s+ -
V') E , tai 1 � x
c • o
pstoN VD � � � Z ¢
cli
o • o
~ � 4 tl
LL o�
2
��1�"d30
34
Attachment K
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
THE LOCALLY-PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) FOR
THE DURHAM-ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT CORRIDOR
February S, 2012
A motion was made by TAC Member and seconded by TAC
Member for the adoption of the following resolution, and upon
being put to a vote, was duly adopted.
WHEREAS, the Special Transit Advisory Commission (STAC)recommendations in May 2008
included rail transit extending from Raleigh to Durham to Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS,the Durham-Chapel-Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC
MPO) incorporated the STAC rail transit into the adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan
in April 2009; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly approved the Congestion Relief/Intermodal
Transport bill in August 2009 that enables local areas to fund public transportation through an
increase in sales tax, car registration fees and special district property taxes; and
WHEREAS, the Triangle Transit Authority(TTA) implemented the Triangle Regional Transit
Program in 2010 to study the financial, ridership, environmental and public input aspects of
regional bus and rail transit, and subsequently conducted a visioning process and Transitional
Analysis to study rail corridors in Durham, Orange, and Wake counties, and
WHEREAS, the TTA completed an Alternatives Analysis on the three highest-performing
corridors that included the Durham-Orange corridor in.luly 2011 and issued an Addendum to the
"Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report" in August 2011 which clarified that
reasonable alternatives to the proposed alignments crossing the Little Creek and New Hope
Creek areas will be studied; and
WHEREAS, the TTA and the DCHC MPO have both conducted comprehensive public
involvement activities,which included public workshops, public hearings and presentations to
local elected boards, for the visioning process, Transitional Analysis and Alternatives Analysis;
and
WHEREAS, light rail transit technology has a greater potential to promote economic growth
and focus transit-supportive development around station areas as compared to bus rapid transit
technology; and
WHEREAS, alignment option A3 in the UNC station area is supported by the Town of Chapel
Hill, UNC at Chapel Hill, and UNC Hospitals and would allow for future extension of the
alignment to the west to possible destinations such as downtown Chapel Hill, downtown
Carrboro and the Carolina North Campus; and
i
35
WHEREAS, both alignment options C 1 and C2 are potentially compatible with the overall
vision for the transit corridor; and
WHEREAS, the ridership, costs, environmental impacts, community impacts, and impacts on
nearby roadway traffic of alignment options C1 and C2 need to be further studied in the Scoping
and Preliminary Engineering/Draft Environmental Impact Statement(PE/DEIS)phases before a
final decision is made on which alignment should be advanced; and
WHEREAS, alignment option D3 in the South Square station area would best promote transit-
supportive economic development; and
WHEREAS,the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative does not include a
recommendation for the location of a Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility and the location
of this facility will be further studied in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative will be followed by further study
of the alignment and station locations in the Scoping and PE/DEIS phases when a final decision
is made on the remaining active options; and
WHEREAS, the substantive issues identified in public comments on the Alternatives Analysis
will be addressed in subsequent development steps such as Scoping and PE/DEIS-; and
WHEREAS there is an onizoing 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan process to collect
public input and technical information on transportation programs and projects to be
implemented maintained and operated over the next twenty-eight years in the MPO's planning
area, which can further inform the Locally Preferred Alternative as it proceeds through a
Federal Transit Administration multi-year process.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee adopts light rail transit technology
on the alignment recommended in the "Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report"
dated July 2011 with the modification that both the C 1 and C2 options be carried forward as
equal partners for further study in the Meadowmont and Hillmont station areas as the Locally
Preferred Alternative for the Durham-Orange County Corridor (as illustrated on the attached
map), and that the DCHC MPO intends to to this r n n into the fet4,,.,,.ling use public
input and technical information obtained during the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan to
further inform this LPA,provided here on this,the 8t' day of February, 2012.
Lydia E. Lavelle, TAC Chair
Durham County,North Carolina
I certify that Lydia E. Lavelle personally appeared before me this day acknowledging to me that
she signed the forgoing document.
Date: February 8, 2012
Frederick Brian Rhodes,Notary Public
My commission expires: May 10, 2015
r ` f
-J`_7
> o
1 : �
S
r-FIT
a^bUOds�y
c o
> u)
0 m
U -0
coy
n o
a- o �
n 1
J rl.
tai '{U)
t
�� C~
Ny \ a_
C
JI 1
{
ti�_ c9
4 y U e
T j p LJ
r _
N
- i 3: 2
cc
ill frL �+t ECM
ca
i N m
J
Rio
o v
a
-7
Wow
cbcn = o
LU
`g LU W c Q 1 m r
W > m c C to N r y c
C? rn a> a� a� o U — E r N c�a
Q in m m o
'� Q O 2 o a�
0v = J Q Q to U m o o c o o 2
� J W _ � Z K U F— U O co-) � —� gs E a
r� L
O II ® ' O
k