Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-14-2012 - AgendaORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AGENDA BOCC Public Transportation Work Session February 14, 2012 Meeting - 7:00 p.m. Southern Human Services Center Chapel Hill, NC 7:00 - 7:20 p.m. 1 • Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): Overview What's Behind Us and What's Ahead? (TTA Staff Summary, Excerpts from TTA PowerPoint of 2/7/12, pages 3, 6, 7, & 8) 7:20 - 7:50 p.m. 2, Shared Benefits a. Shared Benefits Memo of 5/11/11 from John Hodges-Copple, Triangle J Council of Governments (Attachment 2) b. Orange County Economic Development Benefits (Orange County, Frank Clifton and Craig Benedict) 7:50 - 8:10 p.m. 3. Future Development and Redevelopment Plans for 15-501 Corridor (Town of Chapel Hill, JB Culpepper or David Bonk) (Material to be presented at the meeting) 8:10 - 8:30 p.m. 4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Comparison from Triangle Transit/Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis (I~olume One: Detailed of Definitions of Alternative Technical Report, July 2011 page 3 -45 Table 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation and page 2- 42 & 2-45 Table 2-15, 2035 Segments or Areas with V/C Ratios at or over Capacity) (Introduction of Item: Orange County, Craig Benedict; TTA Staff Explanations) 8:30 - 8:50 p.m. 5. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan: Financial Plan Elements (Orange County, Craig Benedict) 8:50 - 9:00 p.m. 6. Next Steps a. Passenger Rail -Hillsborough Station b. Timeline -Other Issues c. Interlocal Agreements - 3 d. Referendum Deadline Today's Focus: LPA 2035 Triangle Regional Transit Program our transit future :........... a ... p r ........:. , :..:......... ►L law y ��.lS $c Ralf :Plans fists, borrowing, financial assumptions (inflation, [ 1iming`of new /expanded bus-and rail services to Orange :plan must be,approved by Orange BOCC, DCHC -MPO TAC, and Triang -le Transit Board of Trustees (Durham has completed these steps) Part of a process required by STATE law Excel from Triangle Transil'PowerPoinTPresentafion of BOCC Meeting 217112 3 N N O U V 0 Cn X 0 Z What LPA Does /Does Not Mean I 0 Triangle Regional Transit Program 40 6P our transit future ",-MEANS: t JR�I confirmed as prfrred ec O. for gnment i. i K t canno -be pursued in other 0 j such as A . corridors; such as:WLK: or :1 -5- 501/Fordham Blvd ■ :0�0,�..'­.... I *county, Chapel Hill or Triangle Transit are range:�� � -o Prevented from. applying for transit funds in other corridors 0 w 0 0C CL _0 Cn C 0 0 01 gran ge County Oversight -�;p Triangle Regional Transit Program Opportunities our transit ftiture �t� Pion C �dur WWVV',0UR rats the Funding W rG n mental scoping begins, to: P �a 1I . 0. t �$CIS f�c R, 1.16igs mtn.nf:PIqn A N S I IrIF U T U R E. C OMI Excerpt from Triangle Transit PowerPoint Presentation of BOCC Meeting 2/7/12 7 77 (1) 4-0 X (1) ZI Orange County Oversight Opportunities Triangle Regional Transit Program f our transit future iew re q u e n cy to revise T N x N z Attachment 2 Shared Benefits Examining Light Rail Transit Investments Near the Durham-Orange County Line May 10, 2011 Goal Provide elected officials with objective information about Light Rail Transit (LRT) investment benefits and costs to inform discussions on how to pay for both bus and rail investments with any locally-controlled sales tax and vehicle fee revenues. Settin The planned Light Rail Transit investment would closely parallel the Durham-Orange County line as it approaches Chapel Hill's Gateway station from the east near I-40 and US 15-501 until it heads west-ward toward UNC-Chapel Hill from the Friday Center station along NC54. Half-mile "walk access zones" at the Gateway Station, Meadowmont or Hillmont Stations (which lie along alternative alignments) and the Friday Center would all be partly in both counties. Discussion Framework A Light Rail Transit (LRT) or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) investment along the 17-mile corridor in the Triangle Transit Alternatives Analysis would provide benefits to citizens and enterprises in both Durham and Orange Counties, especially since the most intense and transit-supportive activities are located at both ends of the line: UNC-Chapel Hill on the west and Downtown Durham and Duke University on the east. These benefits are expected to overlap most significantly in the "area of greatest mutual benefit" along the Durham-Orange County line described above. Discussions among decision-makers about the investments have centered around three elements: the different types of new revenues that might be available and their sources by location; the costs of the investment, and how these costs relate to the amount of bus service that could be provided in each county, and the benefits of the investments, and the degree to which these benefits can be attributed to citizens and enterprises in each county. New Revenues Revenues for an LRT or BRT investment could come from several new revenue sources (in addition to the existing Triangle Transit rental car tax, which will also supply funding): 1. Federal "new starts" $: 45 or 50%federal share assumed; federal $ required in finance model 2. State "intermodal bill" $: 25% state share assumed; state $ required in finance model 3. Local %: cent sales tax: included in finance model 4. Local $7 vehicle fee increase: included in finance model 5. Triangle Transit $3 increase in vehicle fee: included in finance model 6. Local government value capture: potential source; not currently in finance model 7. Institutional contributions: potential source; not currently in finance model 8. Parking deck or lot charges: potential source; not currently in finance model 9. Rider fares: included in finance model Page I 1 The proposed Durham-Orange LRT line is 17 miles long and would serve 17 stations. The map at left shows the area of greatest mutual benefit near the Durham-Orange County line between the Patterson Place station and Friday Center station, a distance of 5.3 miles or about 30% of the total line. Station-to-station distances are: Feet Miles Patterson Place -Gateway 5,400 1.0 Gateway -Leigh Village 10,700 2.0 Leigh Village - Meadowmont 9,800 1.9 Leigh Village - Hillmont 8,800 1.7 Meadowmont - Friday Center 2,100 0.4 Hillmont- Friday Center 3,000 0.6 Patterson Place - Friday Center via Hillmont 27,900 5.3 Patterson Place - Friday Center via Meadowmont 28,000 5.3 The map shows the Durham- Orange County line, the eventual Durham City-Chapel Hill municipal boundary, the two alternative LRT alignments (one via a Meadowmont station and the other via a Hillmont station), station locations, protected greenspace and major roadways in the area. Revenues in the financial model are summarized on page 3; for more detail on the financial model, contact Patrick McDonough with Triangle Transit at pmcdonouahC~trianaletransit.ors. Page 12 Figure 1. Area of Greatest Mutual Benefit Table 1. Revenue Assumptions and Amounts in the Financial Model ($2011) Revenue Source Durham County Orange County Federal funding 50% Capital 50% Capital State funding 25% Capital 25% Capital Local % cent sales tax $490 million $ 130 million Local $7 vehicle fee $34 million $18 million Triangle Transit $3 vehicle fee $15 million $8 million Local government value capture $0 $0 Institutional contributions $0 $0 Parking deck/lot revenues $0 $0 Rider fares $51 million $11 million Triangle Transit rental car tax $28 million $14 million Light Rail Transit Costs The table below summarizes the capital costs in Year 2011 dollars associated with the stations and fixed guideway segments between the indicated stations. Table 2. LRT Capital Costs (in millions of 2011 dollars) Patterson Place -Gateway Segment $ 80 Park & Ride spaces/ bus parking bays: Gateway Station $ 5 500 / 7 Gateway -Leigh Village Segment $ 95 -- Leigh Village Station (includes $15 million parking deck) $ 22 1,000 / 7 Leigh Village -Hillmont Segment $118 -- Hillmont Station $ 3 <200 / 0 Hillmont -Friday Center Segment $ 24 -- Leigh Village -Meadowmont Segment $108 -- Meadowmont Station $ 2 0 / 0 Meadowmont -Friday Center Segment $ 27 -- Friday Center Station $ 2 / $ 13 0 / 0 Friday Center-Hamilton Segment $ 30 / $ 68 -- Alston Avenue -Patterson Place (including stations) $647 1,300 to 1,600; bus Hamilton - UNC Hospital (including stations & tail track) $183 parking bays vary Total capital cost via Meadowmont (via South Square East) $ 1,410* -- Total capital cost via Hillmont (via South Square East) $ 1,380* -- Items in RED denote costs for Hillmont route. Items in BLUE denote costs for Meadowmont route * includes $171 million for maintenance yard and shop not attributed to any particular segment. Benefits This document focuses on the third element of the discussion: the benefits that would accrue to citizens and enterprises, and especially the most direct and quantifiable benefits that can be linked to specific locations along the corridor. Page 13 Benefits Framework The most important framing issue is that the entire investment will provide benefits to both Durham and Oranee County residents and enterprises includine businesses and universities. Assigning benefits to particular places will always involve simplifications, and will depend at least in part on assumptions that are used. This document is designed to provide a common foundation of objective information, while acknowledging simplifications and making assumptions transparent, so that changes or alternatives can be considered and all parties to the discussions have access to the same information. It is also important to view forecasts of ridership, property value impacts and other modeling-dependent measures as approximations. Benefits A wide range of benefits could result from an LRT investment, only some of which are quantifiable and only some of which can be reasonably attributed to residents and enterprises based on their location. A full range of potential benefits is listed at the end of this document. This document focuses on three specific benefits: Ridership on the light rail system, property value (and tax) benefits from the investment and congestion relief or delayed need for road investments based on the investment. Ridership on the LRT Each trip has 2 trip ends: the place (traffic analysis zone, or TAZ) where the trip begins and the place (TAZ) where the trip ends. To better understand who uses different segments of the investment, the accompanying chart and table show th 100 90% Figure 2. Trip 80% ends by location 70% 60% 50% ^ Other Counties 40% ^ Durham County 30% ^ Orange County 20% 10% 0% Gateway - Leigh Village - Leigh Village - Patterson Place Gateway Hillmont e distribution of trip ends (either beginning or end) for the following rail segments in the vicinity of the Durham County-Orange County line. Table 3. Trip Ends by Light Rail System Segment (eachtrip has 2 trip-ends) Gateway - Patterson Place Leigh Village - Gateway Leigh Village - Hillmont UNC-CH zones 1,110 (9%) 1,120 (12%) 2,040 (20%) Other Orange County zones 3,390 (28%) 2,480 (26%) 2,610 (26%) Duke University zones 1,625 (13%) 1,095 (11%) 890 (9%) Other Durham County zones 5,300 (44%) 4,170 (43%) 3,495 (34%) Zones outside of Durham and Orange Counties 645 (5%) 755 (8%) 1,135 (11%) Total trip ends (trips = %: this number): 12,070 9,620 10,170 Page 14 KEY POINTS: 1. Ridership numbers indicate that the Gateway station serves as an important boarding station for Orange County residents destined for Duke University and other Durham locations, while the Leigh Village station serves as an important boarding station for trips destined to UNC- Chapel Hill. 2. All of these segments (and likely many others) clearly benefit both counties, with the mutual benefit most pronounced on the Leigh Village - Hillmont segment, where 46% of trip ends are associated with Orange County locations, 43% are associated with Durham County locations and 11% are associated with Chatham and Wake County locations. IMPORTANT CAVEATS: 1. Ridership is for the Year 2035 and comes from the Regional Transportation Model version being used by Triangle Transit for the alternatives analysis process, known as Version 4e2. It is a modified version of the model used to develop the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, and differs from version 5 which will be used for the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. All modeling results, especially those for small segments of the transportation system, should be viewed as approximations. 2. The land use analysis of the on-going NC 54 Study suggests that more development can occur in the area examined in this analysis than is in Version 4e2 of the model. If so, it might influence the distribution of trip ends. 3. Significant future changes to parking costs and constraints at UNC-Chapel Hill compared to those assumed in the transportation model could affect ridership forecasts. More constrained parking at Duke University could also influence mode choices for residents in the study area who travel to Duke. 4. In considering benefits (including ridership) and the other components of transit investments: bus-hours of service, revenues and costs, metrics can be viewed in several ways, including in aggregate or on aper-capita basis. Currently, Durham County has almost exactly double the population of Orange County (267,587 vs. 133,801 according to the 2010 Census). According to the state demographer, by 2030 Orange County is projected to have 42% of the population of Durham County. Page 15 Property Value and Property Tax Increases in property value (and resultant property tax revenues) associated with LRT investments have been well-documented. These increases are made up of two components: 1. Additional amounts and types of development that can occur because of the transit investment. More intense development may be both marketable and able to secure local government approval because of the greater access and mobility provided by the investment. 2. Greater ver-unit value for any given type and amount of development because of the mobility and access benefits associated with the LRT investment. Several studies of LRT investments have found per-unit value premiums for properties closest to LRT stations, including single family home and condominium sales prices, apartment rental rate, office real estate value and retail real estate value. The nature of these premiums vary widely among the studies. The Gateway, Leigh Village, Meadowmont and Hillmont stations were examined to identify the potential for transit-oriented development in each jurisdiction, based on the amount of land with- in ahalf-mile radius of a station location and the amount of this station area in protected green- spaceand land less likely to develop or redevelop because of its current use (for example, existing single family residential homes). These station areas are mapped and described on the next page. KEY POINTS: 1. Property value and tax revenue benefits from station area development would accrue to: a. Gateway Station: Chapel Hill, Orange County and Durham County. b. Leigh Village Station: Durham City and Durham County c. Hillmont Station: Chapel Hill and Durham County d. Meadowmont Station: Durham County, Orange County, Chapel Hill 2. In Orange County, virtually all new station area development is anticipated to be nonresidential; in Durham County, it is anticipated to be a mix of residential and nonresidential development. 3. Although Chapel Hill and Durham City would accrue benefits, the current financial model does not assume any value capture or contributions from municipalities. 4. UNC-Chapel Hill could also see a "redevelopment" benefit if the Friday Center park-ride lot is displaced by park-ride facilities associated with the Leigh Village Center or other locations. IMPORTANT CAVEATS: 1. Exact station locations, and more precisely the locations of pedestrian entrances to the stations, will affect the station walk zones and implied property value benefits associated with easy access. 2. Where stations are close together, pedestrian access zones overlap, and benefits would be divided among stations depending on ease of access. 3. Parcels "less likely to develop" were identified using the parcels and methods of the NC54 corridor study, focusing on the physical characteristics of land. Actual development and redevelopment potential involves a more complex set of issues, especially where large insti- tutional parcels are involved; for example on UNC property or at the Blue Cross Blue Shield site. Page 16 The map to the left shows the %:-mile radius around the Gateway, Leigh Village, Meadowmont and Hillmont Stations, how these station areas align with current county boundaries and planned municipal boundaries, and the amount of land in each station area that is in protected green space (green) or land less likely to redevelop (grey). The areas shown in white have the highest development potential. The table on the next page summarizes the amount of land most likely to develop or redevelop in each station area by county, dividing the Durham County portion between parcels on the west side of I-40 (accessible to LRT stations) and the east side of I-40 (not accessible unless high quality pedestrian overpasses are built). Each %: mile radius circle contains 503 total acres. Figure 3. Station area development potential (areas in ~ that are not streets have the highest potential for development or redevelopment based on physical characteristics) Page 17 Table 4. Station Area land with highest development or redevelopment potential (acreage) Station Orange County Durham County west of I-40 Durham County east of I-40 Total Amount of land in '/: mile radius circle Gateway 48 63 54 165 503 acres Leigh Village 0 214 27 241 503 acres Meadowmont 43 76 0 119 503 acres Hillmont 0 130 0 130 503 acres A comparison of assessed property values in Meadowmont to assessed values for an existing single family residential area north of Meadowmont suggests that land developed as a walkable, mixed- use development on the scale of Meadowmont would yield almost three times more property value and property tax revenue on a per-acre basis than land developed as suburban housing. Congestion Relief People traveling by car could receive benefits from the LRT if it results in fewer cars on area roads. Selected highway links on NC54 and US 15-501 were analyzed to show trip ends associated with the same 5 areas as the LRT ridership analysis: UNC-Chapel Hill, other Orange County zones, Duke University, other Durham zones and zones outside of Orange and Durham counties. Table 5 shows roadway users who might benefit due to people using the LRT investment. The version of the travel demand model used in this analysis (the one used for the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan) did not show discernable impacts on roadway congestion from building the LRT. Table 5. Trip Ends by Roadway Segment US 15-501-West of I-40 NC 54 - W of Farrington Rd (each trip has 2trip-ends): Number % Number UNC-CH zones 7,690 6% 27,635 17% Otherzones in Orange County 52,294 39% 40,311 24% Duke University zones 4,684 3% 533 0•~ Otherzones in Durham County 50,398 37% 62,737 38% Zones outside of Durham and Orange Counties 19,446 14% 34,478 21% Total trip ends (trips = % this number): 134,513 100• 165,694 100% KEY POINTS: 1. Like transit riders, roadway users are widely distributed among the two counties; significant percentages also come from Chatham and Wake Counties, especially along NC54. 2. The traffic modeling results did not show any discernable congestion differences between building the LRT and the "no-build" alternative, so benefits to road users may be slight. IMPORTANT CAVEATS: 1. Results are for the Year 2035 and come from the Regional Transportation Model version used to develop the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, known as v4. Results, especially those for small segments of the transportation system, should be viewed as approximations. Page 18 Other Benefits This report focused on three benefits -LRT ridership, property value and tax revenues, and conges- tion relief on parallel roadways -that are both quantifiable and "place-based," meaning the benefits can be more readily tied to particular locations. The list below shows a full range of benefits that have been attributed to Light Rail Transit Investments, including ones difficult to quantify or ascribe to specific locations. Note that development associated with an LRT investment is unlikely to result in additional sales tax revenues, although it may affect where people make some purchases. Table 6. Benefits of Rail Transit Investments Environmental Benefits • Reduced traffic congestion • Reduced fuel consumption • Better air quality • Reduced sprawl and more efficient pattern of development at the regional scale • Conservation of open space • Shorter trip lengths due to more compact development Economic and Fiscal Benefits • Reduced or deferred road and parking facility costs • Economic development benefits from agglomeration efficiencies and increased productivity • Increased property values • Increased property tax revenues • Ability to reuse/redevelop property currently used for parking (e.g. Friday Center lot) Social. Benefits • Improved social cohesion through positive interactions among people in.a community • Improved fitness and health as a result of increased walking and biking to access transit • Reduced traffic accidents • Improved transportation options, particularly for non-drivers • Reduced consumer transportation costs • Improved access to job opportunities for workers, increased labor market shed for employers; improved ability to retain workers concerned with transportation costs and reliability • Neighborhood revitalization and better links between workforce housing and job sites • Expanded market access for customers and clients (e.g. to UNC clinics) Note: List generated from discussion among Chapel Hill, Orange County, Durham City, Triangle Transit and Triangle J COG staff at a meeting on March 25, 2011 and from the following reports: Fogarty, Nadine et al. Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, November 2008; Cervero, Robert et al. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, Report 102, Transit Cooperative Research Program, 2004; Litman, Todd, Comprehensive Evaluation of Rail Transit Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, June 2006. Page 19 Additional Technical Materials The following technical materials are available to provide more detail relative to the area of greatest mutual benefit and the analysis of LRT ridership, property value and tax revenue, roadway congestion, LRT system costs and revenue assumptions for transit investment scenarios: 1. Shared benefit area mapping. Large-format map showing parcel level detail of the area overlaid on aerial photos. Information shown includes parcel boundaries, road rights-of-way, county line, future municipal boundary, protected green space, LRT alignment alternatives, approximate station locations, % mile radius around station locations. (contact: John Hodges- Copple at Triangle J COG) 2. Developable and Redevelopable Land. Large format map and accompanying excel spreadsheet showing acreage of protected land, land unlikely to further develop or redevelop and land with the highest potential for development and redevelopment, by county and relationship to I-40. Mapping shows the same layers as in #1 above and is overlaid on aerial photos. (contact: John Hodges-Copple at Triangle J COG) 3. Mixed use vs. Sinele Family value. Large format map and accompanying excel spreadsheet showing the comparison areas used to compare the value of mixed use (Meadowmont) vs. single family housing, and the resulting valuations for the comparison areas and on a per-acre basis. (contact: John Hodges-Copple at Triangle J COG) 4. Cost estimates by segment and station for the LRT investment alternatives. (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit) 5. Cost estimates by service tvpe for bus investment priorities by county. (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit) 6. Revenue estimates and assumptions by county that can be applied to rail and bus investments. (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit) 7. Revenue and cost estimates and assumptions by county for a range of rail and bus investment scenarios. (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit) 8. LRT Ridership. Excel spreadsheet of link ridership in production and attraction format for segments in the area of greatest mutual benefit, summarized for trip ends by 5 aggregations of Traffic Analysis Zones (UNC-Chapel Hill TAZs, other TAZs in Orange County, Duke University TAZs, other TAZs in Durham County, TAZs in Chatham and Wake Counties). (contact Patrick McDonough at Triangle Transit) 9. Roadway travel and coneestion. Excel spreadsheet of trips on selected highway links, showing trip ends for the same 5 aggregated areas as in #8 above for both an alternative with the LRT investment and a "no-build" investment. Also includes volume/capacity ratios for the segments. (contact Yanping Zhang with the DCHC MPO). 10. NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study reports. Reports include land use recommendations around Leigh Village, Hillmont and Meadowmont. (contact Leta Huntsinger at DCHC MPO) Page 110 Tiian{~IeRPgianat (' I -.';~.,:,: ,:~,°~ Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report Table 3-25 summarizes the evaluation of detailed alternatives. Table 3-25 Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation. Ridership 2035 Ridership forecasts (without interlining on BRT)* . O 2035 Ridership forecasts (with interlining on BRT) Q ~ i 2035 System-wide transit ridership Transportation O erations Traffic impacts ~ ~ Q p Travel times ~ e . ~ Q Expansion Potential Ability for alignment to be extended in future ~ k ~ ~ ~ Q Stakeholder S t Public and agency support** ~ Q Q uppor Economic development potential- ~~ _ (~ Environmental I ct property acquisitions Q Q ('~ mpa s Visual impacts ~ Q Wetland and stream impacts Ci Section 4(f) resources impacts Q 0 Q Air quality impacts ~ Q Construction impacts Q Q Q Cost Capital costs (J Operating costs Q *nnfly hoardings for RaT--High and eRT Low routes without inte rlined buses could aotentially be Maher os 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. ~ ""Note agency support has not been evaluated at the time of this report. Ratings only include publicsupport. 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 Akernative 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. 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 Goai 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 ©urham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives .Analysis ! ~uiy 2011 13-45 -- :-:~ Trlanglo Regional Tir!nsrl 19cNparrr ..~%.' nor trwrsir (glory 2.5. Levels of Congestion Purpose & Need i?eporf This section describes traffic operations along the major roadways in the Durham-Orange Corridor. The purpose of this section is to review the measures of effectiveness that indicate the quality of traffic operations and to present the results of the analysis. Major roadways analyzed Include NC 54, US iS-501, NC 147 (the Durham Freeway), and Erwin Road. US 15-501 from NC 86 to the US 15 501/US 15 501 Business split southwest of Durham is classified as an '•. expressway with at-grade signalized and unsignalized intersections. US 15-501 from the ~'~US 15 501/US.35 501 Business split to N~ 147.. is classified as a freeway, with access provided onto and off~of US:15~501 only at interchange. NC 54, from US 15-501 (Fordham Boulevard) to I-40, is classified ._ as an art'erial_with at-grade signaliaed-and ~unsignalixed intersections. NC 147 is classified as a freeway with access provided onto and off of NC 147 only at interchanges. Erwin Road is classified as an arterial with at-grade signalized and unsignalized intersections. 2.5.1. Volume to Capacity Ratios Volume to capacity (V/C) ratios were obtained from the Triangle `=~= "- Regiona~Model In order to understand traffic operations for the major The=volume to<ea~a,~tK~ . . ratio (V/C) is a ratio of roadways within the Durham-Orange Corridor. V/C ratios were roadway demand {volum~N reviewed for the base year {2005) and the future year (2035) in both of traffic} o roadway -- the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours. The segmen#s supply (traffic carrying ~, considered "under capacity" exhibit a V/C ratio less than 0.9. The capacityaftheroadway) segments considered "at capacity" exhibit a V/C ratio between 0.9 and that is used fiA "thustrate 1.1. The segments considered "over capacity" exhibit a V/C ratio ;the level of congestion on greater than or equal to 1.1. a giveh roadway segment; ~. As summarized in Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14, many roadway __. segments that serve the primary travel markets within the Durham- Orange Corridor would be operating at or over capacity in either the AM and/or PM peak periods by 2035. In addition to these segments projected to be congested in the peak hours, other segments could experience the effects of that congestion as queues on congested road segments extend upstream into segments that are not projected to be congested themselves. .. F i.., '_ - ~ _.' Z._ ~ ~. ~ ~:...f.. ....~. Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis ~ December 2010 ~ 2`.42 DRAFT TiffanyleRegiauall~„~~~;:rr.,ap.rr; i,'~ Purpose & Need Report Table 2-15 2035 Segments or Areas with V/C Ratios at or over Capacity • From NC 86 to NC 54 1.12 1.16 From NC 54 to I-40 s US 15-501 US 15-501 interchange with US 15-501 1.59 1.44 Business US 15-501 interchange with NC 147 0.91 1.23 Durham Freewa NC 54 From US 15-501 to I-40 _ `r ~ :5 +t East of NC 54 0.83 1.02 I-40 West of US 15-501 0.72 0.93 NC 147 (Durham 0.79 1.15 Freewa East of US 15-501 From US 15-501 (in Chapel Hill) to near 0.68 1.34 South LaSalle St West of Duke 0.86 1.03 Erwin Rd University From Fulton St to West Main St 1.22 1.29 Source: Triangle Regional Model l Data presented in the table is based on the latest version of the Triangle Regional Model available at the time of publication (v4). The enhanced version (V4e) will be used for ridership estimates and may result in changes to the data in the above table. Roadways with high levels of congestion that serve the travel patterns previously identified within the corridor represent the greatest opportunity for travel time savings using fixed-guideway transit. 2.5.2. Vehicle Mites Travailed and Vehicle Haurs Traveled Daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and daily vehicle hours traveled (VHT) are additional measures used to analyze congested conditions for roadways and how those conditions change over time. VMT and VHT were derived from the Triangle Regional Model for the Triangle Region (combined CAMPO and DCHC-MPO Subregions), the DCHC-MPO Subregion, and for the Study Area, and are shown in Table 2-16 and Table 2-17. Dufiam-Orar-ge County Corridor Alternatives Analysis I Decfrnber 2010 12-?iJi DRAFT