Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-14-2012APPROVED 4/3/2012 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION February 14, 212 7:OOpm The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transit Work Session on Tuesday February 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Pelissier said that the invited guests are John Hodges Copple from Triangle J Council of Governments and staff from Triangle Transit, along with Mayor Kleinschmidt from the Town of Chapel Hill. She said if the %2 cent sales tax was going to be on the ballot in the fall, then some decisions need to be made very soon. This is the opportunity to cover the big picture of transit. 1_ Locallv Preferred Alternative (LPA): Overview - What's Behind Us and What's Ahead? Planning Director Craig Benedict did a summary of this item. He said that there was a very productive meeting on February 7th where the Board of County Commissioners gave direction to Commissioner Gordon, the MPO representative, about the Locally Preferred Alternative. The recommendation was for the approval of the LPA that had the end points at UNC on the south and Alston Avenue on the north with light rail transit in that corridor. This recommendation will be proceeding to Triangle Transit tomorrow. He pointed out some of the aspects from the Triangle Transit PowerPoint that explains the LPA. Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) - A technical definition of a transit project required to apply for federal funds - Describes a detailed goal; does not specify timing - Must be approved by Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) of DCHC-MPO - Part of a process required by FEDERAL law Durham and Orange County Bus 8~ Rail Plans - Specifies revenues, costs, borrowing, financial assumptions (inflation, sales tax growth) and timing of new/expanded bus and rail services to 2035 - Orange plan must be approved by Orange BOCC, DCHC-MPO TAC, and Triangle Transit Board of Trustees (Durham has completed these steps) - Part of a process required by STATE law The financial plan needs to be approved by the Board of Commissioners and the two MPOs. Even though the LPA was approved it does not mean that the County needs to approve the financial plan or put this on the ballot. If the Board does proceed with a referendum, it needs to keep up to date with the changing conditions in the financial plan that will last until 2035. Revenues should go up and costs will also go up. There are a lot of moving parts. Chair Pelissier said that her understanding is that if they do not put the sales tax on the ballot that this will be a negative for the New Start Application and Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Gordon said that she did check with the MPO today and the BRT on 15- 501 is in the long-range transportation plan for 2035. This area is in Chapel Hill and the County will need to work closely with Chapel Hill. Commissioner McKee said that because there has been mention that BRT can be pursued on the 15-501 corridors, are there figures of what the total cost would be if all the options were implemented outside of the light rail component. Craig Benedict said that there are no figures for BRT in the 15-501 corridor. In the Martin Luther King corridor, there was $19 million put aside. Chair Pelissier suggested moving on, unless there were some implications to what has already been approved. 2. Shared Benefits a. Shared Benefits Memo of 5/10/11 from John Hodges-Copple, Triangle J Council of Governments (Attachment 2) John Hodges-Copple made reference to his handout, and indicated that one part was one page and the other one was 10 pages. He said that the technical experts were trying to provide information so that local officials could decide where and what to fund. He said that local governments are trying to put money in one of three bins. In Orange County, one of those bins was the light rail investment. Another bin was MLK Parkway BRT of $19 million. The other bin was bus - everything from local routes, to regional routes, to human service agency transportation. The trick is to line these things up in Orange County and Durham County. He said that Orange County needs to sit down with Durham County and figure out how to allocate local revenues to the shared investment. He made reference to page 13 of the abstract and the "Other Benefits", which are shown below: 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) Craig Benedict reviewed~ some maps and pointed out the tax benefits of the transportation development. John Copple-Hodges said that that the increase in value does not just come from new construction, but also for existing structures. There would likely be increased sales. Frank Clifton said now that the Board has made the decision on the NC 54 route, the next decision is how to cost share with Durham County. Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the assumptions on the ridership numbers and the modeling that was done. John Copple-Hodges said that all of the modeling is based on the actual adopted 2035 plan. Chair Pelissier said that at their next meeting, there will be a presentation on the NC 54 corridor. b. Oranqe Countv Economic Development Benefits Craig Benedict said that the Orange County Finance department put together some information (hand out) on sales tax revenues for fiscal years 2006-12. The sales tax stream is very critical because it will be the source for the light rail. Orange County has to find a way to bolster sales tax opportunities. This is why the shared benefit analysis is being considered. 3. Future Development and Redeveloament Plans for 15-501 Corridor Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt made a PowerPoint presentation, which mostly consisted of maps. He pointed ouf all of the areas on the maps. He spoke about the many areas that will be redeveloped for economic development. Coordination of Land Use and Transportation Planning: Chapel Hill's Experience Chapel Hill's Long Standing integration of land use and transportation planning •1989 Comprehensive Plan •1992 Southern Small Area Plan - area now known as Southern Village. •1998 US 15-501 Major Investment Study. US 15-501/Fordham Bivd selected for bus rapid transit Light Rail not selected due to: •Cost of implementation •Impact on traffic operation of US 15-501 •Walk access to stations •Limited redevelopment potential adjacent to proposed LRT stations •2000 Comprehensive Plan •2008 Northern Area Small Area ~Plan •2008 2035 Long Range Transit Plan •2010 Ephesus Church Small Ar~a~ Plan and Traffic Analysis Proposed Framework Plan •Increased Connectivity Throughout •Create Greenspace System •Create Mixed-Use Nodes •Multi-Family Residential Development •Increased Transit Presence and Facilities •Roadway Operational Improvements •Flexibility by Quadrant •2011 NC54 Corridor Study Commissioner Gordon asked what level of investment for BRT had Chapel Hill estimated. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that they understand that funding is a challenge for any transportation plan. They have developed tools to help meet those funding needs. One of the tools is to require transit contribufions by the developer. Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County has been trying to work more closely with the town partners. She asked about the best way for the County and Chapel Hill to work together on a long-range plan regarding transportation investment. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that this is a really good opportunity to begin working together. Commissioner Jacobs asked if phase one of Hillmont was thought of as transit oriented. He said that if the County were to choose C-2, then there would be more of an emphasis on that development. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that it was adopted as a master plan in three phases. He has not had specific discussions about how to accommodate this. There is an awareness that the plan will have to accommodate the station. Commissioner Hemminger asked about the discussion regarding the Friday Center and the park and ride lot there. She asked where all of these people would park once this is redeveloped. Mayor Kleinschmidt said ~liaf there would be a dispersion of park and ride throughout the different transit stations. Commissioner McKee said that he is very concerned about moving too fast without knowing all of the implications. He asked about the projected population increases and the effects of light rail. He asked about the possibility of vertical development. Mayor Kleinschmidt agreed fhat vertical development should be discussed. Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the NC 54 Corridor and asked if there was anything specific about the plans that require light rail rather than bus rapid transit. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that they have planned for light rail for this area. These developments were designed to be used with light rail'and modified bus. Chair Pelissier asked if Chapel Hill would consider doing BRT in the 15-501 corridor versus doing it on MLK. She said that the County Commissioners have not had this discussion as a board yet and asked if it was"something they would like to consider. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that he would like to get the input of UNC officials on this, since the University is one of the most imqportant partners. 4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Liqht Rail Transit (~RT) Comparison from Trianqle Transit/Durham-Oranqe Countv Corridor Alternatives Analysis (Volume 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) Craig Benedict said that fhe content of Mayor KleinschmidYs discussion covered a lot of this item. ', Patrick McDonough from Triangle Transit made a PowerPoint presentation. Triangle Regional Transit Program Orange County Transit Plan February 14, 2012 Orange County: HOME Orange County: Population Distribution Key Point: Rural and Urban Townships Have Many Transportation Needs in Common - Many residents work at either UNC or Duke Focus: Mebane-Hilisborough-Durham Route and Route 420 Park & Ride: TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program) Report 95 "The majority of park-and ride users typically come from within 5 miles and more than 80 percent fravel less than 10 miles to their facility." Different for UNC Workers: 58% drive more than 10 miles to their Park & Ride lot Source: UNC Campus Commuting Study, 2010 It is estimated that 90-95% of Orange County lives within the Park & Ride catchment areas Durham-Orange Corridor Technology: Light Rail Transit vs Bus Rapid Transit Operating Costs: Bus vs. Rail, National Experience Economic Development, National Experience Can BRT be done cheaper than projected in AA? Speed Is Expensive. Lower cost = lower benefits. Some "BRT" projects are not at all "rapid transit" Cleveland, OH Euclid Corridor (Source: ITDP 2011) $7 million / mile; Average speed: 12.5 mph Los Angeles Metro Orange Line , $28 million / mile; Average speed: 18 mph Proposed Durham-Orange BRT-Low Alternative $47 million/ mile; Average speed: 24.5 mph Proposed Durham-Orange BRT-High Alternative $55 million / mile; Average speed: 26.7 mph (LRT = 29.6 mph) Final Observations: BRT vs. LRT LRT Costs more than BRT-High; Cost premium to Orange County plan is approximately $25 - $30 million over the life of the plan For extra investment, Orange County receives - Faster end-to-end travel times - More reliable travel times - Stronger track record of influencing land use/development - Better long-term operating cost efficiency per mile and per trip - Electric propulsion and less reliance on foreign oil - Leveraging 3.5 miles o# Orange County investment into a 17-mile system from Durham to Chapel Hill Questions / Discussion Commissioner McKee made reference to the slide on catchment areas and said that just because the park and ride is there it does not necessarily mean that people will use it, unless there is something driving it, such as high gas prices and congested traffic. He asked what kind of traffic congestion would drive people to use park and ride. Patrick McDonough said that there is a model that is based on a"misery index" of traffic congestion and convenience, ete: One of the tools they use to monitor this is a survey. Commissioner McKee said that he is very leery of spending this much money on a long- term project without having all of the factors reviewed. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that Duke is opening a new hospital next year and is not adding any parking. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board has discussed all of the issues raised about impacts on New Hope Creek. Patrick McDonough said that from Triangle Transit's perspective, they will be talking about it in the next phase of study. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like the Board of County Commissioners to discuss this as well in the next phase. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to an article in the News and Observer from the John Locke Foundation regarding public transit. He asked if anyone was going to write a response to this. David King said that Triangle Transit intends to respond. The report is 76 pages and is full of data, some of which is correct and some of which is not. Triangle Transit is working with David Cook of Wake County and CAMPO to produce a comprehensive response. He said that David Cook is going around to all municipalities to make presentations on the Wake County plan. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important to have both sides articulated equally and as close together as possible. 5. Oranqe Countv Bus and Rail Investment Plan• Financial Plan Elements Craig Benedict said that this is a product of bus and rail and other categories. There are 26,000 people that commute out of Orange County and 23,000 that come into Orange County. Orange County also has 16,000 people that commute into Durham County and about 9,000 come from Durham into Orange County. 6. Next Steps a. Passenqer Rail -~Hillsborouqh Station Chair Pelissier said that the Board had petitions from Hillsborough about a possible Hillsborough station and this needs to be addressed at the next intergovernmental meeting. b. Timeline - Other Issues Chair Pelissier made reference to the timeline from December and said that the Board said that it wanted to make a decision about putting the referendum on the ballot in March or April. She does not think that the Board is ready for this. It can still be done in May. c. Interlocal Apreements - 3 d. Referendum Deadline Chair Pelissier asked if the Board wanted to have the draft agreements in place before voting to put this on the ballot. The Board agreed by consensus to have draft agreements. Commissioner Jacobs did not have an opinion about it. Chair Pelissier asked if the Board needed more information on the bus plan. Commissioner Yuhasz said that he felt he had enough information without additional information, but he is not comfortable with this plan at this point. Commissioner Hemminger said that until the Board discusses something about the financial plan, she will not be comfortable. Commissioner Jacobs said that he felt fairly comfortable with the plan. The reason that he did not have an opinion on having a draft agreement in place is because he thinks that they can work on the general outline of an agreement, but it is optimistic to think that three agreements could be nailed down in the time necessary. He said that he would like a little more information about how the Durham City/Chapel Hill Future Municipal Agreement will work. He would like this in writing. Wib Gulley said that this line is already part of Chapel Hill. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that Chapel Hill has annexed all of the portions that it can plan for. Commissioner Foushee said that she is comfortable with her knowledge of the plan but until the Board sees what a draft interlocal or financial plan looks like, they will not be as comfortable with the plan until they know about the cost sharing of this plan. She said that the Board needs to know how the interlocal agreements are implemented and who will be responsible for what. Commissioner McKee said that he is adamantly opposed to bringing this to the public to consider a referendum for a%2-cent sales tax until many if these unknowns are discussed and worked out. Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to be very clear about the financials of the plan. She also wanted to know more about the investments in BRT. Chair Pelissier suggested that in agenda review, that a plan be developed of the public hearings and decisions. She suggested having a public hearing on both ends of the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 PM. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ~ Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board