The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 04-14-2015 - 1ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 14, 2015 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit Report DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A. GoTriangle PowerPoint Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager, 919 - Presentation 245 -2300 David King, Triangle Transit General Manager, 919- 485 -7424 PURPOSE: To receive GoTriangle's report on the Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit project. BACKGROUND: The Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit project (D -O LRT) was approved by the BOCC in June 2012 as part of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan ( OCBRIP). The OCBRIP provides local and regional transit opportunities including expanded bus service and proposed light rail. Voters in November 2012 approved a one -half cent sales tax to fund the local portion of the Plan. Attachment A is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit) staff is using to provide its report. A fly- through video, designed to help visualize the D- O LRT project, will also be shown at the meeting. The video can be accessed via the following link: http: / /ourtransitfuture.com /projects / durham- orange/ GoTriangle's Presentation Covers: • Recent Project Update • What We Study for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Five Key Decisions in EIS: Reviewing the Data • Build or No Build • Little Creek Crossing x Duke /VA Station Location Choice x Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility (ROMF) Site x New Hope Creek Crossing Project Next Steps: • March -June 2015 — Local Governments & Public Review Data on Benefits / Impacts of Alternatives • April — May 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Recommended National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Preferred Alternative • September /October 2015 — Official 45 -day comment period: Local Governments and Citizens provide comments on Key Decisions and any other items related to the D -O LRT Project • Fall/Winter 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Final EIS • February 2016 — Record of Decision issued by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving the report. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the report; 2. Ask questions as appropriate; and 3. Be prepared for this item to be placed on a future agenda by Planning staff to document BOCC comments on the Key Decisions. Attachment A in M- i 4h rin ta�� Presentation Agenda - Recent Project Update • What We Study for the EIS • Five Key Decisions in EIS: Reviewing the Data Build or No Build o Little Creek Crossing x Duke /VA Station Location Choice x Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility (ROMF) Site x New Hope Creek Crossing - Ask Questions Along the Way No Action Required At This Meeting Q 1 2 Elected Official Corridor Tours 0 J Officials from Durham and Orange County Tour D -0 LRT corridor in March 5 What We Study ------------------------------- - - - - -- 0 - ---------------------------------- Transit Ridership Regional Travel Patterns • Capital & Operating Costs Noise / Vibration • Cultural & Historic Resources Public Parklands • Natural Resources Energy Use • Traffic Utilities Air Quality • Water Quality • Land Use • Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities • Visual & Aesthetic • Minority & Low - Income Population Impacts • Neighborhoods • Business & Residential Impacts • Population Served • Employment Served Construction Impacts Five Key Decisions Build or No Build Little Creek Crossing Duke /VA Station Location Choice Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility (ROMF) Site New Hope Creek Crossing 3 Select Alignment over Little Creek a 88 DakelVA Medical Centers I Duke/VA Medical Centers Duke Eye Center alternative. Trent! Flowers Drlve alternative 761 LaSalle Street" ° Buchanan - Boulevard Ninth Street Durham Sration - �Dlllard Sv I ra R Durham Alston Avenues • South Square _. 147 O 4 \ Martln Luther King jr Parkway) I Gateway- Patterson Place (2 alternatives] 0. Ill Transit R F Chapel Hill R Durham-Orange 'Medaowm tLane - ]Lekgh Village. UNC Hospiels Sj •t �Woodrn.m Mason F mra Road Hamilton Road .Friday Center Drive (3 alternatives] p I 2 Miles NORTH Map Cafe by Esri, URS Cap. end others. Copyright 2015 Tdenghhensit. Altrighis reserved. Revised Feb.20 & I C I A Alternative --/ Meadewmont Lane k R C2A a Alternative k Hamilton Road Friday Center Driver (; alternatives) Map Data: Triangle Transit. AECOM, Esri, Copyright 2015 Triangle Transit, All Rilll E 1 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) C I Alternative / Woodmant C2 Alternative IMap and others. Legend LRT stations ' Q Proposed Maiion QQ Proposed station alto mative Aerial sections of alignments 0 0.25 05 Miles I i i I Little Creek: C1 Eliminated ANOOF --------- - - - - -- - - --------- - - - - -- US Army Corps of Engineers provided a letter stating that C1A, C2, and C2A were viable alternatives but that C1 was not. USACOE would not authorize use of federal government property (game lands and a waterfowl impoundment) for C1 "given the availability of less damaging alternatives." 7 5 W Little Creek: Travel Time Minutes: Seconds 6:59 6 :03 5 :53 • C2 time 56 seconds shorter than C1A • C2A time 10 seconds shorter than C2 Little Creek: Ridership Additional Daily -- +720 +730 Boardings • Lowest ridership alternative: CIA, NHC2, Duke Eye Care Center Station with 23,560 daily riders • C2 and C2A both add over 700 daily riders compared to CIA O Little Creek: Capital Cost Additional Cost + $36.o m -- +$7.6 m ($2015 millions) • Lowest capital cost alternative: C2, NHC -LPA, either Duke /VA station at $1.522 billion • C2A adds $7.6m in capital cost i • C1A adds $36.0m in capital cost R Little Creek: Operating Cost --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional Cost ($) + $82,1oo /year + $56,goo /year + $56,goo /year • Lowest operating cost alternative: C1 (eliminated), NHC -LPA, either Duke /VA station at $16,846,000/year • C2 and C2A add $56,900 /year in operating /maintenance cost • C1A adds $82,100 /year in operating /maintenance cost 7 10 Little Creek: Public Parklands-4(f) Acres Impacted 1.6 2.1 1.0 • Section 4(f) requires consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. • Before approving a project that uses Section 4(f) property, FTA must either: (1) determine that the impacts to the property are de minimis (will not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes of property), or (2) undertake a Section 4(f) Evaluation. • C2A has least impact to Section 4(f) properties Little Creek: Natural Resources Bottomland (Acres) 1 1 1 Alluvial (Acres) 1 1 -- Mesic Mixed (Acres) 9 8 5 Maintained /Disturbed (Acres) 12 15 19 Total Biotic Resources Impacted 23 25 25 (Acres) 11 Little Creek: Water Resources Stream Impacts (Linear Feet) 434 587 519 Riparian Zone 1 Impacts (Acres) 0.3 0.4 0.3 Riparian Zone 2 Impacts (Acres) 0.2 0.2 0.3 Wetland Impact (Acres) 0.07 0.07 0.12 Pond Impacts (Acres) 0.02 0.07 0.01 loo -Year Floodplain Impacts (Acres) 0.3 0.6 0.6 • Low Impact Design techniques have kept total acreage and linear feet impacts low for project of this size Timeline for Local Gov't Participation Jan 2015 — Review Five Key Decisions March -June 2015 — Local Governments & Public Review Data on Benefits / Impacts of Alternatives • April —May 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Recommended NEPA Preferred Alternative - September /October 2015 —Official 45 -day comment period: Local Governments and Citizens provide comments on Key Decisions and any other items related to the D -0 LRT Project • Fall /Winter 2015 — GoTriangle Develops Final EIS • February 2016 — Record of Decision issued by FTA O Discussion OurTransit F U T U R E.. For more information, please check OurTransitFuture.org 12 10