HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-16-2017 - 3 - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-Light Rail Transit (LRT) Discussion 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 16, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-Light Rail Transit (LRT) Discussion
DEPARTMENT: County Managers Office
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
A. Durham Orange Corridor AA Study Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager,
Area (2011) 919-245-2308
B. Summary of Evaluation Results for Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer,
LRT, BRT-High, and BRT Low 919-245-2453
Alternatives (2011) Theo Letman, Transportation Director,
919-245-2007
Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections
Director, 919-245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive information regarding Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) technology, why light rail
(LRT) was chosen as a preferred technology for the Durham Orange Transit corridor, and the
differences between the Durham Orange system and the proposed Wake County system.
BACKGROUND: In 2010 and 2011 (adopted July 2011) an Alternatives Analysis (D-O AA) of
the Durham Orange Transit Corridor was conducted by URS (now AECOM) consultants as part
of the Triangle Regional Transit Program. An introductory excerpt from the 171 page study is
below. The link for this information is http://ourtransitfuture.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/2.2.2a-00401-DO-Vol-1-Detailed-Def-July-ALL-DVD-READY.pdf.
Triangle Transit has commissioned an Alternative Analysis (AA) to initiate fixed guideway
transit service between Durham and Orange counties. The AA is a component of the
Triangle Regional Transit Program, a comprehensive effort to study expanded bus and
rail networks across Wake, Orange, and Durham counties.
This report documents the analysis and findings of the Durham-Orange County Corridor
(Durham-Orange Corridor) AA process. The AA is an outgrowth of the system-level
Transitional Analysis that was completed in the fall of 2010 and that recommended the
Durham-Orange Corridor as one of the region's priority high-capacity transit corridors to
be advanced into the more detailed AA process. The AA evaluates and screens
alternative alignments, modes, and station locations within the Durham-Orange Corridor
and concludes with the selection of a recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
The AA process detailed in this report is consistent with the Federal Transit
Administration's (FTA) New Starts guidelines that enable fixed-guideway projects to be
eligible for federal funds.
2
The study area is shown as Figure 1-2 in Attachment A.
The purpose of an AA is to determine the best mode or technology (i.e. Bus Rapid Transit, Light
Rail Transit, or Commuter Rail Transit) for the corridor based on goals of the local government.
Table ES-1 entitled "Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High and BRT-Low
Alternatives" is included as Attachment B. This table provides a high level summary of the
capabilities and costs associated with the technologies that were evaluated. BRT-High
represented a dedicated lane approach while BRT-Low represented more of a mixed traffic
approach.
Although this document was created in 2011, it represents the information that was available at
that time to the policymakers involved in recommending the mode of transportation in the
corridor and the alignment. Work has continued since 2011. One significant difference between
the 2011 estimates and current estimates is that the estimated ridership on the LRT project has
increased from approximately 12,000 in the 2011 study to over 24,000 in the most recent
analysis.
Wake County has gone through an extensive transit analysis and public outreach process in
preparation for the County's 2016 transit referendum. Their alternatives analysis of a more
dispersed transit region concluded that a mix of BRT, CRT, and bus service would best serve
the needs of the County.
In this presentation, GoTriangle has been asked to provide information on why BRT was not
chosen as the appropriate technology for the Durham Orange Transit corridor and why it was
chosen for application in Wake County.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: No financial implications are related to the receipt and discussion of this
material. Ongoing financial analysis of the LRT financial model is underway by Orange County
and its Financial Advisors.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
• GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no
group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information,
discuss and offer guidance or input to GoTriangle and/or staff as necessary.
1URE 1-2 HILLSBOROUGH
ATTACHMENT A 3
DURH,t,.„i-ORANGE ! ��
CORRIDOR AA � - - - ------�— - r
STUDY AREAS 70 ' 157
501 • _t
� .11.1.
:1040 1
Lu��
= `� i 147 -
Study Area
Interstate 00 Erwin Rd.
15 -
US Route \
1 Chapel Hill St.
NC Route
Local Road ` f'
Railroad
r 751
Town of
Carrboro F DURHAM 15
N
_ Town of
Chapel Hill
_ City of Durham
Carrboro 147 `
Extraterritorial w
Jurisdiction
Chapel Hill
f ..
Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction =__-_
Attachment B
• 4
•
Triangle Regional Transit Program '%i Detailed Definition of Alternatives Technical Report
m,.[mnuxt(irt ue.com
Table ES-1 Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High, and BRT-Low Alternatives
Evaluation Criteria
Goals (Corresponding LRT BRT-High BRT-Low
Re•ort Section
Goal 1:Improve mobility BRT route:5,700** BRT route:4,600**
through and within the Ridership: Daily Project Interlined Buses: Interlined Buses:
study corridor. Boardings(Section 12,000
Goal 2:Increase transit 3.2.1) 11,900 11,700
efficiency and quality of Total: 17,600 Total: 16,300
service. Ridership:System-wide
Goal 3:Improve transit Trips***(Section 3.2.1) 140,500-141,600 142,800 141,100
connections.
Transportation
Operations:Traffic Low Low Moderate
Impacts(Section 3.2.2)
Transportation
Operations:Travel Time 35 minutes 39 minutes 44 minutes
(Section 3.2.2)
No engineering Could be Could be inconsistent
Expansion Potential constraints& inconsistent with with regional
(Section 3.2.3) consistent with regional connectivity connectivity goals
regional plans goals
Goal 4:Support local and
regional economic Demonstrated ability Unproven ability to
development and planned Economic Development to influence influence Unproven ability to
growth management Potential (Section 3.2.5) development development influence development
initiatives
Goal 5:Foster Moderate property Moderate property High property
environmental stewardship acquisitions,high acquisitions,visual acquisitions,low visual
Environmental Impacts visual impacts, impacts, impacts,low
moderate stream/wetland& stream/wetland
(Section 3.2.6) stream/wetland& construction impacts, impacts,moderate
construction impacts, low air quality construction&low air
no air quality impacts impacts quality impacts
Goal 6:Provide a cost- Estimated Cost(2011 $)
$1.37B $960M $810M
effective transit —Capital (Section 3.2.7)
investment. Estimated Cost(2011 $)
—O&M Cost(based on
offered peak hour 800 pax/hr:$14M 800 pax/hr:$11M 800 pax/hr:$11M
capacity of 800 and 1500 pax/hr:$15M 1500 pax/hr:$13M 1500 pax/hr:$13M
1500 pax/hr-Section
3.2.7)
*Evaluation criteria include references to sections of the report where more information can be found. / **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. Interlining refers to the ability of local bus routes to use of the
guideway in addition to the exclusive BRT service. 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 / ***System-wide trips
refer to total transit trips in the three county Triangle Region(Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties).
Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis I July 2011 I ES-3