Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 27, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Consideration of the Final Draft Durham — Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office and County Attorney's Office ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Final Draft Cost Share Agreement Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, B. Financial Analysis of Final Draft Cost Split 919-245-2308 C. April 25, 2017 Memo from GoTriangle — Financial John Roberts, County Attorney, 919-245- Model Changes 2318 D. April 25, 2017 Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan E. April 25, 2017 Letter from GoTriangle — Implementation Agreement Renegotiation PURPOSE: To consider the final draft of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and the final draft of the Orange County Transit Plan. The Durham County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved the Cost Sharing Agreement and the Durham County Transit Plan on April 24, 2017. BACKGROUND: On April 20, 2017 the Board of Commissioners participated in a work session to discuss the Draft Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and the Draft Orange County Transit Plan. Based on feedback received during that meeting, final draft documents were prepared for the Board's consideration. Cost Share Agreement The Final Draft Cost Share Agreement (Attachment A) specifies the amount of funding each County will contribute to the project. Paragraph #7 specifies Orange County's share of the project that is eligible for federal reimbursement at $149.5 million. This is consistent with financial Scenario EE-10 which distributes eighty-one and one half percent (81.5%) of the capital cost of the light rail project to Durham County, sixteen and one half percent (16.5%) to Orange County, and two percent (2%) to outside funding. This outside revenue is used to offset Orange County's contribution to the project. For operating costs, it distributes eighty percent (80%) to Durham County and twenty percent (20%) of the operating cost to Orange County through 2036 and eighty-one percent (81%) to Durham County and nineteen percent (19%) of the operating cost to Orange County through the end of the debt repayment. The Cost Share Agreement has been modified to codify the cost shares described above. The final agreement also reorders paragraphs eight through twelve for readability. Finally, the final 2 draft removes the provisions that would allow an individual County Board of Commissioners to withdraw from the agreement. As an alternative, the Agreement adds a new paragraph fifteen (15) which describes a mediation and arbitration process to settle disputes that cannot be resolved voluntarily. Financial Analysis Based on the final cost share agreement, Davenport & Company has updated its financial analysis to represent the precise provisions of Scenario EE10-3 (Attachment B). The attached memo from Go Triangle (Attachment C) details the changes in this version of the financial model. This version adds the cost of an administrative position to administer the Transit Plans, the cost of a short range Bus Planning Study for Orange Public Transportation (OPT) and GoTriangle for services in Orange County, and corrects the amount for Bus Operations and Maintenance to reflect actual service increases next year. As a result of these changes, the minimum cash balance during construction is $3.77 million in 2019, and the minimum cash balance after construction is $15.39 million in 2030. Transit Plan The Final Draft Transit Plan (Attachment D) has been updated to include the final cost share percentages for the light rail project as well as a summary of assumptions in the financial plan (page 45). The Transit Plan was also updated to explicitly include an administrative position to administer the Transit Plans. Interlocal Implementation Agreement The allocation of funding for expansion bus service is governed by an Interlocal Implementation Agreement between Orange County, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Go Triangle. The original Agreement was approved in October of 2012 and specified a funding formula for new bus services. The formula allocates sixty-four percent (64%) of expansion funding to Chapel Hill Transit, twenty-four percent (24%) to Go Triangle for regional bus services provided in Orange County, and twelve percent (12%) to Orange Public Transportation. Several changes have occurred since the original Interlocal Agreement was adopted, and the Board discussed the possibility of renegotiating the provisions of the Implementation Agreement. GoTriangle has provided a letter to the Board of Commissioners expressing its intent to participate in those negotiations (Attachment E). The timeline for the discussions would include an initial meeting prior June 30, 2017 and completion of negotiations before November 2017. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Final Draft Cost Share Agreement allocates $149.5 million in Orange County transit taxes and fees to the capital cost of the light rail project. The total amount of transit taxes and fees allocated by the Transit Plan through 2062 is $981.7 million. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this agenda item: Public Transportation provides opportunity for access to jobs and services to many individuals. • GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND INEQUITY 3 The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color; religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status. • 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. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board consider and act on the Durham-Orange Light Rail Cost Share Agreement (Attachment A) and the Orange County Transit Plan (Attachment D). 4 ATTACHMENT A ORANGE COUNTY, DURHAM COUNTY, AND RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING FOR THE DURHAM-ORANGE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT This Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project (Agreement) dated April , 2017, is entered into by and between Orange County (Orange), a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, Durham County (Durham), a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina, and Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority d/b/a GoTriangle (GoTriangle), a regional public transportation authority. As used in this Agreement, Orange, Durham, and GoTriangle may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." This Agreement is made pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) and N.C.G.S. § 105-508.1. RECITALS: WHEREAS, all Parties desire to provide for the future transportation needs of Durham and Orange, understanding that enhanced mobility options will support a high quality of life, strengthen economic development, and promote sustainability; and WHEREAS, the Durham County Board of County Commissioners approved the first Durham County Bus and Rail Investment Plan on June 27, 2011 (Durham BRIP); and WHEREAS, Orange, Durham, and GoTriangle entered into the original Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for the D-O LRT Project on May 15, 2012 (2012 Cost Sharing Agreement); and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners approved the first Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County on October 2, 2012 (Orange BRIP); and WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) approved the Durham BRIP on June 22, 2011, and the Orange BRIP on October 10, 2012 (Orange BRIP and Durham BRIP collectively, County BRIPs); and WHEREAS, the GoTriangle Board of Trustees (GoTriangle Board) approved the Durham BRIP on June 22, 2011, and approved the Orange BRIP on June 27, 2012; and WHEREAS, the D-O LRT Project was included in both County BRIPs as a major capital investment; and WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the D-O LRT Project on February 11, 2016, and an Amended ROD on December 14, 2016; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the FTA approvals, the D-O LRT Project is a 17.7-mile, 18-station light rail transit service which will provide connections between University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals, the UNC campus, the William and Ida Friday Center for Continuing Education, Patterson Place, the South Square area, Duke University, the Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, downtown Durham, east Durham, and North Carolina Central University; and 5 WHEREAS, GoTriangle is seeking funds from FTA's Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program (49 U.S.C. §5309)for the D-O LRT Project; and WHEREAS, the D-O LRT Project Cost Estimate which is eligible for federal participation, including costs related to project development, engineering, construction, testing, commissioning, start-up, and financing costs through the anticipated final year of disbursement of federal funds (projected to be 2032), is$2,476.3 million year of expenditure (YOE) (New Starts Project Cost); and WHEREAS, GoTriangle receives and uses public monies, pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 105, Articles 43, 50, 51, and 52, to fund public transportation in GoTriangle's jurisdiction, including the planning, financing, construction, maintenance, and operation costs of the D-O LRT Project; and WHEREAS, there are four dedicated local revenue sources used to fund the D-O LRT Project and other new transit projects and services in Durham and Orange: (1) Article 43 Half-Cent (0.5 percent) Sales and Use Tax; (2) Article 50 Five-Percent (5 percent) Vehicle Rental Tax; (3) Article 51 Three-Dollar ($3) increase to GoTriangle Regional Vehicle Registration Fee; and (4) Article 52 Seven-Dollar ($7) County Vehicle Registration Fee (collectively, Dedicated Local Transit Revenues); and WHEREAS, in light of changes to the original funding assumptions in the County BRIPs, the Parties have revised their funding strategy for the D-O LRT Project as follows: federal (50 percent [$1,238.15 million YOE]), state (10 percent [$247.63 million YOE]), and local/other (40 percent [$990.52 million YOE]); and WHEREAS, in order for the D-O LRT Project to advance to the Engineering Phase of the CIG Program (Engineering Phase), at least 30 percent of the non-CIG share of the D-O LRT Project ($371.4 million YOE) must be committed at entry to the Engineering Phase; and WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that the total non-CIG share of the New Starts Project Cost is $1,238.15 million YOE, of which $887.9 million YOE (71.7 percent) is committed from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues; and WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that one hundred percent (100%) of non-CIG funds must be committed prior to GoTriangle's application for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA), which is anticipated to be submitted to FTA in calendar year 2019; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2017, GoTriangle received guidance from FTA explaining that additional documentation would be necessary to update the estimated D-O LRT Project cost in the County BRIPs, and to confirm that at least 30 percent of the non-CIG share (at least $371.4 million YOE) is committed; and WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge material changes to the County BRIPs have occurred, as defined in the 2012 Interlocal Implementation Agreement for Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan and the 2013 Interlocal Implementation Agreement for Durham County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, prompting the Parties to revise the County BRIPs; and WHEREAS, on , the Durham County Board of County Commissioners adopted the updated Durham County Transit Plan (2017 Durham Plan) and authorized the execution of this Agreement; and 6 WHEREAS, on , the Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted the updated Orange County Transit Plan (2017 Orange Plan) and authorized the execution of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, on , the DCHC MPO Board approved the 2017 Orange Plan and the 2017 Durham Plan (collectively, 2017 County Plans); and WHEREAS, on , the GoTriangle Board approved the 2017 County Plans and authorized the execution of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the D-O LRT Project remains a major capital investment of the 2017 County Plans; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the 2017 County Plans, Orange and Durham mutually desire to allocate Dedicated Local Transit Revenues for the planning, construction, financing, and operation and maintenance of the D-O LRT Project; and WHEREAS, the Parties intend this Agreement to supersede the May 2012 Cost Sharing Agreement, to memorialize a D-O LRT Project cost sharing plan, and to fully satisfy FTA's requirements for entry into the Engineering Phase; and WHEREAS, the Parties recognize the importance of the D-O LRT Project to Orange, Durham, the Research Triangle region, and the State of North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto, each in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings of the other as herein provided, do hereby covenant and agree, each with the other, as follows: 1. The effective date of this Agreement is the date first set forth above. 2. This Agreement supersedes the Parties' 2012 Cost Sharing Agreement. 3. The 2017 County Plans are specifically incorporated by reference as if the same were fully set forth herein. 4. The New Starts Project Cost is $2,476.3 million YOE.The Parties acknowledge that as the D-O LRT Project moves from preliminary design (30 percent) to final design (100 percent), as with any major capital project planned and constructed over a number of years, the actual capital and financing costs may be subject to change and adjustment. The Parties acknowledge that entry into the Engineering Phase establishes a maximum CIG funding share of$1,238.15 million YOE. 5. As set forth in the 2017 County Plans,the Parties agree to pay for the New Starts Project Cost using a combination of federal (50 percent), state (10 percent), and local/other (40 percent) funding sources. From the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues, and as of the effective date of this Agreement, the Parties commit a total of $887.9 million YOE to 7 fund the New Starts Project Cost (County Contributions). The Parties agree that total County Contributions shall not exceed 40 percent of the New Starts Project Cost. 6. The share of the County Contributions from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues committed by Durham shall be$738.4 million YOE (Durham Share). 7. The share of the County Contributions from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues committed by Orange shall be$149.5 million YOE (Orange Share). 8. Without further approval from Orange and Durham, GoTriangle shall allocate and pay for the Durham Share and the Orange Share of the New Starts Project Cost, including the planning, engineering, financing, and construction, from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues in accordance with this Agreement and the 2017 County Plans. 9. GoTriangle may allocate and pay for the counties' respective shares of the New Starts Project Cost, including the planning, engineering, financing, and construction, from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues on a pay-as-you-go basis and/or by issuing debt with a par value up to the amount committed in Paragraph 5 above. Consistent with North Carolina law and the 2017 County Plans, GoTriangle may use the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues for the purposes of issuing and repaying debt. GoTriangle will allocate debt attributed to each county as follows: eighty-one and one-half percent (81.5%) for Durham and eighteen and one-half percent (18.5%) for Orange. 10. In preparation for submittal of the FFGA application, the Parties shall collaborate among themselves and with philanthropic, corporate, institutional, non-profit, and other supporters to secure the remainder of the non-CIG share needed for construction from sources including, but not limited to: private monetary and in-kind donations, other funds specifically identified to fund the Joint Development component of the D-O LRT Project, and additional federal and state funds (as may become available). The Parties understand that the Financial Plan for the D-O LRT Project must reflect that one hundred percent (100%) of non-CIG funds are committed prior to GoTriangle's application for a FFGA. 11. The costs to operate and maintain the D-O LRT system (O&M Cost) will be paid first from light rail system fare revenues, with any remaining O&M Cost being paid from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues. 12. The division of responsibility for O&M Cost and State of Good Repair cost shall be allocated as follows: eighty percent (80%) for Durham and twenty percent (20%) for Orange through 2036, and eighty-one percent (81%) for Durham and nineteen percent (19%) for Orange thereafter. 13. If, during the term of this Agreement, federal CIG funds, private, in-kind, local or other funds as described in Paragraph 10, or state funds to be used for the D-O LRT Project are cancelled, terminated, withdrawn, do not materialize, or otherwise become unavailable for the D-O LRT Project, or if such federal CIG or state funds are reduced in an amount that requires additional local revenues beyond the County Contributions, the Parties 8 shall meet within fifteen (15) business days to determine how to address the situation. Such response may include, but not be limited to the following: a schedule delay in one or more aspects of the D-O LRT Project; phased implementation of the D-O LRT Project; a reduction in the scope of the D-O LRT Project; suspension of the D-O LRT Project; working together to identify and pursue additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project from sources other than the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues; a combination of these measures; discontinuation of the D-O LRT Project; or other reasonable steps to mutually address the situation. If the Parties elect to discontinue the D-O LRT Project, the Staff Working Groups' shall convene within twenty (20) business days to begin the process to develop new transit plans for Orange and Durham so that funds generated by the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues can be reallocated. 14. Upon entry into the Engineering Phase, GoTriangle will produce Quarterly D-O LRT Project Reports in accordance with FTA requirements (Quarterly Reports) and will share such Quarterly Reports with FTA, Orange, Durham, and DCHC MPO. In the event of significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls that require additional local revenues beyond the County Contributions, as may be reflected in the Quarterly Reports to FTA, the Parties shall meet within fifteen (15) business days to determine how to address the situation. Such response may include, but not be limited to the following: a schedule delay in one or more aspects of the D-O LRT Project; phased implementation of the D-O LRT Project; a reduction in the scope of the D-O LRT Project; suspension of the D-O LRT Project; working together to identify and pursue additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project from sources other than the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues; a combination of these measures; discontinuation of the D-O LRT Project; or other reasonable steps to mutually address the situation. As used herein, "significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls" means either: (i) an annual decrease in total revenues from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues as set forth in the 2017 County Plans, as those Plans may be amended, of 5% or more; or (ii) after entering the Engineering Phase, an increase in the D-O LRT Project capital cost (including financing) as set forth in the 2017 County Plans, as those Plans may be amended, of 5%or more; or (iii) an annual increase in the overall project operating costs of the D-O LRT Project as set forth in the 2017 County Transit Plans, as those Plans may be amended, of 5%or more. If the Parties elect to discontinue the D-O LRT Project, the Staff Working Groups shall convene within twenty (20) business days to begin the process to develop new transit plans for Orange and Durham so that funds generated by the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues can be reallocated. 1 As set forth in the Durham and Orange Implementation Agreements, the Staff Working Group for each County Plan consists of one voting member and one alternate from each of the following entities: the applicable county, GoTriangle, and DCHC MPO. 9 15. In the event of a significant cost overrun or an unmitigated funding shortfall as set forth in Paragraphs 13 or 14, representatives of each Party shall meet as set forth in Paragraphs 13 or 14 to attempt in good faith to resolve the matter(s). All Parties must be represented by a person with the authority to settle the matter(s) on behalf of the Party. The Parties may by agreement and in good faith conduct further meetings as necessary to resolve the matter(s). If resolution is not achieved, any Party may demand mediation in writing. Upon such demand, all Parties shall be required to participate in mediation. The dispute(s) to be mediated shall be memorialized in writing. The Parties shall in good faith select a mediator certified in accordance with the rules of mediator certification in Superior Court in North Carolina. If the parties are unable to agree to a mediator, a mediator will be appointed by the American Arbitration Association. If, after all reasonable good faith attempts to resolve the matter have been made, and it appears to the mediator that the parties are at an impasse with no significant likelihood of reaching resolution, the mediator shall issue a written notice of impasse identifying the unresolved issue(s) between the Parties. Following a declaration of impasse by the mediator, the unresolved issue(s) shall be arbitrated upon the written demand of any Party. The arbitration shall be expedited, and the American Arbitration Association rules shall apply to the arbitration, unless the Parties agree otherwise. Prior to arbitration, the Parties may bring forward all possible remedies that may be considered by the arbitrator(s). The arbitration hearing shall take place in Wake County, North Carolina, before a panel of three (3) arbitrators, with Orange selecting one (1) arbitrator, Durham selecting one (1) arbitrator, and those two (2) arbitrators jointly selecting the third arbitrator, unless Durham and Orange can reach consensus on a single arbitrator. The decision of the arbitrator(s) shall be by simple majority and binding upon the Parties. Judgment on an award rendered in any such arbitration may be entered in the Superior Court of Wake County. Each Party shall bear its own costs related to the foregoing dispute resolution process, including reasonable attorneys' fees, except that all mediation and/or arbitration fees charged by a mediator or arbitration panel shall be divided equally among the Parties. Each Party hereby consents to any such disputes being so resolved. 16. If the balance of the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues attributed to a county is insufficient to meet that county's respective share of costs, then neither Orange nor Durham shall be obligated to use revenues other than the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues to pay its respective share. 17. If, after the effective date of this Agreement, the Parties are authorized to levy new transit-specific taxes or fees, or if the limits of the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues are expanded by the North Carolina General Assembly, this Agreement shall not obligate the use of such additional revenues for the D-O LRT Project. 10 18. GoTriangle shall provide an annual report on the collection, allocation, and expenditure of the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues to the elected governing boards of Durham and Orange. GoTriangle shall provide to the governing boards of Durham and Orange copies of its annual audit reports as those reports are related to the collection of transit revenues in Durham and Orange, including funds collected pursuant to N.C.G.S. Chapter 105, Articles 43, 50, 51, and 52. 19. The term of this Agreement shall continue until the latter of June 30, 2037 or the final maturity date of any debt issued in connection with the D-O LRT Project and payable from the Dedicated Local Transit Revenues. 20. This Agreement may be terminated upon mutual agreement of the Parties. In the event of termination prior to the expiration of the term set forth in Paragraph 19 or of any extensions thereto, the Parties shall determine what obligations remain and how to equitably distribute such obligations as they relate to the D-O LRT Project. 21. To be effective, any amendment, change, correction, extension, or termination of this Agreement shall be in the form of a written instrument approved by the governing board of each Party. 22. This Agreement shall be governed by and in accordance with the laws of the State of North Carolina. Except as to those matters subject to arbitration under Paragraph 15, the Parties agree that all actions relating in any way to this Agreement shall be brought in the General Court of Justice in the County of Wake, North Carolina. 23. Except to the extent provided otherwise in this Agreement, the Orange County Manager shall designate persons to carry out Orange's obligations under this Agreement, the Durham County Manager shall designate persons to carry out Durham's obligations under this Agreement, and the General Manager of GoTriangle shall designate persons to carry out GoTriangle's obligations under this Agreement. 24. All equipment, improvements, and interests in real property acquired under this Agreement shall be the property of GoTriangle or another entity under separate agreement and shall be subject to disposition as required under applicable law. 25. This Agreement is entered into by the Parties for their purposes only and does not confer any rights, benefits, remedies, or privileges on any other person or entity. 26. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 27. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 147-86.59, any person identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran, determined by appearing on the Final Divestment List created by the State Treasurer pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 147-86.58, is ineligible to contract with the State of North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State. The Iran Divestment Act of 2015, N.C.G.S. § 147-86.55 et seq., requires the contracting party to certify that it meets 11 the requirements of the Iran Divestment Act. By execution of this Agreement, each Party certifies that it is not on the Final Divestment List of entities that the State Treasurer has determined engages in investment activities in Iran, and that it shall not utilize in connection with this Agreement any subcontractor that is identified on the Final Divestment List. 28. Each Party acknowledges that the individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the respective party is authorized to execute the document and to bind the Party to the terms contained herein. The Parties further acknowledge that they have read this Agreement, conferred with their legal counsel, and fully understand the contents of this Agreement. 29. A copy or facsimile copy of the signature of the individuals executing this Agreement shall be deemed an original with each fully-executed copy of this Agreement as binding as an original.The Parties agree that this Agreement can be executed in counterparts, as triplicate originals, with facsimile signatures sufficient to evidence an accord to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. 30. The terms and provisions herein contained constitute the entire agreement by and among the Parties and shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either oral or written among the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this Agreement has been executed, in triplicate originals, on the part of Orange County, Durham County, and GoTriangle by authority duly given. INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON PAGE FOLLOWING. 12 ATTEST: DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners Reviewed and approved as to legal form by Durham County. Lowell Siler County Attorney ATTEST: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners Reviewed and approved as to legal form by Orange County. John Roberts County Attorney ATTEST: RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY D/B/A GOTRIANGLE BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Board of Trustees This instrument has been pre-audited in the Reviewed and approved as to legal form by manner required by the Local Government Budget GoTriangle. and Fiscal Control Act by GoTriangle. Saundra Freeman Shelley Blake Chief Financial Officer and Director of General Counsel Administrative Services 13 ATTACHMENT B D-0 Light Rail Discussion Materials — Scenario 4o EE v10-3 Orange County, North Carolina f� ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA April 27, 2017 The information shown is current as of the time of distribution. DAVENPORT & COMPANY Member NYSE I FIN RA I SIPC General Assumptions & Major Capital ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Scenario 4o EE vio-3 General Assumptions Major Capital Scenario 40 EE v10-3 1 LRT Initial Capital Cost 2 FTA New Starts Grant-Capital Costs $ 1,194,284,214 50.00% 3 State Funding-Capital Costs 238,856,843 10.00% 1 Scenario Description Scenario Under 4 In Kind Contributions Consideration for 5 Orange County 3,584,640 0.15% Adoption 6 Durham County 15,791,793 0.66% 7 Joint Development Grants 2 8 Orange County 12,042,212 0.50% 3 LRT Cost Share Assumptions (Durham / Orange / Private LOWN 9 Durham County 53,050,825 2.22% 4 Capital Cost 81.5/ 16.5/ 2.0 10 Local Share-Private Capital Campaign1 18,120,000 0.76% 5 Shared Borrowings 81.5/ 18.5 11 Local Share-Orange County 143,007,212 5.99% 12 Local Share-Durham County 709,830,690 29.72% 6 Operations and Maintenance 13 Total LRT Initial Capital Cost $ 2,388,568,428 100.00% 7 Through 2036 80/ 20 14 8 After 2036 81/ 19 15 Orange County LRT State of Good Repair through 2062 $ 89,948,360 9 State of Good Repair 16 17 Other Orange County Tax District Funding through 2045 i 10 Through 2036 80/ 20 18 Bus 0&M $ 140,121,546 11 After 2036 81/ 19 19 DO LRT 0&M $ 85,651,778 12 20 Bus Facilities and Capital Projects(Including Replacements) $ 8,059,476 21 Vehicles(Including Replacements) $ 14,247,696 13 Durham / Wake CRT Scenario P 22 NS BRT Project(Construction Costs) $ 6,125,000 14 23 Hillsborough Train Station Project(Construction Costs) $ 686,000 15 Orange County Sales Tax Assumptions 24 County Admin&Facility 0&M $ 1,241,202 16 FY 2017 -2046 Moody's Baseline s First$18.12 million Applied to Orange County 17 FY 2047 -2062 3.71% 18 iqLgeserve Assumptions 20 Cash Balance Maintain Positive Balance 21 Operating Reserve 3 Months/ 25 % of CH/OPT Bus 0&M 22 Debt Service Reserve 10% of Debt Issued DAVENPORT&COMPANY Source: GoTriangle Scenario 40 EE v10-3 April 27,2017 Orange County, INC 1 Financings & Total Cost ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Scenario 4o EE vio-3 1 LRT Initial Capital and Borrowing Cost 2 FTA New Starts Grant- Capital and Borrowing Costs $ 1,235,577,789 37.54% 3 State Funding- Capital and Borrowing Costs 245,030,076 7.44% 4 In Kind Contributions 5 Orange County 3,584,640 0.11% 6 Durham County 15,791,793 0.48% 7 Joint Development Grants 8 Orange County 12,042,212 0.37% 9 Durham County 53,050,825 1.61% 10 Local Share - Private Capital Campaign" 18,120,000 0.55% 11 Local Share - Orange County 301,323,299 9.15% 12 Local Share - Durham County 1,407,277,235 42.75% 13 Total LRT Initial Capital and Borrowing Cost $ 3,291,797,868 100.00% 14 15 Orange County LRT State of Good Repair through 2062 16 Cash Funding $ 17,948,360 17 Debt Funding 72,000,000 18 Interest and Borrowing Costs 10,773,118 19 Total State of Good Repair $ 100,721,478 20 21 Orange Countyjiancing Assumptions 22 Locally Funded LOBs - Initial LRT $ 72,500,000 23 Grant Funded LOBs- Initial LRT 57,350,000 24 TIFIA Loan - Initial LRT 79,550,000 25 Locally Funded LOBs- State of Good Repair 72,000,000 26 Total Orange County Financings $ 281,400,000 " First $18.12 million Applied to Orange County DAVENPORT&COMPANY Source: GoTriangle Scenario 40 EE v10-3 April 27,2017 Orange County, INC 2 Key Financial Statistics ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Cash Reserves (with Scale Adjustments) - Scenario 4o EE vio-3 Cumulative Cash Balance County Cash Balances Cash Balances-Total Cash Balances-Durham $800,000,000 $soo,000,aao $700,000,000 S700,000,000 $600,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,ODO $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I $200, 0, 0 $10000 00 1000 0 $0 I I I I I I I I • • � I I I I � _ � � I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1`Financial Health Criteria CashBalances-Orange 2 Minimum Aggregate DSCR $45,000,000 3 LOBs (Initial LRT) 1.18x $4 000 4 Grant Funded LOBs (Initial LRT) 1.26x $35,000,000 5 TIFIA&State of Good Repair 1.07x $30,OW,000 6 Minimum Cash Balance During Construction $25,OW,000 7 Orange (Fiscal Year) $3,770,885 (2019) $20,OW,000 8 Durham (Fiscal Year) $8,167,908 (2024) $15,000,000 9 Minimum Cash Balance After Construction $1010W,00 10 Orange (Fiscal Year) $15,385,523 (2030) $5,000,000 11 Durham (Fiscal Year) $3,657,932 (2035) $o Note: Does not include Operating and Debt Service Reserve balances. Note: Cash Balances shown do not include GoTriangle level Cash Balances. DAVENPORT&COMPANY Source: GoTriangle Scenario 40 EE v10-3 April 27,2017 Orange County, NC 3 Key Financial Statistics ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Cash Reserves (without Scale Adjustments) - Scenario 4o EE vio-3 Cumulative Cash Balance County Cash Balances Cash Balances-Total Cash Balances-Durham $800,000,000 $800,000,000 $700,000,000 $700,000,000 $600,000,000 $600,000,000 $500,000,000 $500,000,000 $400,000,000 $400,000,000 $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $200,000,000 5200,000,000 $loo 000 00o I � I - II � III � IIII � 1 � � IIIIIIII I - - - - - - - - - - - $0 - - 1`Financial Health Criteria CashBalances-Orange 2 Minimum Aggregate DSCR $W0 3 LOBs (Initial LRT) 1.18x $700•OW•OW 4 Grant Funded LOBs (Initial LRT) 1.26x $6W,OW,OW 5 TIFIA&State of Good Repair 1.07x $soo,000,000 6 Minimum Cash Balance During Construction 7 Orange (Fiscal Year) $3,770,885 (2019) $400"OW"OW 8 Durham (Fiscal Year) $8,167,908 (2024) $300,000,000 9 Minimum Cash Balance After Construction $200,000,000 10 Orange (Fiscal Year) $15,385,523 (2030) $roo0�o00 11 Durham (Fiscal Year) $3,657,932 (2035) So • I 1 1 1 . . 1 1 . 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . 1 1 . . 1 1 1 mom o°s"s "ss �"s"sssso Note: Does not include Operating and Debt Service Reserve balances. Note: Cash Balances shown do not include GoTriangle level Cash Balances. DAVENPORT&COMPANY Source: GoTriangle Scenario 40 EE v10-3 April 27,2017 Orange County, NC 4 18 ,,INS,7-: 441 11\��\•:iii:••rr .i o 1 1�� Charlotte Office Ted Cole Independence Center Senior Vice President 101 N. Tryon Street 804-697-2907 Suite 1220 Charlotte, NC 28246 tcole @investdavenport.com Richmond Office Mitch Brigulio One James Center First Vice President 901 East Cary Street 704-644-5414 11th Floor mbrigulio @investdavenport.com Richmond, VA 23219 Chazzo Habliston Raleigh Office Associate Vice President Glenwood Plaza 36905 Glenwood Ave. 704-644-5413 Suite 390 chabliston @investdavenport.com Raleigh, NC 27612 DAVENPORT&COMPANY April 27,2017 Orange County, NC 5 z Municipal Advisor Disclosure ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA The U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission(the"SEC")has clarified that a broker,dealer or municipal securities dealer engaging in municipal advisory activities outside the scope of underwriting a particular issuance of municipal securities should be subject to municipal advisor registration. Davenport&Company LLC("Davenport") has registered as a municipal advisor with the SEC.As a registered municipal advisor Davenport may provide advice to a municipal entity or obligated person.An obligated person is an entity other than a municipal entity,such as a not for profit corporation,that has commenced an application or negotiation with an entity to issue municipal securities on its behalf and for which it will provide support.If and when an issuer engages Davenport to provide financial advisory or consultant services with respect to the issuance of municipal securities, Davenport is obligated to evidence such a financial advisory relationship with a written agreement. When acting as a registered municipal advisor Davenport is a fiduciary required by federal law to act in the best interest of a municipal entity without regard to its own financial or other interests.Davenport is not a fiduciary when it acts as a registered investment advisor,when advising an obligated person,or when acting as an underwriter,though it is required to deal fairly with such persons. This material was prepared by public finance,or other non-research personnel of Davenport. This material was not produced by a research analyst,although it may refer to a Davenport research analyst or research report. Unless otherwise indicated,these views(if any)are the author's and may differ from those of the Davenport fixed income or research department or others in the firm. Davenport may perform or seek to perform financial advisory services for the issuers of the securities and instruments mentioned herein. This material has been prepared for information purposes only and is not a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any security/instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Any such offer would be made only after a prospective participant had completed its own independent investigation of the securities, instruments or transactions and received all information it required to make its own investment decision, including, where applicable, a review of any offering circular or memorandum describing such security or instrument. That information would contain material information not contained herein and to which prospective participants are referred. This material is based on public information as of the specified date,and may be stale thereafter. We have no obligation to tell you when information herein may change. We make no representation or warranty with respect to the completeness of this material. Davenport has no obligation to continue to publish information on the securities/instruments mentioned herein. Recipients are required to comply with any legal or contractual restrictions on their purchase,holding,sale,exercise of rights or performance of obligations under any securities/instruments transaction. The securities/instruments discussed in this material may not be suitable for all investors or issuers. Recipients should seek independent financial advice prior to making any investment decision based on this material. This material does not provide individually tailored investment advice or offer tax, regulatory,accounting or legal advice. Prior to entering into any proposed transaction, recipients should determine, in consultation with their own investment, legal,tax, regulatory and accounting advisors,the economic risks and merits,as well as the legal,tax, regulatory and accounting characteristics and consequences,of the transaction. You should consider this material as only a single factor in making an investment decision. The value of and income from investments and the cost of borrowing may vary because of changes in interest rates,foreign exchange rates,default rates,prepayment rates,securities/instruments prices,market indexes, operational or financial conditions or companies or other factors. There may be time limitations on the exercise of options or other rights in securities/instruments transactions. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and estimates of future performance are based on assumptions that may not be realized. Actual events may differ from those assumed and changes to any assumptions may have a material impact on any projections or estimates. Other events not taken into account may occur and may significantly affect the projections or estimates. Certain assumptions may have been made for modeling purposes or to simplify the presentation and/or calculation of any projections or estimates, and Davenport does not represent that any such assumptions will reflect actual future events. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that estimated returns or projections will be realized or that actual returns or performance results will not materially differ from those estimated herein. This material may not be sold or redistributed without the prior written consent of Davenport. Version 1.13.14 CH I MB I TC DAVENPORT&COMPANY April 27,2017 Orange County, NC 6 ATTACHMENT C 20 GO1 Triangle Connecting all points of the Triangle Memorandum To: Travis Myren, Orange County Deputy Manager From: John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Director of Regional Services Development Date: April 25, 2017 Re: Description of Changes to Cash Flow Tables in Appendix A since published on April 21 On April 21, 2017 the Final Orange County Transit Plan and Final Durham County Transit Plan was distributed to the Staff Working Group participants and the County Commissioners, and posted to the ourtransitfuture.org website. Since that time we have made several clarifying changes or corrections to both plans. We have also unfortunately discovered that the Cash Flow Summary in Appendix A was from the wrong scenario. We have made corrections to include Scenario EE10 with several changes described below: 1. The expenses in the line item "Orange County Allocation to County Admin and Fac. O&M" are increased in order to fund the Orange share of a part-time staff person to manage the Staff Working Group and its development of Annual Work Plan elements, as well as to fund short-range bus plan development in FY18 for GoTriangle and OPT 2. The expenses in the line item "Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M" has been corrected by increasing the amount in FY2018 in order to allow for the planned increase in service for next year. 3. These two changes have reduced the unallocated cash balances accordingly. Now the minimum cash balance during construction is $3,770,885 still in 2019. This is $611,475 less than in EE9 presented by Davenport on April 20th. This scenario is now included in the Cash Flow table in a corrected Appendix A. We have also added a note to the top of each page in Appendix A noting that the Cash Flow is based on the assumptions in Table 4.8-1 of the Plan. This is also added at the bottom of page 24 where the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project cost-split is described. PO Box 13787 I Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 I P: 919.485.7510 I F: 919.485.7547 www.gotriangle.org 21 ATTACHMENT D WON 1 Bill _ ■ ■ ■ � .■ w ■ ■ ■ EYE : w � fl �!.■��� 1! f' ��� =� _' mid t' a n a i, � + • sc WWI i Orange ounty T through 2045 �~ April 25, 2017 22 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • _ of • _ 3.2 Vehicles and Bus Facilities.......................................... 21 3.2.1 Federal Funding Assumptions.............................................21 Executive Summa ES-1 3.2.2 State Funding Assumptions.................................................22 3.3 Hillsborough Train Station.......................................... 22 1. About this Plan ............................................................. 6 3.4 North-South Bus Rapid Transit................................... 22 1.1 Why Transit?................................................................6 3.4.1 Federal Funding Assumptions.............................................22 1.2 Goals of this Transit Plan ..............................................g 3.4.2 State Funding Assumptions.................................................22 1.3 Transit Providers ..........................................................9 3.5 Durham-Orange Light Rail Project.............................. 23 3.5.1 Federal Funding Assumptions.............................................23 1.4 Plan Governance ........................................................10 3.5.2 State Funding Assumptions.................................................23 3.5.3 Cost-Share Assumptions.....................................................24 2. Status of Projects and Services from the 2012 Plan.... 11 2.1 Bus Service Expansion 12 4. Program of Projects and Services ................................25 2.1.1 Service within the Town of Chapel Hill...............................13 4.1 Bus Service................................................................. 25 2.1.2 Regional Service.................................................................. 14 4.1.1 Increased Cost of Existing Service.......................................26 2.1.3 Orange County Service....................................................... 15 4.1.2 Continuing Implemented Bus Service.................................26 2.2 Bus Facilities...............................................................16 4.1.3 Additional Expansion Bus Service.......................................27 4.1.4 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......28 2.3 Hillsborough Train Station..........................................16 4.1.5 Upcoming Activities............................................................29 2.4 North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project........................17 4.2 Vehicle Purchases....................................................... 29 2.5 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project...................18 4.2.1 Capital Costs,Schedule, and Funding Assumptions............29 4.2.2 Upcoming Activities............................................................30 2.6 Additional Needs Identified in Original Plan ...............19 4.3 Bus Facilities .............................................................. 30 2.6.1 Service within the Town of Chapel Hill 19 2.6.2 Regional service.................................................................. 19 4.3.1 Transit Stop Improvements.................................................31 2.6.3 Rural Service.......................................................................20 4.3.2 Access Improvements.........................................................32 4.3.3 Park-and-Ride Facilities.......................................................32 2.7 Meeting Additional Needs in Original Plan—Light Rail 4.3.4 Capital Costs,Schedule, and Funding Assumptions............33 Dividend.................................................................................20 4.3.5 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......34 4.3.6 Upcoming Activities............................................................34 3. Status of Funding Assumptions................................... 21 4.4 Hillsborough Train Station.......................................... 34 3.1 Bus Services................................................................21 4.4.1 Capital Costs,Schedule, and Funding Assumptions............34 4.4.2 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......34 Final April 2017 i 23 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 4.4.3 Upcoming Activities............................................................34 5.6 Cash Flow Summary................................................... 54 4.5 North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project........................34 5.7 Key Financial Issues.................................................... 56 4.5.1 Capital Costs,Schedule, and Funding Assumptions............35 4.5.2 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......35 6. Implementation Activities...........................................58 4.5.3 Upcoming Activities............................................................36 6.1 Multi-Year Capital and Operating Programs............... 58 4.6 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project...................36 6.2 Light-Rail Cost-Sharing Agreement............................. 59 4.6.1 Capital Costs,Schedule, and Funding Assumptions............36 4.6.2 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......38 6.3 Project-Specific Agreements....................................... 59 4.6.3 State of Good Repair Costs,Schedule,and Funding 6.4 Annual Budgets.......................................................... 59 Assumptions......................................................................................38 4.6.4 Upcoming Activities............................................................38 6.5 Work Plans................................................................. 60 4.7 Administrative and Service Support............................40 6.6 Updating the Plan ...................................................... 60 4.7.1 Operating Costs,Schedule,and Funding Assumptions.......41 4.7.2 Upcoming Activities............................................................41 7. Development of this Plan and Public Involvement ......61 4.8 Additional Needs Identified in this Plan......................41 7.1 Notification of Availability.......................................... 61 4.8.1 Bus Service..........................................................................41 7.2 Opportunities to Provide Public Comment ................. 61 4.8.2 Vehicles...............................................................................42 4.8.3 Bus Facilities........................................................................42 7.3 Opportunities to Learn About the Transit Plans.......... 62 4.8.4 Hillsborough Train Station..................................................43 4.8.5 North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project...............................43 7.4 Dissemination of Comments....................................... 63 4.8.6 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project..........................43 7.5 Summary of Comments.............................................. 63 4.8.7 Administrative and Service Support...................................43 7.5.1 Online Survey 64 5. Financial Plan.............................................................. 44 5.1 Dedicated Tax District Revenues.................................46 5.2 Financing Assumptions...............................................49 5.3 Interest Rates.............................................................51 5.4 Debt Service Coverage................................................51 5.5 Reserves.....................................................................54 5.5.1 Operations and maintenance.............................................54 5.5.2 Debt service........................................................................54 Final April 2017 ii 24 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Tables List of Figure 2.4-1: N-S BRT Corridor Study Map....................................... 17 Table ES-1: Orange Share of Tax District Spending............................ 5 Figure 2.4-1: D-O LRT Project Map................................................... 18 Figure 4.3-1. Bus Facility Project Tax District Revenue Spending Table 4.1-1: GoTriangle Implemented Service Improvements.......27 Overview(in YOE dollars)........................................................ 31 Table 4.1-2: CHT Implemented Service Improvements................... 27 Figure 4.3-2. Bus Facilities Project Capital Funding Sources (YOE)..33 Table 4.1-3: OPT Implemented Service Improvements................... 27 Figure 5.1-1: Year by Year Revenue Comparison (in thousands of$$) Table 4.1-4: GoTriangle Program of Service Improvements............ 28 .................................................................................................49 Table 4.1-5 CHT Program of Service Improvements........................ 28 Figure 5.4-1. Projected Debt Service Coverage Ratios: Locally-Funded Table 4.1-6: OPT Program of Service Improvements....................... 28 Limited Obligation Bonds (LOBS) &TIFIA Loans......................52 Table 4.2-1: GoTriangle Vehicle Purchases...................................... 29 Figure 5.4-2. Projected Debt Service Coverage Ratios: Federally- Table 4.2-2: CHT Vehicle Purchases................................................. 29 Funded Limited Obligation Bonds (LOBS)................................52 Table 4.2-3: OPT Vehicle Purchases................................................. 29 Figure 5.4-3. Projected Transit Tax District Revenue v. Debt Service Table 4.3-1: Bus Facility Construction Costs through 2045 (YOE) ...30 for the D-O LRT Project............................................................ 53 Table 4.3-2. Program of Transit Stop Improvements in FY2018-20.31 Figure 5.5-1. Cash Balances (YOE)....................................................54 Table 4.3-3: Program of Transit Stop Improvements after FY2020.32 Figure 5.6-1. Cash Balances in Durham County (YOE) .....................55 Table 4.3-4: Program of Access Improvements in FY2018-20......... 32 Figure 5.7-1. Cash balances in Orange County and Durham County (YOE)........................................................................................ 56 Table 4.3-5: Program of Access Improvements in FY2021-22......... 32 Figure 7.5-1. Priorities Identified in Surveys....................................65 Table 4.3-6: Program of Access Improvements after FY2023.......... 32 Figure 7.5-2. Average Ranking of Projects in Surveys......................65 Table 4.3-7: Bus Facilities Project Capital Funding Plan (YOE)......... 33 Table 4.4-1: Hillsborough Train Station Capital Funding Plan (YOE) 34 Table 4.5-1: N-S BRT Project Capital Funding Plan (YOE millions)... 35 List of Appendices Table 4.6-1: D-O LRT Project Capital Cost Updates (2016 millions).37 Appendix A: Cash Flow Details...........................................................A Table 4.6-2: D-O LRT Project Capital Cost Updates (YOE millions)..37 Table 4.6-3: D-O LRT Project Capital Funding Plan (YOE millions)...38 Appendix B: D-O LRT Project Financial Risk& Mitigation Strategies. B Table 4.8-1. Financial Plan Key Assumptions...................................45 Appendix C• Public Comments C List of Figures Appendix D: Moody's Sales Tax Forecasts.........................................D Figure 2.1-1. Hours Implemented v. Hours Available...................... 12 Final April 2017 iii 25 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Executive Summary of this plan have not changed from the original plan. They Over several decades, the Triangle has been one of the fastest remain: growing metropolitan regions in the United States, and this • Improving overall mobility and transportation options growth remains strong. Each day, 20 new residents call Durham . Providing geographic equity and Orange County home, while Wake County adds over 60 . Supporting improved capital facilities new residents daily. This growth brings challenges and opportunity for how both communities develop and how • Encouraging transit-supportive land use people get around. This region is what it is today because of • Providing positive impacts on air quality numerous strategic decisions—the siting of the State Capitol in There are four dedicated revenue streams used to fund the Raleigh, the creation of the first public university in the United local share of projects and services in this Plan, referred to States in Chapel Hill, the construction of the North Carolina throughout the Plan as Tax District Revenues. These revenues Railroad through Durham, and the decision to build a research are collected in both Durham and Orange Counties; the center amid these communities that has grown into a globally revenues governed by this Plan are those collected in Orange recognized center of science and technology. County. These four dedicated Tax District Revenue streams are Built to complement each other, the transit plans of Durham, as follows: Orange, and Wake counties are the expression of the region's . Article 43: Half-Cent Sales and Use Tax next strategic decision: that exceptional public transportation . Article 50: Five-Percent Vehicle Rental Tax can bring all of our communities together in a way that • Article 51: Three-Dollar increase to GoTriangle Regional supports economic growth, expands travel choices beyond increasingly congested roadways, enhances job access and Vehicle Registration Fee opportunity for residents across the income spectrum, and • Article 52: Seven-Dollar County Vehicle Registration Fee helps preserve our natural resources by focusing growth more Many of the projects and services in this Plan will be funded in transit corridors and less near environmentally sensitive through a combination of Tax District Revenues and other funds areas. including farebox revenues, state funds, and federal funds. The 2017 Orange County Transit Plan updates the 2012 Bus and Using these various funding sources, this Plan strives to Rail Investment Plan adopted by the governing boards of equitably meet the transportation needs and goals of Orange Orange County,the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan County. Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), and GoTriangle. The goals Final Page 1 of 65 26 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 The projects and services to be funded under this Plan, • An intercity (Amtrak) train station in Hillsborough, linking regardless of whether they rely in part or in total on the Tax northern Orange County to destinations throughout District Revenues, are: North Carolina, and along the East Coast with fast • New hours of bus service in both urban and rural Orange passenger rail service County above and beyond the bus service that was • A bus rapid transit (BRT) project that provides more available in 2013, as well as and financial support for the efficient and effective transit through the congested existing system, providing connections to destinations core of Chapel Hill, UNC, and UNC Medical Center throughout the county and in Alamance, Durham, and Wake Counties. In total, over 34,000 hours of bus service Through these investments, there is an opportunity to develop are funded in this Plan an exceptional public transportation system in Orange County, improving the travel options and local economy for those who • A light rail transit (LRT) project that will provide 50,000 live in, work in, or visit Orange County, and transform the way annual hours of high-quality, efficient, and reliable rail people get around their community. service between Chapel Hill and Durham, with the goal Significant progress has been made in delivering the of improving regional mobility, accelerating economic investments from the 2012 Plan, though some milestones have growth, and encouraging the growth of transit-oriented been reached more slowly than originally projected. Section 2 development.When light rail service begins, it will free up describes the status of all projects and services implemented thousands of existing bus hours where rail service can or advanced since the levying of the transit taxes in 2013. replace trips served by buses today. GoTriangle, Chapel Hill Transit, and GoDurham will work together to deploy The most significant differences between the 2012 Plan and these "rail dividend" hours to connect neighborhoods this 2017 Plan are driven by the funding assumptions. Changes throughout the counties to light rail stations and other to state and federal transportation funding laws and policies bus routes have greatly affected revenues available to implement projects and services.This is true for bus purchases and bus facilities, as • A set of bus capital projects to improve the transit well as for the major capital investments in the Durham-Orange LRT Project and the North-South BRT project.These changes to passenger's experience, including new and improved bus state and federal funding assumptions are explained in more stops with amenities such as benches and shelters and detail in Section 3. access improvements such as sidewalks and trails Final Page 2 of 65 27 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 As the staffs of GoTriangle, Orange County, and the Towns of • Project capital costs: Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough have implemented the o Durham: $738.4 million (YOE) 2012 Plan, more definition has been given to the services and o Orange: $149.5 million (YOE) projects that are expected to be delivered over the next 12 • Operating expenses (through June 30, 2036) years. Section 4 describes these projects and services, o Durham: 80 percent unfunded priorities from the 2012 Plan, and additional o Orange: 20 percent expansion that would remain unfunded in this Plan. • Operating expenses (after June 30, 2036) and State of As a major project which serves both counties, the cost of Good Repair costs construction, operations, and maintenance of the Durham- o Durham: 81 percent Orange Light Rail Transit Project is shared between the two o Orange: 19 percent county Plans using agreed upon percentage splits. In the 2012 Plan, the split was approximately 77 percent Durham, 23 Table ES-1 compares the Tax District Revenues used to fund percent Orange. The parties negotiated a new cost-split for projects and services between the 2012 Plan and this 2017 several reasons: Plan. • The scope of the D-O LRT Project was expanded. The In our evaluation of the ability of the Tax District Revenue to alignment now extends 0.6 miles further into Durham, accommodate reductions in state and federal funding availability, we assessed costs of projects and service, the with an additional station at North Carolina Central delivery schedule for projects and services, and the projected University level of borrowing. The projected borrowing capacity is linked • Changes to the alignment at the New Hope Creek directly to the assumptions about Tax District Revenue growth. Crossing extended the length of the alignment in In accordance with industry standards, the 2017 Plan uses a Durham baseline revenue forecast developed in late 2016 by Moody's • A station proposed for Orange County, Meadowmont Analytics, a well-regarded economic analytics firm. In Station, was replaced by Woodmont Station in Durham accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA)guidance, County the financial plan has also been evaluated using a downside forecast developed by the same firm,to understand the effects This Plan incorporates the cost split memorialized in a separate and potential mitigations that may be required to plan for less- cost-sharing agreement which has been executed than-expected sales tax growth. A detailed financial plan can simultaneously with the Plan. The cost-sharing agreement be found in Section S. Further explanation of the risks to the allocates expenses as follows: Final Page 3 of 65 28 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 financial health of the plan and the available mitigation At its core, this Plan reflects an opportunity to move forward strategies can be found in Appendix B. with transit services and projects that will shape the future of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, the University of North As in the 2012 Plan, there remains uncertainty about whether Carolina at Chapel Hill, the UNC Hospital system, the whole of and how much state and federal funding will be available to Orange County, and the Triangle region. implement the services and projects in the 2017 Plan, as well as how much Tax District Revenue will be raised. However, those funding amounts will be known prior to entry into construction for any project, providing opportunities to reduce project scope or revise the schedule, consider other funding sources, or suspend the projects. This Plan establishes an implementation process to ensure that projects are developed and funded responsibly. A description of the implementation process that will be used to commit Tax District Revenue is included in Section 6. A draft of the Plan was released for public comment before this final Plan was prepared. A discussion of the development of the Plan and the public involvement process is provided in Section 7. This 2017 Plan comes at a pivotal time for Orange County and the broader region. The Triangle region has grown significantly and is forecasted to continue growing. There also continues to be significant public demand for reliable, affordable alternatives to traveling by private automobile. Yet due to recent funding reductions at the state and federal level, the choices embodied in this Plan come with increased reliance on Tax District Revenue and a greater understanding of the risks associated with major transit investments. This Plan seeks to minimize those risks through reasonably conservative estimates of both revenues and expenditures. Final Page 4 of 65 29 Orange County Transit Plan April 2 Table ES-1; Orange Share mf Tax District Spending 2012 Plan 2017 Plan All Bus Service Operations $82.7 M $77.2 M $62.9 M $140.1 M Administrative Expenses, Not programmed,, $0J,M, $0�5'M, $1,2 M, Hillsborough Train Station $0.9 M $0.7 M $0.0 M $0.7 M North-South BRT Operations& Maintenance Not programmed Not programmed Not programmed Not programmed 13-O LRT—Project'Capital,'Cost Share) 1 total Fundsfor Projecs and Services, $225,5,M: $282.2,,M,, $12SAM, $4073 M: Unallocated Reserves,in Final,Year of"Period $45 M', $16.7'M $14.7'M', $14.7'M', z The planned date of opening for light rail service has shifted from 2026 in the 2012 Plan to 2028 in this 2017 Plan. 2 The minimum cash balance from the 2012 plan is reported in 2011 dollars. Final Pag 30 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 1. About this Plan Law This Orange County Transit Plan, referred to herein as this The updated Orange and Durham Transit Plans strengthen the "Plan," "updated Plan," "2017 Plan," and/or "Plan update," communities' long-standing support of transit both to facilitate contains a program of transit services and projects to be funded a compact, walkable community and to help lower-income by the dedicated local revenues for transit in Orange County residents and employees who rely on transit for their daily over the period from 2017 to 2045. needs. Before implementing the original Bus and Rail Investment Plans in 2011 and 2012, the counties, There are four dedicated revenue streams used to fund the municipalities, and UNC and Duke had been making significant local share of projects and services in this Plan, referred to investments in transit. Today, about 72,000 people ride transit throughout the Plan as Tax District Revenues. These revenues each weekday in the two counties due in large part to the high are collected in both Durham and Orange Counties; the level of transit service provided. In fact, on a per capita basis, revenues governed by this Plan are those collected in Orange Orange County and Durham County provide more bus service County. These four dedicated Tax District Revenue streams are than transit-rich areas such as Portland, Oregon and as follows: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. • Article 43: Half-Cent Sales and Use Tax To strengthen the region's transit investments, the Plans build • Article 50: Five-Percent Vehicle Rental Tax on this strong base by providing enhanced bus service that • Article 51: Three-Dollar increase to GoTriangle Regional improves existing service and connects with new destinations, Vehicle Registration Fee investing in a light-rail system that will spark compact and • Article 52: Seven Dollar County Vehicle Registration Fee sustainable economic development along existing urban areas, and providing enhanced access to transit and improved bus This Plan is the first update of the Orange County Bus and Rail facilities including hundreds of improved bus stops, transit Investment Plan adopted in 2012, referred to herein as "the centers, and park-and-rides. Overall, these investments will original Plan" or "the 2011 Plan." benefit all members of our community and help Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Durham grow in ways that Durham County has a similar plan referred to herein as "the promote transit, walking, and bicycling while protecting our Durham Plan." The plans are collectively referred to as "the sensitive natural environment. Durham and Orange Transit Plans." The population of Orange County and Durham County have Some dates in this document are reported as fiscal years. The grown dramatically over the last few decades, and this growth fiscal year for the tax district begins July 1 and ends June 30. is expected to continue. By 2045, Orange County is expected to Final Page 6 of 65 31 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 increase its population another 41 percent, while Durham the sprawling,auto-centric development that has characterized County will grow 70 percent. This growth is due in large part to much of the region's growth. These plans were developed, in the continued strength of the region's varied and resilient part, because of the capacity and expansion challenges facing economy, anchored by a variety of universities and colleges, the existing roadway network. In addition, the communities medical centers, and research and development industries. seek to create more centralized residential and business districts that are accessible using multiple modes of This growth helps bring prosperity to the region, but it also transportation including transit, bicycling and walking. Reliance brings transportation challenges. The key roads in the region, on automobile travel to solve the region's mobility needs will such as US 15-501, NC 54, 1-40, 1-85, and the Durham Freeway not allow local governments to meet these land-use and (NC 147) experience congestion during morning and evening multimodal goals. commute times. Even with billions of dollars in planned highway and transit investments over the next 25 years, traffic A quality transit system also provides significant equity benefits congestion is expected to get worse and travel times will to county residents who are most in need. Car ownership is continue to increase. Simply put, the capacity of the roadway expensive. According to the American Automobile Association, system will not keep pace with the increase in traffic volumes. the average annual cost to own and operate a vehicle is$8,558; the total average cost per mile driven is 57 cents per mile.' These transportation challenges make it difficult for the local According to a 2015 onboard customer survey, half of governments to direct this incoming growth in a focused, GoDurham's passengers have annual household income of less sustainable, and responsible manner.The expected growth can than $15,000, and another quarter have annual household strain the natural resources in our region. Orange County is the income between $15,000 and $25,000. A 2016 survey found headwaters of several rivers and streams in the Piedmont that 51 percent of Chapel Hill Transit's riders have an income region. Without investment in transit, our region's growth will less than $30,000. Overall, 9 percent of Durham County be dominated by low-density suburban sprawl that negatively residents and 5.1 percent of Orange County residents do not impacts our natural resources. own a single vehicle.2 Among households which have two workers, 11.7 percent in Durham County and 13.7 percent in County and municipal governments in Orange County and Orange County only have access to one vehicle. Durham County have developed plans and implementation strategies that seek to direct growth into more compact, walkable, higher-density, mixed-use development, instead of 1 Driving Costs Hit Six-Year Low,Finds AAA, Z American Community Survey 20011-15 5-Year Estimates. http:/Znewsroomaaa.wpengine.comZautcDZ/vclur d00nE-costsZ Final Page 7 of 65 32 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Many people in the two counties rely on transit — based on _ F _z _HE _ customer satisfaction surveys conducted in 2015 and 2016, 38 percent of Chapel Hill Transit passengers, 62 percent of The original Plan and this update have been developed by GoDurham passengers and 32 percent of GoTriangle representatives from Orange County, the Towns of Chapel Hill, passengers either have no access to a car overall or for the Carrboro, and Hillsborough, the University of North Carolina at transit trip they were making. Chapel Hill (UNC), and GoTriangle, with the primary goal of improving transit options throughout the county and making Thus, for people in the community, transit is a lifeline and stronger connections with neighbors in the Triangle region. provides their only opportunity to access employment and educational opportunities and social services. About half of The specific goals of the original Plan, which have been carried GoDurham's riders use the system to go to work,while another through into development of this Plan update, include: 10 percent use it to get to school. Half of Chapel Hill Transit's riders use the system to go to or from school. • Improving overall mobility and transportation options • Providing geographic equity Orange and Durham counties are also interconnected, with . Supporting improved capital facilities major job hubs at UNC, Duke, in downtown Durham, and other . Encouraging transit-supportive land use sites that draw across county lines. According to the most . Providing positive impacts on air quality recent U.S. Census data, 20 percent of Orange County residents commute to work in Durham County, or more than 14,300 The Plan addresses the identified goals in the following ways: people. In Durham County, 17,606 residents — 9.5 percent of the total —commute to Orange County for work. This does not Improving overall mobility and transportation options include the thousands of students at Duke, UNC,and NCCU who also live in one county and attend school in another, or who The Plan provides improved bus service throughout the urban travel between the two counties for other educational or social and rural sections of Orange County, connecting to local opportunities. residential and employment centers throughout the county, and key regional destinations in Alamance, Durham and Wake The updated Orange and Durham Transit Plans continue this Counties. In addition, the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit long local tradition of supporting transit and linking the region system and North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit system by devoting additional resources towards improving the transit provide new mobility options along some of the most heavily network through enhanced bus service, a high-quality light rail traveled and congested travel corridors in our region. system, and improved bus facilities. Final Page 8 of 65 33 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Providing geographic equity of Chapel Hill, and the City of Durham. The study's goal is to determine the economic potential of the light-rail station areas The Plan allocates a dedicated percentage of bus service funds and determine how to maximize the economic benefits to the to Orange Public Transportation (OPT), which provides service region while meeting other important local goals such as largely in northern Orange County, including Hillsborough, as preservation of open space, equity, and affordable housing. well as connecting service between northern Orange County and Chapel Hill. In addition, the Plan helps fund a new intercity The N-S Corridor BRT Project will also provide the frequent (Amtrak) train station in Hillsborough, linking central Orange transit service and high-quality infrastructure to encourage County to destinations throughout North Carolina and along further transit-supportive development along the Martin the East Coast with frequent passenger rail service, including Luther King,Jr. Boulevard corridor in Chapel Hill.The expansion three daily round-trips between Charlotte and Raleigh. The of frequent bus service throughout the urban areas will also North Carolina Department of Transportation plans to add up support transit-oriented lifestyles. to two additional round trips in coming years. Providing positive impacts on air quality Supporting improved capital facilities The enhanced transit system, along with the D-O LRT system The Plan invests in capital projects to improve transit and transit-oriented development sparked by the project, will passengers' experience, including new and improved bus stops provide more multimodal transportation options for residents, with amenities such as benches and shelters, improved access allowing them to substitute transit, bicycle, and pedestrian for walking or biking to bus stops, and park-and-ride lots to trips for auto trips, reducing vehicular emissions. broaden access to the transit system. The D-O LRT Project will implement substantial capital facilities that will provide a high - - - $ 34 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 routes and demand response service in the Chapel Hill, MPO includes local elected officials from the City of Durham, Carrboro, and University area. Chapel Hill Transit also provides Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Hillsborough, Town of Carrboro, regional express bus service to Hillsborough in cooperation Durham County, Orange County, and Chatham County. with GoTriangle. Orange County Public Transportation (OPT) is a county The original Plan was approved in 2012 by Orange County, the R NGE CO cy� agency that is responsible for DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle. Along with this Plan, Orange providing transportation services County, Durham County, and GoTriangle have approved an to all residents of unincorporated Orange County, the Town of update to the Interlocal Agreement for cost sharing (the "Cost- Hillsborough, Efland, and a portion of the City of Mebane with Sharing Agreement") that governs the division of responsibility destinations within and beyond Orange County's borders. OPT for costs associated with the D-O LRT Project, a key element of provides community transportation in unincorporated Orange the Plan which serves both counties. This supersedes the County, consisting of demand response and circulator service original cost-sharing agreement entered into by the counties in within Hillsborough (in cooperation with the Town of 2012. Hillsborough), midday service connecting Chapel Hill to Hillsborough, and to Cedar Grove in northern Orange County. On October 24, 2012, Orange County, GoTriangle and the DCHC MPO entered into an Interlocal Implementation Agreement GoTriangle is a regional transit ("Implementation Agreement") to provide for effective =_ agency serving Wake, Durham, and implementation and oversight of the transit plan. The `iqe Orange counties. GoTriangle Implementation Agreement establishes a Staff Working Group provides regional commuter express and demand response including representatives from Orange County, GoTriangle, and service connecting Wake, Durham, and Orange counties, DCHC MPO. The Staff Working Group reviews progress of Plan provides express service connecting Mebane to Hillsborough Implementation and prepare updates to the Plan at least every and the City of Durham, and manages the Durham-Orange Light four years, or due to identified changes to costs or revenues Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project. that are significant enough to require a plan update. This Plan update is the first such update. — — The signatories to this Plan are Orange County, GoTriangle, and Planning Tomorrow Today the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). The governing board of the DCHC Final Page 10 of 65 35 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 2. Status of Projects and Services from �y 2012 Plan Based on the initial financial and programmatic assumptions, � the original Plan approved new bus services and a variety of bus �� v facilities such as shelters and park-and-ride lots, an Amtrak intercity rail station in Hillsborough, dedicated bus lanes along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Chapel Hill, and light rail service connecting Chapel Hill and Durham over a period of 20 years.These projects were proposed to be paid for, in whole or in part, by the Tax District Revenues authorized by the Plan and In addition, as local governments and transit agencies have by the affirmative vote on the levying of the Tax District further developed the capital projects included in the original Revenues by Orange County residents. Plan,they have recommended changes in the projects to better meet the region's transit needs, often resulting in increased Since the adoption of the original Plan and implementation of estimated costs. More information about project funding and the Tax District Revenues to support the Plan, the transit planned expenditures can be found in Sections 4 and S. agencies in Orange County have already delivered many of the planned bus services and made significant progress developing This Section summarizes the progress made by local transit the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project. agencies to advance projects and services included in the At the same time, however, the transit funding landscape has original Plan since its adoption, and is organized as follows: shifted significantly. Most transit investments, from large . Bus Service Expansion investments (like light rail projects) to smaller projects (like bus o Service within the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro stops and bus vehicle purchases), are made using a o Regional Service combination of federal, state, and local funding. State o Service within Hillsborough and Orange County government also provides funds to support transit operating and maintenance expenses. In developing its program of • Bus Facilities projects, the original Plan relied on long-standing assumptions • Hillsborough Train Station related to the level of federal and state participation in transit • North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project projects. Since 2012, however, federal and state funding for • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project individual transit projects has been reduced. Final Page 11 of 65 36 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 2.1-1. Hours Implemented v. Hours Available Since 2013, the Tax District Revenue has been used to enhance the region's bus service. Existing service has been supplemented with additional trips, which provide more - — frequent bus service on heavily traveled routes and reduce the time passengers need to wait for buses. Some routes now have longer service spans, which allow riders to use transit earlier in the morning or later in the evening to get home or to work. -492 There are also new bus routes that enhance transit access throughout the county and region. The original Plan included additional service in Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and rural Orange County, new express service connecting Mebane, Efland, and Hillsborough to central Durham, and expanded regional services connecting with A����l Revenue Hours Durham County and Wake County (for which funding responsibility is shared between the participating counties). Hours MEN= Available The original Plan included funding to provide about 34,650 new annual bus service hours during the first five years, with an NOTE: Chapel Hill hours are lower than what was in additional 6,300 annual bus service hours beginning in 2035. original plan due to an increase in the cost per hour To date, the transit agencies have implemented about 15,400 In connection with the service enhancements, the original Plan additional annual hours of bus service, and used funds made allocated funds to purchase new and replacement vehicles, available to cover the increased cost of providing transit service including 15 new buses between 2013 and 2016, and 15 buses to support 9,000 annual hours of existing bus service. Thus, a to replace these purchases during 2025-2028. To date, the total of about 24,400 annual hours of service are currently transit agencies have purchased or ordered seven new buses supported by Tax District Revenue. using Tax District Revenue. After approval of the original Plan in 2012, the transit agencies continued efforts to refine plans for future transit service. The Final Page 12 of 65 37 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 goal of these analyses was to optimize existing routes using • A near-doubling of existing Saturday service, with existing resources, identify top priorities for additional transit expanded operating hours, improved service frequency, service, and determine whether projects previously identified and redesigned routes as transit priorities continue to be locally or regionally . A quadrupling of Sunday service important projects. For example, Orange County Public . Utilizing funds to supplement the increased cost of Transportation (OPT) produced a short-range transit plan that identified additional future transit priorities for rural Orange providing Chapel Hill Transit's existing services County. To date, Chapel Hill Transit has implemented 6,426 hours of new service,and has allocated the full eligible amount for the In addition, as new services funded by Tax District Revenue increased cost of existing service (for fiscal year 2018, this were introduced, the agencies evaluated the performance of translates to about 6,745 hours). these additional trips using metrics (such as ridership) to determine whether the services should be maintained or their The approximately 13,171 hours that have been implemented resources redirected to supplement other existing routes or for new or existing service thus far is lower than the anticipated new services. level of bus service proposed in the original Plan. This reduced level of service expansion versus projections included in the The cost and implementation schedule of projects proposed in Plan is due in part to the state of the agency's bus fleet, which the original Plan were, in some cases, modified due to these limits its ability to run existing buses for additional hours. The later planning efforts. The program of projects included in original Plan also assumed a lower cost per hour to operate Section 0 of this updated Plan also incorporates the results of Chapel Hill Transit service than its current rate. these additional planning efforts. Specific enhancements implemented by Chapel Hill Transit include: For service within the Town of Chapel Hill provided by Chapel Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2014 Hill Transit, specific goals during the first five years included: • Evening and night service on Routes CM, CW, D and J • Improving evening service on key routes by extending extended year-round, instead of only when UNC is in hours and improving frequency session • Providing additional trips on peak-period services to . Two additional evening trips added on Route F reduce overcrowding . Additional Saturday service on Routes CM, CW and JN • Improving service along US 15-501 and NC 54 Final Page 13 of 65 38 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2015 Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2014 • Additional midday trips on Route NS • More frequent service between Streets at Southpoint and • Additional morning trips on Routes A and J Chapel Hill (Route 800S), with buses scheduled every 15 • Extended morning service on Route D minutes during peak commute times (previously every 30 minutes) Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2015 For regional services provided by GoTriangle, specific goals during the first five years included: • New commuter express service (Route ODX) connecting Mebane and Hillsborough with Duke Medical Center and • Providing new service connecting Mebane and downtown Durham Hillsborough with Duke University and downtown • Sunday service introduced on GoTriangle core routes Durham (Route ODX) (Routes 400, 700,and 800), including a connection to RDU • Extending existing regional service to connect Carrboro International Airport on Route 100; Saturday service with Durham (Route 405) extended to run until 11 p.m. (previously 7 p.m.) • Adding frequency, reducing travel time, and expanding Saturday service and new Sunday service on existing Durham-Chapel Hill routes (Route 400) • Expanding Saturday and new Sunday service on existing Chapel Hill-Research Triangle Park routes (Route 800) V GoTriangle has paid for about 6,700 new bus hours using Orange County Tax District Revenue (this number represents approximately half of the increased bus service on GoTriangle - routes because the cost of operating routes is shared with o either Durham or Wake County for routes that cross county borders). Under the Implementation Agreement, GoTriangle spends the full amount of its bus service allocation from the Tax District Revenues for expansion service; none is used to fund the increased Cost of Existing Service. - — - � - - Final Page 14 of 65 39 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2016 • Additional service on the Chapel Hill-Raleigh Express Orange County Public Transportation's (OPT's) goal was to service (Route CRX) during peak commute times enhance the level of service provided in unincorporated Orange County. In addition, Tax District Revenues were planned to be Service Enhancements Initiated in Fiscal Year 2017 used to continue weekday hourly service on the in-town • Extension to Carrboro on Chapel Hill-Durham regional Hillsborough circulator. route (Route 405) during peak commute times To date, OPT has implemented an annual increase of 4,500 • Reduced travel time and more frequent service for core hours of bus service.The total is higher than anticipated in part route between Chapel Hill and Durham (Route 400), with because the original Plan allocated bus hours on the basis of an buses scheduled every 30 minutes in the middle of each average cost of service among the three agencies. Due to its weekday and on Saturdays, up from every 60 minutes. smaller vehicles and the lower overhead costs of a small transit agency, OPT's hourly costs are lower.Thus the number of hours These implemented projects represent almost all of the OPT could provide in the 2012 Plan for the same amount of regional service improvements pledged to be introduced revenue was 6,887 hours, depending on federal and state during the first five years of the original Plan. The following funding assumptions. service has not been implemented and will be evaluated as part of an upcoming five-year transit planning effort: In 2016, Orange County instated OPT as its own department in County government to focus on transit services and appointed • Route 405 with service to Carrboro only runs every thirty the department's first director. minutes during peak times (vs. the 15 minute frequency anticipated in the original Plan) and does not run midday. OPT has implemented the following service enhancements: One improvement listed as a future priority in the original Plan • Continued service of the Hillsborough Circulator is intended to be implemented this year;30-minute midday and (previously funded using a time-limited federal grant) Saturday service along Route 800 between RTP and Chapel Hill • New midday service between Hillsborough and Chapel via Southpoint. In addition, OPT has introduced midday service Hill on the Cedar Grove-Hillsborough-Chapel Hill Midday between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, complementing Connector (implemented in fiscal year 2016) GoTriangle Route 420 which runs during peak commute hours. To date, OPT has not introduced Saturday service to the Hillsborough Circulator, as expected in the original Plan. As Final Page 15 of 65 40 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 discussed in Section 4.1.3, additional service to rural Orange County is scheduled to be implemented in calendar year 2017. The original Plan set aside funds to pay for passenger transit amenities within the first three years of the Plan such as park- {, and-ride lots, bus shelters, passenger amenities such as real- time passenger information signs, and bus stop access improvements such as sidewalks. - Since 2012, GoTriangle, Chapel Hill Transit, and OPT have between Charlotte and Raleigh twice daily in each direction. worked collaboratively with the Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Under the Piedmont Improvement Program, underway since Carrboro, UNC, and Orange County to refine the list of small 2010, the North Carolina Department of Transportation capital projects to be funded using Tax District Revenue, such anticipates operating up to five daily trips between Raleigh and as bus stop enhancements and park-and-rides. Charlotte in each direction. Bus facilities that have been implemented are: Unlike other projects and services in the Plan which are managed by the local transit agencies, the Hillsborough Train • North Hillsborough Park-and-Ride (temporary lease) Station project is managed by the North Carolina Department • lease of spaces at Mebane Cone Health for park-and-ride of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division and is primarily state on Orange-Durham Express (Route ODX) funded. Since 2012, the NCDOT Rail Division has continued • Bus stop signs in Orange County planning and coordination activities to advance the project, • Pedestrian crossings at bus stops in Chapel Hill with support from the Town of Hillsborough and GoTriangle in a technical advisory capacity. Identified by the NCDOT as project number P-5701, the The original Plan set aside funds to support construction of an Hillsborough Train Station is programmed for construction in intercity passenger rail station in the Town of Hillsborough.The fiscal years 2019 and 2020 in the 2016-2025 State station will be served by two Amtrak passenger train routes: Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). the Carolinian, which travels between Charlotte and New York once daily in each direction, and the Piedmont, which travels Final Page 16 of 65 41 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 -� - -g - Figure 2.4-1: N-S BRT Corridor Study Map E - s The original Plan set aside funds for bus lane improvements along Martin Luther King,Jr. Blvd. in Chapel Hill from 1-40 to the UNC campuses. The original project was referred to as "Martin � Luther King Boulevard Bus Lanes and Corridor Improvements." Beginning in 2012, Chapel Hill Transit led the North-South - Corridor study to identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, South Columbia Street and N US 15-501 corridor. Adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council - on April 27, 2016, the North-South Corridor LPA is a combination of mixed-traffic and dedicated lanes that will connect Eubanks Road park-and-ride with Southern Village park-and-ride along Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, South Columbia Street, and US 15-501. The route features direct connections to the University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals campus and the planned Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D- O LRT) Project. Chapel Hill Transit plans to carry three design variations of the LPA forward into the engineering and environmental clearance process to allow for further public input on the design of project. The project is currently known as the North-South Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). On November 21, 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) admitted the project into Small Starts Project Development. Chapel Hill Transit is preparing to initiate engineering and environmental clearance activities at the beginning of fiscal year 2018. Final Page 17 of 65 42 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 2.4-1: D-O LRT Project Map The original Plan set aside funding for the Orange County share Lagend of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project, which at that stage of planning was a 17-station alignment extending approximately 17 miles from UNC Hospitals in Chapel � T Hill to east Durham, near the intersection of Alston Avenue and NC 147. At that time, there remained several alignment and station options, including options to cross Little Creek and New Hope Creek; multiple station location options at Friday Center, , Meadowmont/Woodmont, and the Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Centers; and several options Chapel Hill s3 _. for the rail operations and maintenance facility. Q Since adoption of the original Plan, GoTriangle conducted the environmental evaluation for the project, as required by the M­F­R­ m National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The D-O LRT Project was one of the first to complete its environmental analysis - - under new federal law, enacted in July 2012, which required transit agencies complete the analysis in two years. (NCRR), which owns the freight and intercity-rail tracks that also run through downtown Durham. GoTriangle began its NEPA analysis in February 2014. Following extensive study, GoTriangle and the FTA released a Draft During the DEIS public comment period, the public was invited Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for public comment in to attend two formal public information sessions and provide August 2015. The DEIS analyzed the project's impacts to the oral comments at two public hearings. GoTriangle accepted natural and human environment, and proposed the "NEPA written comments via regular mail, email, and telephone Preferred Alternative" including recommendations for the between August 28 and October 13, 2015. Following a review alignment, station, and rail operations and maintenance facility of the public comment, GoTriangle and the FTA issued a alternatives evaluated in the document. The NEPA Preferred combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Alternative also contained refined alignment and station Final Section 4(f) Determination/ Record of Decision (ROD) on locations through downtown Durham to accommodate future February 15, 2016. right-of-way needs of the North Carolina Railroad Company Final Page 18 of 65 43 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Earlier, on November 11, 2015, the DCHC MPO unanimously engineering of the project is ongoing and is expected to passed a resolution endorsing the NEPA Preferred Alternative culminate in execution of a Full Funding Grant Agreement for the D-O LRT Project. (FFGA) with the federal government in 2020. The project is expected to open in 2028, two years later than originally One of the most frequent comments received during the NEPA anticipated. study was a request that GoTriangle improve the connection between the D-O LRT Project and North Carolina Central Ongoing work on the D-O LRT Project is being funded using Tax University (NCCU), which is located approximately 0.6 miles District Revenue and is eligible to be partially reimbursed by the south of the Alston Avenue station across the NC 147 freeway. federal government upon execution of a FFGA. In response to these comments, FTA and GoTriangle committed to analyzing the feasibility of extending the alignment to the NCCU campus. This change was known as the "NCCU Station Refinement," and FTA required preparation of a Supplemental Beyond the projects planned to be funded within the first five Environmental Assessment(Supplemental EA)to document the years, the original Plan identified further transit needs that impacts of the refinement before it could be included in the likely could not be funded with the Tax District Revenue. project scope. On November 7, 2016, GoTriangle and FTA published a Supplemental EA which determined that the NCCU Station In the original Plan, Chapel Hill identified eight service priorities Refinement would not result in significant adverse social, for a total of 33,136 additional hours of identified new service. economic, or environmental impacts. The public was invited to The original Plan had funding for approximately two-thirds of comment on the Supplemental EA through December 7. On those hours. December 14, 2016, the FTA issued an Amended Record of Decision giving environmental clearance to the NCCU Station Refinement. Also on December 14, 2016, the DCHC MPO Several services were identified in the original Plan as future unanimously passed a resolution amending the Locally regional service priorities to be implemented after 2020. Preferred Alternative to incorporate the NCCU Station Refinement. • 30-minute service frequencies on Route ODX, up from hourly On December 30, 2016, GoTriangle submitted to FTA its . New express service from White Cross to Carrboro to application to advance the D-O LRT Project into the Engineering Phase of the federal New Starts program. Design and Chapel Hill, with 30-minute frequency Final Page 19 of 65 44 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • Midday service on express Route CRX between Chapel Hill ENNEfflimumm and Raleigh • Added midday trips on Route 805 between Woodcroft and Chapel Hill. Additional bus service can be provided starting in 2029, when the D-O LRT Project is expected to begin operation.The D-O LRT GoTriangle's planning efforts since implementation of the service will replace several existing high-frequency bus routes original Plan have resulted in a change in priorities which are in their entirety, such as, but not limited to, GoTriangle Routes reflected in this updated Plan in Section 0. In addition, 400 and 405, and Chapel Hill Transit Routes FCX and S. The GoTriangle is beginning a new short-range planning effort service hours that will no longer be dedicated to these routes which will redefine the list of future regional service priorities. are known as the "rail dividend" — these unneeded service hours can be redirected to meet other Orange County transit priorities. The original Plan did not include any priorities for future As described in the Transit Operating Plan for the D-O LRT Hillsborough or rural services to be operated by OPT. However, Project, GoTriangle projects an estimated 30,000-45,000 rail over the last five years,OPT has developed with approval of the dividend service hours may available in Orange County (with Board of County Commissioners a bus expansion program to additional rail dividend service hours available in Durham include an additional 6,464 hours. County for service in Durham County). Decisions on how to make use of these rail dividend hours, as well as how other bus services should be modified to take advantage of the D-O LRT 9 system,will be made by GoTriangle, GoDurham, and Chapel Hill Transit Partners working together as the opening date of the D-O LRT Project draws near. Final Page 20 of 65 45 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 3. Status of Funding Assumptions Since the adoption of the 2012 Plan, changes have been made The original Plan applied the same funding assumptions to by the U.S. Congress to the federal transportation funding laws, vehicles and bus facilities. In response to the new funding in addition to changes made by the North Carolina General environment, the transit providers have developed separate Assembly to the way that state funding decisions are made. In assumptions for vehicles and bus facilities. response to these changes, transit providers have updated their assumptions for the share of Tax District Revenues required to implement this updated Plan. The impacts of these The 2012 Plan assumed that bus purchases and bus facilities changes are described below. would receive 80 percent of the funding from discretionary federal grants, consistent with prior experience. However, shortly following adoption of the 2012 Plan, a new federal The original Plan assumed the operations and maintenance transportation law was passed, MAP-21, which eliminated the (O&M) of expansion bus services would be funded by a opportunity for transit agencies to compete for federal grant combination of formula-driven federal and state grants as well funding for buses and bus facilities. It was replaced with a as transit fares. In the 2017 Plan, Chapel Hill Transit and Orange formula-driven grant program that would not support the County Public Transportation (OPT) assume that Tax District expansions at the levels outlined in the 2012 Plan. For example, Revenues will fund 90 percent of their O&M costs for expansion in the last year of the previous federal transportation law, bus services. Additionally, Chapel Hill Transit and OPT assume Congress allocated $984 million nationwide to bus and bus they will use 100 percent of the proceeds from the seven dollar facilities purchase. In the first year of MAP-21, the total vehicle registration fee to fund the Increased Cost of Existing allocation was $421 million. In 2015, another federal Service. This reduces the availability of funds for expansion transportation law was passed, the FAST Act, which restored services. some discretionary funding for replacement bus purchases, but not for expansion vehicles. GoTriangle now assumes Tax District Revenues will fund 75 percent of its O&M costs for expansion bus services. The To address these changes, this Plan reduces the assumed share remaining 25 percent will be funded by state operating grants of federal revenues available for bus capital projects from 80 (10 percent) and fare revenues (15 percent). GoTriangle does percent to approximately 44 percent, meaning it is now not use any of the Tax District Revenues to support the assumed the Tax District Revenues will fund a higher share of Increased Cost of Existing Service. these projects. Final Page 21 of 65 46 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 No federal funds are assumed to cover the costs of new or Now, state funding for the project is programmed in the State replacement vehicles for any of the transit providers. Transportation Improvement Program at 91.5 percent of the project cost. The remaining 8.5 percent is to be funded by Tax District Revenues. In 2013, the State of North Carolina passed the Strategic L_ Transportation Investments law that changed how - - - - - --- transportation funding decisions are made. The 2013 law The N-S BRT Project is planned to be funded through a created a 10 percent cap on the use of "regional tier" funding combination of Tax District Revenues and federal funds. for transit projects in any 7-year Transportation Improvement Program, limiting the availability of state revenues to an amount lower than assumed in the 2012 Plan. The 2012 Plan assumed the federal government would be a To address these changes, the 2017 Plan does not assume any significant funding partner for the N-S BRT Project at a 50 state revenues will be available for bus capital projects, percent share of total costs.Though changes were made to the meaning that Tax District Revenues will need to fund a higher federal transportation funding law, it authorized continued share of these projects. funding through 2020 for the Capital Improvement Grant program, which is assumed to be an essential funding source For new and replacement vehicles, Chapel Hill Transit and OPT for the BRT project. The Small Starts section of this grant now assume that the Tax District Revenues will cover 100 program would allow up to 80 percent of project costs, $100 percent of the costs. GoTriangle assumes the Tax District million, to be paid through the federal grant. In order to Revenues will cover 90 percent of the costs, with the remaining improve the competitiveness of the project for this funding,the 10 percent funded by state grants. 2017 Plan assumes that the N-S BRT Project will receive 70 percent of its funding from the federal government. The 2012 Plan also assumed the State would be a significant The Hillsborough Train Station project was assumed to be funding partner for the N-S South BRT Project at a 25 percent funded 80 percent by federal grants, 10 percent by state grants, share of the total costs,just as it had done for Charlotte for the and 10 percent by Tax District Revenues. construction of their two light rail projects. North Carolina's Strategic Transportation Investments law created a scoring Final Page 22 of 65 47 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 system for rating projects for funding. In 2014, the N-S BRT the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Project at a 50 Project was submitted for evaluation and did not score well percent share of total costs. Though changes have been made enough to receive state funding. Since that time, changes have to the federal transportation funding law,federal law continues been made to the state evaluation criteria which may result in to authorize funding through 2020 for the Capital Improvement a better score. However, this Plan does not assume any state Grant program, which is assumed to be an essential funding funding for the N-S BRT Project. source for the light rail and bus rapid transit projects. This Plan assumes that the D-O LRT project will receive 50 percent of its The updated assumptions, 70 percent federal funding and zero funding from the federal government. percent state funding, mean that other sources must make up the 30 percent difference. The 2017 Plan maintains the Tax Another key assumption about federal funding that has District Revenue share of the project at the dollar amount changed from the original Plan is that the 2017 Plan assumes specified in the original Plan, $6.125 million YOE. This amount an annual cap on the disbursement of federal funds for the can be considered a minimum and will be revisited in the future project. The original Plan assumed the federal government if Tax District Revenues are available. would reimburse 50 percent of project costs annually as funds were spent.The 2017 Plan clarifies that the federal government As the project progresses through the Project Development is expected to reimburse a maximum of $100 million YOE per phase, Chapel Hill Transit will refine cost estimates, continue to year, for as many years as it takes for the full federal share to apply for State funding and explore other funding be reimbursed. This means that it will take longer to receive opportunities. federal funds than originally assumed, which increases the need to finance a portion of the project. The original Plan also assumed the State would be a significant The D-O LRT Project is planned to be funded primarily through funding partner for the D-O LRT Project at a 25 percent share of a combination of Tax District Revenues, state funds, federal the total costs, which is equal to the level of state funding for funds. the light rail projects in Charlotte. As mentioned above, in 2013 the Strategic Transportation Investments law created a 10 percent cap on the use of "regional tier" funding for transit The original Plan assumed the federal government would be a projects in any State Transportation Improvement Program, significant funding partner for the major capital investments in limiting the availability of state revenues to an amount lower than assumed in the original Plan. In 2016, the General Final Page 23 of 65 48 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Assembly passed a law placing another cap of 10 percent of the • The inclusion of an additional station at North Carolina project cost for all light rail and commuter rail project costs. Central University, which adds an extra 0.6 miles of the This Plan assumes the state contribution to the D-O LRT Project light-rail alignment in Durham County will be 10 percent. • Changes to the alignment at the New Hope Creek This Plan addresses the reduction of state funding for the D-O Crossing extended the length of the alignment in LRT Project by committing a higher level of Tax District Revenue Durham County to the project than the original Plan. This Plan also assumes • A station proposed for Orange County, Meadowmont more borrowing against the anticipated Tax District Revenue Station, was replaced by Woodmont Station in Durham stream. County,which also shortens the length of the alignment in Orange County Representatives from Orange County, Durham County, and In the original Plan, the capital and operating costs for the D-O GoTriangle have entered into a separate cost-sharing LRT Project were shared by Orange and Durham counties. A agreement (the "Cost-Sharing Agreement") which has been cost sharing agreement between Orange County, Durham executed along with the Plan. The cost-sharing agreement County, and GoTriangle established the cost share that allocates D-O LRT Project expenses as follows: GoTriangle was to use when spending Tax District Revenue on the D-O LRT Project.The Orange County share of capital project • Project capital costs: costs was 22.95 percent of the local share. The Orange County o Durham: $738.4 million (YOE) share of operating costs was 23.95 percent. No cost-share o Orange: $149.5 million (YOE) assumptions were made for financing or maintaining the . Operating expenses (through June 30, 2036): project in a State of Good Repair. o Durham: 80 percent With the reduction in state funding, the local share has o Orange: 20 percent increased from 25 percent of project costs to 40 percent of up- • Operating expenses (after June 30, 2036) and State of front project costs. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.6 Good Repair costs: below, the project scope has been modified, placing a greater o Durham: 81 percent portion of the project within Durham County. The relevant o Orange: 19 percent changes include: These are represented as key assumptions in Table 4.8-1. Final Page 24 of 65 49 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Program 4. - In developing the 2017 Plan, the first priority of local staff has been to deliver on key goals of the original Plan —expansion of bus service, improved bus facilities, and major capital projects �� that significantly improve the quality of transit. This sectiony � y summarizes the projects and services included in this Plan and is organized as follows: e • Bus Service • Vehicle Purchases • Bus Facilities • Hillsborough Train Station As set forth in Section 6.5,the Staff Working Group will produce • North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project an annual updated financial plan incorporating revised • Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project assumptions and an annual Work Plan that identifies particular • Administrative Support projects, services, and activities to be implemented in the upcoming year.The Work Plan will be presented to Durham and The program of projects and services in this Plan was developed Orange County for review and comment prior to consideration from recommendations of staff from the local governments for approval. and participating transit agencies. The full scope, cost, and financing assumptions of each of the -- ------- projects in this Plan are preliminary. The list of projects which This Plan allocates Tax District Revenue for additional bus will be implemented and the implementation timeframe are service in Orange County provided by Chapel Hill Transit subject to change. For example, if upon further study a project (generally within Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and UNC), GoTriangle is more costly than originally anticipated, or funding available (regionally), and Orange County Public Transportation (OPT) from federal, state, or the amount of Tax District Revenue (throughout Orange County). In addition, this Plan includes collected does not match the assumptions in this Plan, the funding to purchase and replace buses used to provide that project may be delayed or its scope reduced. service. Final Page 25 of 65 50 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 The Plan allocates available funding for bus operations ($3.14 Dollar Registration Fee (see Section 5.1.1.4 below) to cover the million in fiscal year 2018) according to proportions established increased operating cost of services provided before the in the Interlocal Implementation Agreement — 64 percent to original Plan took effect. The updated Plan continues to rely on Chapel Hill Transit, 24 percent to GoTriangle, and 12 percent to this assumption. GoTriangle does not use any Tax District Orange Public Transportation. Revenues to fund services provided before the original plan took effect. The bus hours projected for each agency in this Plan are based on the following assumptions: • Available Tax District Revenues each year The Plan is designed to provide a level of additional bus service • Hourly cost of providing bus service (specific to each that can be sustained annually. Therefore, this Plan provides agency) continued support for numerous bus service expansions that • Inflation rate of hourly cost have occurred since 2013,when Tax District Revenues began to • Share of operating costs funded by Tax District Revenue accrue. The tables below list the additional bus service which has already been implemented and which the agencies (specific to each agency) anticipate continuing to provide using Tax District Revenue.The If an agency's cost of providing service is lower than precise services funded by Tax District Revenue are subject to anticipated,or if operating revenues from other sources exceed change based on future service needs, ridership trends, expectations (e.g. farebox revenue), the agencies may be able changes in revenues and expenses, and public input. to provide more service than set forth in this Plan. If the cost of providing service is higher, then the agencies may not be able to provide as much service. An agency's projected hourly cost to operate service may change in the future for a variety of reasons, including changes in labor costs, fuel costs, or additional administrative overhead. Any changes in the bus service hours provided under the Plan will be accounted for in the annual Work Plan (see Section 6.5). The Implementation Agreement authorizes Chapel Hill Transit and OPT to use 100 percent of the amount raised by the Seven- Final Page 26 of 65 51 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.1-1:GoTriangle Implemented Service Improvements Table 4.1-3: OPT Implemented Service Improvements Number of service hours funded 6,708 Number of service hours 4,500 Route 800S, Chapel Hill -Southpoint peak service Hillsborough Circulator Route ODX, Mebane-Hillsborough-Durham express O -CH Midday Connector Route 800, additional Saturday& new Sunday service Route 400, additional Saturday& new Sunday service Route CRX, additional trips Route 400J405, extension to Carrboro and add'I service New bus services (including new routes and increased service frequency on existing routes) are proposed to be implemented Route 400, 30-min weekday&Saturday service by Chapel Hill Transit, GoTriangle and OPT using Tax District Additional FTA-required paratransit service* Revenue. The bus service hours shown below are estimates of All service paid for 50%with Orange Tax-District Revenues what can be provided with the commitment of Tax District * Services not included in original Plan Revenue. The actual number of bus hours provided will depend on each agency's actual costs of operations and maintenance, Table 4.1-2: CHT Implemented Service Improvements as well as differences in budgeting assumptions made by each agency about state, federal, farebox, or other local funds (non- Chapel Hill Transit Ongoing Service Expansion Tax District Revenues) that can also support service expansion. Number of service hours 6,427 Routes A, D,J, and NS — additional peak and midday service These proposed service expansions are subject to change as the Routes FG and D — extended Saturday service agencies evaluate existing services (both services provided Routes CM, CW, D, F and I — extended weekday evening service using the agencies' other funding sources and those Routes CM, CW, and JN — extended Saturday service implemented using Tax District Revenue) and engage in studies Route HS— peak hour and evening expansion* to prioritize new services. * Services not included in original Plan In 2017, GoTriangle and Chapel Hill Transit expect to begin short-range planning efforts to reevaluate plans for new and revised services over the next 5 to 10 years. OPT completed a short-range planning effort in 2015 and is scheduled to begin another expansion program in 2017.These planning efforts will be coordinated among all transit agencies in Orange County, Final Page 27 of 65 52 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 transit riders, the public, elected officials, and regional Table 4.1-6: OPT Program of Service Improvements stakeholders. Table 4.1-4:GoTriangle Program of Service Improvements The following service improvements will be considered by the Orange County Commissioners: Deviated fixed routes to three different parts of the County, running 5 hours per day, 2 days Upgrade GoTriangle Route 800 between Chapel Hill, per week in each of the zones; new US 70 midday fixed-route Southpoint, and the Regional Transit Center to operate every service operating weekdays from 10 am-3 pm; and Efland- 30 minutes from 6 AM to 7 PM Monday through Friday, and 7 Hillsborough commuter loop service operating 5 hours each AM to 7 PM on Saturday. It currently operates only every 60 weekday at peak commute times. minutes between 9:30 AM and 3:30 PM on weekdays, and all day on Saturday. (Cost split 50-50 with Durham County) Anticipated service start date Fiscal Year 2018 Table 4.1-5 CHT Program of Service Improvements The following operating costs per hour were provided by the three transit agencies in Orange County for fiscal year 2018 and CHT program of service improvements(5,700 hours) used to calculate the hours of bus service projected to be made The following service improvements will be considered by the given the planned funding: Chapel Hill Transit funding partners: • Evening service expansion to Southern Village (NS Route) • Chapel Hill Transit $113/hr • Peak hour expansion of existing service on the CW Route • GoTriangle $120/hr • Create new Saturday Route from Meadowmont via • Orange County Public Transportation $68/hr Downtown to Southern Village (V Route) o Expansion of Saturday Service—begin all routes around 8 For both Chapel Hill Transit and OPT, it is assumed that 90 AM, extend all routes to 7 PM percent of the funding would come from Tax District Revenue, o T—extend route to 15/501 &Sage Road with 10 percent from state and federal grants. For GoTriangle, o G—improve peak hour service it is assumed that 75 percent of the funding would come from o Expand Sunday service to match Saturday service levels Tax District Revenue, with 15 percent from fares, and 10 Anticipated service start date Fiscal Years 2018-19 percent from state grants. Final Page 28 of 65 53 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.2-1:GoTriangle Vehicle Purchases This Plan sets aside funding for GoTriangle to engage in a short- - . term 5-10 year) planning effort to update its transit plan, which Purchase of 2 buses to support expanded services funded using will help determine what future services are funded from the Tax District Revenue. An additional 2 buses will be purchased Tax District Revenue. Before funds are committed to using Durham Tax District Revenue for service on routes serving implement a particular project, the project sponsor will be the two counties. required enter into a Project-Specific Agreement with GoTriangle which sets forth the cost and schedule expectations of the project. See Section 6.3. Table 4.2-2: CHT Vehicle Purchases $ 54 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 replacements (for eight of the buses) this Plan sets aside $16.0 improvement project is within % mile (for pedestrian million YOE through fiscal year 2045. facilities) or 3 miles (for bicycle facilities) of a transit stop. • Park-and-Rides: These are new facilities and associated amenities to allow transit riders to park their car before The agencies will continue to reevaluate their vehicle needs to taking the bus. take into account the condition of their fleet, opportunities to Funds are also set aside in this Plan to pay for replacement of refurbish or otherwise extend the useful lives of vehicles, the facilities when they reach the end of their useful lives. Non- vehicles on order, and modifications to plans for future service. Tax District funding sources will need to be identified for Before funds are committed to purchase specific vehicles, the operations and maintenance costs. purchasing agency will be required enter into a Project-Specific The capital cost of these projects and the Tax District Agreement with GoTriangle which sets forth the cost and contribution is provided in Table 4.3-1 and Figure 4.3-1 below. schedule expectations of the project. See Section 6.3. The dates for implementation of projects in this Plan are .. _ _ _ preliminary and subject to change as the scope of each project is refined, project costs estimates are improved, and the Plan This Plan sets forth a program of customer-facing bus facility partners update their list of priority projects. In addition, the projects to improve the rider experience. The projects to be program of projects depends on assumptions of certain levels funded under this Plan fall into three general categories: of Tax District Revenue and participation by the federal and • Transit Stop Improvements: These are enhancements state governments. If those revenue projections change,the list made to improve the customer's waiting experience and of projects and projects' definitions may change as well. includes new facilities such as transfer centers, bus stop Table 4.3-1: Bus Facility Construction Costs through 2045(YOE) improvements, signage, real-time information displays, and related projects. _ . • Access Improvements: These are enhancements that Transit Stop Improvements $2,793,000 $2,761,000€ improve the ability for customers to access the transit Access Improvements $5,348,000 $1,828,000 system, including sidewalk and greenway projects, park-and-Ride $1,889,000 $846,000 intersection improvements, and related projects. In Total $10,031,000 $5,436,000 accordance with FTA guidelines, each access Final Page 30 of 65 55 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 4.3-1. Bus Facility Project Tax District Revenue Spending the improvements will be measured through customer Overview(in YOE dollars) feedback and satisfaction surveys. Table 4.3-2. Program of Transit Stop Improvements in FY2018-20 OPT bus stop signs To support new OPT service Bus shelter lighting Improved lighting at selected bus stops served by CHT GoTriangle bus stop Improved bus stop for GoTriangle 405 improvements in Carrboro service in Carrboro 2 bus stop improvements in New shelters at 2 bus stops in Carrboro Carrboro CHT system-wide bus stop Procure consultant to design system- -� 'S (16%) amenities guide manual wide bus stop amenity manual 1�J CHT ADA bus stop upgrades ADA improvements at stops throughout Chapel Hill/Carrboro 0 S-_250.000 S4500MO Hillsborough Circulator short- Improve 5 bus stops along term bus stop improvements Hillsborough Circulator route GoTriangle bus stop Improvements at bus stops served by improvements GoTriangle and potentially by CHT or OPT Transit stop improvements account for 51 percent of Tax Enhanced passenger amenities at District Revenue to be spent on construction of bus facilities in Manning Drive Bus Station p high-volume UNC Hospitals stop this Plan. The specific projects included in this Plan and Hillsborough Train Station Bus Bus stop amenities for new preliminary anticipated implementation dates are provided in Stop Improvements Hillsborough Train Station Table 4.3-2 and Table 4.3-3. Bus stop sign design and Update the design of bus stop signs Ire placement and poles For Chapel Hill Transit, the Plan allocates funds to hire a consultant to design a system-wide bus stop amenities manual for the agency. The manual is intended to help design and improve bus stops for the transit customer, and the impacts of Final Page 31 of 65 56 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.3-3: Program of Transit Stop Improvements after FY2020 Table 4.3-5: Program of Access Improvements in FY2021-22 Hillsborough Transfer Center Transfer center linking OPT and Estes Drive Bike-Ped Provide sidewalks and bike lanes from N. (phase 1) GoTriangle routes improvements Greensboro St to Carrboro town limits Access improvement- Create safe pedestrian access along Orange OPT bus stop improvements Improve 10 bus stops on OPT routes Patriot's Point to bus stop Grove Road to major bus stops Table 4.3-6: Program of Access Improvements after FY2023 Access improvements utilize 34 percent of Tax District Revenue planned to be spent on construction of bus facilities in this Plan. OPT intersection Enhanced crossing options between high The specific projects included in this Plan and their preliminary improvement ridership stops at one location,to be determined anticipated construction or completion dates are provided in Table 4.3-4, Table 4.3-5, and Table 4.3-6. Table 4.3-4: Program of Access Improvements in FY2018-20 New park-and-ride facilities utilize 16 percent of Tax District Revenue to be spent on construction of bus facilities in this ' = Plan. There are two planned park-and-ride facilities. Provides access from several neighborhoods Morgan Creek Greenway to Smith Level Road bike/ped network The first project is the Hillsborough Park-and-Ride Lot, which is Estes Drive Transit Study of improvements along Estes Drive a permanent park-and-ride facility in Hillsborough with 35-50 Access/Corridor Study from N.Greensboro St.to MLK Jr. Blvd. parking spaces to serve passengers riding the GoTriangle South Greensboro St Provides pedestrian access for several nearby Orange-Durham Express (Route ODX) to Durham. OPT will also Sidewalk CHT and GoTriangle routes provide a stop at the park-and-ride lot as part of its Circulator Fill gap in sidewalk between Fidelity St.to West Main St Sidewalk Poplar Ave,improving access to transit route. The project includes the cost of acquiring property for routes, plus crosswalk improvements the park-and-ride lot, design, and construction. This pedestrian-activated signal will allow HAWK signal on NC 54 transit riders to safely access destinations The second project involves additional passenger amenities at along NC 54 in Carrboro the Mebane park-and-ride facility shared by GoTriangle with OPT and Piedmont-Area Regional Transit (PART). Final Page 32 of 65 57 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.3-7: Bus Facilities Project Capital Funding Plan(YOE) The original Plan assumed 80 percent federal funding support for the projects and 10 percent state funding support, leaving 10 percent to be funded by Tax District Revenue. The total Tax district funding $669,900 $5,436,000 amount set aside in Tax District Revenue for construction of Other local/federal funds $0 $3,714,000 these projects was $669,000, which was intended to leverage Anticipated federal funds $5,359,200 $882,000 projects with a total cost of$6,669,000. State funding $669,900 $0 However, due to changes in federal and state policies regarding Total $6,699,000 $10,031,000 funding, it was determined these general assumptions were unrealistic and hampered the agencies' ability to execute the original Plan. In the interest of delivering these priority projects Figure 4.3-2. Bus Facilities Project Capital Funding Sources(YOE) in an expedited manner, this updated Plan includes updated funding and cost assumptions for each project, and overall allocates a higher percentage of Tax District Revenue to cover the cost of projects. Overall, the portfolio of projects included in this updated Plan are assumed to be funded 54 percent by Tax District Revenues, or$5.4 million of the total project costs. 37%) Anticipated federal funding has been reduced from $5.4 million to$882,000.An additional $3.7 million in other funds, about 37 percent of the total, is also assumed — these include federal funds allocated to the municipalities and transit agencies E I through the DCHC MPO, and other local funds outside the Tax District Revenues. No state funding is included. The capital State funding plan for Bus Facilities is presented in Table 4.3-7 and funding �® Figure 4.3-2. so � % � % Final Page 33 of 65 58 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.4-1: Hillsborough Train Station Capital Funding Plan (YOE) As in the original Plan, no funds from the Tax District Revenues 0M. a are allocated to the operations and maintenance costs for Other Funds $8,039,006 $7,414,000 these bus facilities. Tax-District Revenue $893,223 $686,000 Total $8,932,229 $8,100,000 The sponsors of the bus facility projects will continue to refine the project scope, description and schedule and prepare The operating costs for this project are expected to be paid by projects for implementation. Before funds are committed to the NCDOT Rail Division and Town of Hillsborough. No funds implement a particular project, the project sponsor will be from the dedicated Tax District Revenue are budgeted to pay required enter into a Project-Specific Agreement with operating costs for this project. GoTriangle which sets forth the cost and schedule expectations of the project. See Section 6.3. NCDOT Rail Division and the Town of Hillsborough will continue work on the project. Tax District Revenue funds have been The Hillsborough Train Station is an intercity rail station that committed to the project. will be served by two Amtrak passenger train routes already passing through Hillsborough. The NCDOT Rail Division is _ advancing the Hillsborough Train Station project in cooperation with the Town of Hillsborough and GoTriangle. The N-S BRT Project will provide frequent, fixed-guideway bus service along NC 86, known locally as Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and South Columbia Street, and the US Highway 15- 501 corridor in Chapel Hill. In April 2016, the Chapel Hill Town The capital funding plan for the project is presented in Table Council adopted a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that 4.4-1. The portion of capital funds from the Tax District included three alignment design options. The adopted LPA is Revenue is $686,000 YOE, a reduction from the local amount about 8.2 miles of combination mixed traffic/dedicated lane assumed in the original Plan. The project is slated for BRT between the Eubanks Road and the Southern Village park- construction in fiscal years 2019 and 2020. and-ride lots. Currently, it is estimated that 12 articulated BRT vehicles will be necessary to provide the service. Final Page 34 of 65 59 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 The original Plan included a project referred to as "Martin The capital funding plan is also different from the original Plan. Luther King Jr. Boulevard Bus Lanes and Corridor The original Plan assumed a federal funding share of 50 percent Improvements," with the project boundary starting at Eubanks and a state share of 25 percent. Chapel Hill Transit expects to Road near 1-40 and ending at the University of North Carolina apply for a grant from the FTA Section 5309 Small Starts (UNC) campus. The project was not well defined at that time. program for 70 percent of the project cost. The amount of funds committed from the dedicated Tax District revenue is During the North-South Corridor Study, which was guided by currently $6.1 million YOE, to be accessed on a pay-as-you-go significant public and stakeholder involvement, the project basis, which is the same amount dedicated in the original Plan. scope was extended beyond UNC to the Southern Village Park This amount can be considered a minimum and will be revisited and Ride lot. The study began in 2014 and concluded in the in the future if local transit revenues are available. The 2016 with the adoption of the LPA. In November 2016, the anticipated capital funding plan for the project is presented in North-South BRT Project was accepted into the FTA's Small Table 4.5-1. Starts Project Development phase where it will be further defined and shaped. As the project proceeds through the Project Development phase, Chapel Hill Transit will refine the cost estimates, continue to apply for State funding and explore other funding The estimated capital cost of the project is $125.8 million YOE, opportunities. an increase in cost from the original Plan. The project is Table 4.5-1: N-S BRT Project Capital Funding Plan(YOE millions) currently scheduled to open in calendar year 2022, although the opening date is subject to change based on the outcome of - - ° the project's environmental and design work. Tax-District Revenue $6.1 $6.1 Federal Funds $12.3 $88.1 State Funds $6.1 $0.0 Buses operate every 4 minutes and have Other Funds $0.0 $31.6 standing room only Exceeding Total $24.5 $125.8 Mft seated °fa All - = capacity by As in the original Plan, there are no funds from the dedicated Tax District Revenues that are planned for the operating cost of the N-S BRT Project. Final Page 35 of 65 60 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Chapel Hill Transit will continue with Project Development.The $6.1 million YOE included in the original Plan has been committed to the project. The D-O LRT Project will provide frequent, high-capacity light rail transit service in Durham and Orange Counties. As of � � December 2016, the scope of the project is 17.7 miles of dedicated light rail guideway with 18 stations between UNC proceeded from a conceptual level to a level sufficient for Hospitals in Chapel Hill and North Carolina Central University completion of environmental analyses and entry into the (NCCU) in Durham, connecting numerous activity centers Engineering phase of the federal New Starts program. within the two counties. Once service starts, the D-O LRT Project will provide approximately 50,000 annual hours of The opening of the D-O LRT Project has been delayed from additional transit service in Durham and Orange counties. The calendar year 2026 to 2028 to better match the anticipated proposed operating plan includes service 18.5 hours per day flow of funding from the federal government. Monday through Saturday, with 10-minute headways at peak times and 20-minute headways the rest of the day, and service The proposed financing for the project is summarized in 17.5 hours per day on Sunday with 20-minute headways most Section 5. of the day and 30-minute headways in the early morning and late evening. The D-O LRT Project also includes bicycle, pedestrian, and bus The estimated capital cost of the project is $2,476 million YOE. infrastructure improvements along the alignment. This capital cost was developed in accordance with FTA requirements for federal participation through the New Starts Compared to the project scope in the original Plan, the length program. It includes all eligible project expenses for project of the alignment is slightly longer, due to the choice of a New development, engineering, construction, start-up, and Hope Creek crossing alternative that is longer than the original financing that are expected to be incurred from the date the crossing included in the 2012 Alternatives Analysis, and the project entered New Starts Project Development (February addition of a new terminal station at NCCU. The design has 2014) to the final year the project is expected to receive a Final Page 36 of 65 61 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 disbursement of federal funds (anticipated 2032). This capital Table 4.6-1: D-O LRT Project Capital Cost Updates(2016 millions) cost was reviewed by the FTA and accepted for entry into New Starts Engineering. '" _ °�� M' , Level of Design Conceptual 30% The capital cost includes $2,126 million YOE for the original Original Scope (UNC-Alston Ave) $1,605* $1,668** project scope (UNC Hospitals — Alston Avenue), $133 million Joint Development (Optional) n/a $101 YOE for the segment from the Alston Avenue station to the NCCU Station n/a $108 NCCU station, and $88 million YOE in finance charges eligible Eligible Finance Charges n/a $61 for federal participation. The project cost includes $130 million Total $1,605 $1,877 YOE in Joint Development, of which $65 million YOE would come from local sources outside of the Tax District Revenue. * $1,378 in 2011 dollars,escalated to 2016 dollars at 3.1%annually ** $1,598 in 2015 dollars,escalated to 2016 dollars at 3.1%annually The Joint Development component is entirely optional and could be funded by government or private sources, and could Table 4.6-2: D-O LRT Project Capital Cost Updates(YOE millions) be used to leverage local funds to meet local priorities such as increasing the supply of additional affordable housing within D-O LRT station areas. The D-O LRT Project is expected to open Construction Completion Date 2026 2028 in calendar year 2028. Original Scope (UNC-Alston Ave) $1,823 $2,126 Details of project cost changes between the original Plan and Joint Development (Optional) n/a $130 this updated Plan are provided in Table 4.6-1 and Table 4.6-2. NCCU Station n/a $133 Eligible Finance Charges n/a $88 Total $1,823 $2,476 Project funding assumptions are also substantially different in this Plan. The original Plan assumed 25 percent state funding for the project.That assumption was consistent with prior state support for the Charlotte Lynx Blue Line in 2003 and the Charlotte Lynx Blue Line Extension in 2012. However, in June 2016, the General Assembly adopted a provision that imposes a state funding cap of ten percent for rail transit projects. The provision also made the D-O LRT Project ineligible for re-entry into the competitive system for state funding until the next Final Page 37 of 65 62 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 transportation project funding cycle, which will conclude with an adopted State Transportation Improvement Program in June 2019. GoTriangle plans to enter the D-O LRT Project into the The operating cost is projected as$28.7 million YOE for the first state process to compete for the full ten percent state share for year (fiscal year 2029). After applying fare revenues and state which the project is eligible. and federal grants, operating costs will be funded using the dedicated Tax District Revenue in Durham and Orange The anticipated capital funding plan for the project is presented Counties. This will allow local funds that currently operate bus in Table 4.6-3. GoTriangle is seeking a 50 percent grant from the routes that will replaced by the D-O LRT Project to be FTA Section 5309 New Starts program, which is consistent with reallocated. Orange County's share of the operating cost is 20 the federal share awarded other New Starts projects. The percent through June 30, 2036; thereafter, its share of the D-O amount of funds committed from the dedicated Tax District LRT operating cost is 19 percent. Revenue in Durham and Orange counties is$887.9 million YOE, of which Orange County's share is $149.5 million in this Plan. The remaining capital funds are planned from state grants, private monetary and in-kind donations, and other funds specifically identified for the Joint Development component. FTA requires that agencies plan for funding needs associated with capital asset replacement, referred to as "State of Good Table 4.6-3: D-O LRT Project Capital Funding Plan (YOE millions) Repair." This includes items such as light rail vehicle replacement every 25 years and major track work overhaul Mi e - Ma 9 MY7--_ a every 20 to 35 years.The first such expenditure for the D-O LRT Other Funds $1,367.3 $1,588.4 Project is anticipated in 2040, with expenses continuing Dedicated Local Revenues $455.7 $887.9 periodically thereafter for the duration of light rail operations. Durham County Portion $351.2 $738.4 The total local share of these State of Good Repair costs is Orange County Portion $104.5 $149.5 assumed to be 30 percent. Orange County's portion of the local Total $1,823.0 $2,476.3 share of the capital asset replacement expenses is 19 percent. Though the D-O LRT Project will compete for a full ten percent share from state funding, this funding is not guaranteed and Funding for the D-O LRT Project is committed through the Cost- could cover a lesser amount than ten percent of the full project Sharing Agreement executed along with this Plan and which is cost. Further information about financial assumptions is incorporated into the annual Work Plan (see Sections 6.2 and included in Section S. 6.5). Final Page 38 of 65 63 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 GoTriangle must demonstrate that the effects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the existing As the project moves forward into the Engineering Phase, commitments in the Amended Record of Decision before the GoTriangle will evaluate changes to the track alignment and change may be advanced in the design. station location at several sections to optimize the project's performance and the counties' financial investment. The goals Before incorporating the proposed change into the final design of these changes include minimizing conflicts with vehicular & of the project, the FTA must review and concur with the pedestrian traffic, and maximizing development opportunities findings in the environmental re-evaluation. If FTA believes that and access for transit passengers. additional environmental documentation is required to further assess the environmental effects, FTA will instruct GoTriangle FTA requires GoTriangle to re-evaluate any change to the to prepare and publish supplemental environmental project for its effects on the human and natural environment. documentation for public review and inspection. This If the proposed change results in environmental effects, supplemental environmental documentation will include any additional measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the change. The additional measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the change are then included in an s Amended Record of Decision. This was recently completed for the design refinement associated with the addition of a station at North Carolina Central University. While all design changes must be comprehensively re- evaluated for environmental effects, not all design changes will result in the preparation and publication of supplemental environmental documentation or amendments to the Record of Decision. The FTA makes this determination. ENOS At this time, GoTriangle is evaluating several potential refinements to the project design, including: • A shift of the Patterson Place station towards the east, beyond Sayward Drive. GoTriangle is aware of the proximity of the Patterson Place station to New Hope Final Page 39 of 65 64 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Creek, a sensitive watershed. GoTriangle must comply with all local and state regulations and is required by FTA to carry out the mitigation commitments outlined The D-O LRT Project is intended to provide a frequent, high- in the Amended Record of Decision as part of the quality transit service through the congested D-O Corridor, offering a more reliable trip than buses. A key part to the project's design. Any private land development that system's success will be the ability for transit riders to connect may result from the location of the station must comply to and from light rail stations using the region's wide-ranging with Durham City/County's regulations, which include bus network. Therefore, before the D-O LRT Project opens, the regulations about the environmental effects of transit agencies will undertake a public process to restructure development. all existing bus services to improve transit options for residents and employees throughout both counties. The agencies will • A shift of the Gateway station to the west, to the extent also work to put the "rail dividend" service hours to use to help practicable, away from 1-40. This change was link destinations away from the D-O Corridor with light-rail recommended by GoTriangle's transit-oriented stations. development consultants in a station area land-use study. If implemented,the proposed station refinement has the potential to significantly increase the economic Two of the stations in the Project are near the border between development opportunities for both counties at that Durham County and Orange County and are located within the site. municipal limits of the Town of Chapel Hill —Woodmont station and Gateway station. In this Plan, Orange County agrees to The approving Boards of this Plan agree that any additions or work with Durham County to pursue strategic economic deletions of stations along the D-O LRT Project alignment would development partnerships around the sites of these two require approval by the Orange County Board of stations. Commissioners, Durham County Board of Commissioners, and DCHC MPO Policy Board, and the GoTriangle Board. Changes to station locations that would be significant enough to require approval by the GoTriangle Board of Trustees, such as the two This updated Plan includes a new category of expenses to changes described above, will be presented in advance to the support the administration of new and expanded services and Orange County Board of Commissioners, Durham County Board facilities. An administrative position and short-term transit of Commissioners, and DCHC MPO Policy Board for their input. planning efforts are identified to be funded in this Plan. Final Page 40 of 65 65 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 The administrative position would be responsible for coordinating the ongoing administrative and planning activities necessary to implement this Plan and Durham's Plan. This Plan Beginning in fiscal year 2019, the DCHC MPO will enter into a identifies a need for a part-time position (0.5 Full-Time Project-Specific Agreement with GoTriangle regarding the Equivalent) for a staff member dedicated to these duties that Project Administrator position. See Section 6.3. would be housed at the Triangle J Council of Governments or the DCHC MPO. The staff member's duties would be toA coordinate and administer the committees that manage the advisory Durham and Orange Transit Plans, improve the staff The Plan identifies additional needs to expand the transit process, create a process for developing and updating system significantly beyond the services currently provided. operating and capital programs, oversee updates to the However, the revenue provided by the Plan is inadequate to financial plans, and establish any other formal processes meet all of the region's transit needs. This section identifies necessary to improve the implementation of the transit plans. some of the transit needs that the anticipated Tax District The cost of the position would be split equally between the Revenue will not be able to support. This list of projects is Orange and Durham Tax District Revenues. subject to change as the agencies and municipalities continue to evaluate the region's transit needs and the resources The Plan also identifies the need for funds to support short- available to meet them. range planning by GoTriangle and OPT.The results of this study will help identify changes to existing services and future needed services to be funded by Tax District Revenue or other sources. In addition to the identified services to be implemented by fiscal year 2019, there will be additional bus service needs between fiscal years 2020-2045. Since details of these The Plan allocates $24,500 in fiscal year 2018 for the position additional bus service needs have not yet been developed, the of Plan administrator,with similar amounts in future years.This assumption has been to increase the total bus service hours cost represents 50 percent of the 0.5 FTE position; the other 50 provided in the county according to the projected annual job percent of the 0.5 FTE position is the responsibility of the growth rate (1.58 percent per year in Orange County). Some of Durham Plan. these needs may be able to be met by reallocating existing bus hours when the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit service For GoTriangle and OPT's short-term planning, the Plan opens. Others may require additional funding from other allocates $100,000 (YOE) in fiscal year 2018. revenue sources. Final Page 41 of 65 66 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Any additional bus service implemented would support the original goals of this Plan. They may include: Agencies have proposed bus facility projects in addition to • Improved frequency of service into the major those funded in this Plan.These additional projects include$15 employment and education destinations in Orange million YOE for capital and facilities operations and County to mitigate increased traffic congestion and maintenance. reduce the need to provide additional parking The additional project needs include$5 million YOE for projects • Better service outside the hours of the traditional work that could be delivered before fiscal year 2020. The cost commute to support a less car-dependent lifestyle includes operating and maintenance for 2018-2045: • Direct bus access to future light rail stations in Orange County to expand the reach of the Durham-Orange Light • Old Fayetteville Road sidewalk in Carrboro Rail Transit service throughout the County • Bike Share system pilot for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, UNC- In its five-year plan, OPT proposed additional annual hours of Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough bus services beyond what could be afforded in the original Plan. • Real-time information system upgrades for Chapel Hill Transit As GoTriangle and Chapel Hill Transit conduct future planning studies, both agencies expect to develop proposals for future The additional project needs include $10 million YOE for service which may or may not be able to be funded through the projects after fiscal year 2020: Tax District Revenue. • Two intersection improvements to improve access to OPT bus stops • Five OPT bus stop improvement To support the additional bus service needs identified, new • Hillsborough Transfer Center Phase two includes property vehicles would need to be purchased by each agency. A acquisition, building, bus lane on site, bus facility on site conservative estimate suggests that 65 vehicles would need to be purchased in Orange County (this number includes In addition, other as-yet-unidentified needs may include but replacements of new vehicles purchased) between fiscal years are not limited to: 2020-2045, though this number will be refined as new vehicle . Bus stop improvements are anticipated with the purchases are tied to specific bus operating projects. realignment of services with the opening of the D-O LRT Project. Final Page 42 of 65 67 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • Bus stop improvements to comply with new design Unfunded requests include assisting OPT's introduction of guidelines being developed by Chapel Hill Transit in fiscal significantly expanded services in rural Orange County, year 2018 including efforts to market and rebrand OPT's expanded • Other bus stop and access improvements to respond to services and a training contractor to provide enhanced training changing ridership and travel patterns beyond fiscal year for staff and new operators expected to be hired by the agency 2025 to support the expanded service. In addition, transit agencies had requested funding for two ongoing surveys of Durham and • New regional transit facility at Park Center in Research Orange County residents. The first would be a customer- Triangle Park satisfaction survey directed at transit customers to gather basic statistics and opinions of the system's performance. Every third year, the survey effort would be more robust to collect The Hillsborough Train Station project is fully funded in this customer statistics at the route level. The second would be a Plan. community survey that tracks the perception of the transit system among all residents of both counties, including those who do and do not ride transit. The North-South BRT Project is not fully funded in this Plan. As the project proceeds through the Project Development phase, Chapel Hill Transit will refine the cost estimates, seek State For the OPT rebranding and training efforts, OPT identified a funding, and explore other funding opportunities. need for$111,000 in fiscal year 2018. For the surveys, the agencies requested $75,000 YOE in fiscal year 2018 for the surveys and two out of every three years The D-O LRT Project is fully funded in this Plan.Additional needs thereafter. In fiscal year 2019,the agencies requested$155,000 for increased frequency and/or span of light rail service may be YOE to accommodate the triennial expanded customer-service considered in future updates to this Plan. survey, which represents a 50-50 cost split. The other 50 percent of the cost of the survey project would be paid for by Durham County Tax District Revenue. Several request administrative and service support efforts are not funded in this Plan. Final Page 43 of 65 68 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 5. Financial Plan This Plan is fiscally constrained, and it relies on estimates and assumptions that have been developed by agency staff using current information and forecasting expertise. As time passes and new information is gathered, these estimates and assumptions may evolve. It will be important to monitor the potential effect of new information on the cost and timing of the projects included in this Plan. In addition, factors such as inflation, revenue growth, competition for federal funding and access to capital markets, and regional partnerships will influence the overall financial outlook of the Plan. This Section documents current assumptions to implement projects and services included in the program in Section 4.A summary of the assumptions included in this Financial Plan are provided in Table 4.8-1. Final Page 44 of 65 69 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Table 4.8-1. Financial Plan Key Assumptions Sales tax compound annual growth rate—Durham County/Orange County 4.33%/3.71% Inflation rate—capital cost/operating cost 3.1%/3.1% Bus operating cost per hour(2018 dollars) Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange Public Transportation $113/$120/$68 Tax District Revenue share of bus operating costs Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange Public Transportation 90%/75%/90% Allocation of funding for bus operations according to the Interlocal Agreement Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange Public Transportation 64%/24%/ 12% LRT cost share(Durham/Orange/Other) Local/Other share of capital cost after in-kind right-of-way donations and joint development grants 81.5%/ 16.5% 2.0% / Shared borrowings 81.5%/ 18.5%/0.0% Operating cost Through FY 2036: 80.0% 20.0% 0.0% After FY 2036: 81.0%/ 19.0%/0.0% State of Good Repair costs Through FY 2036: 80.0%/20.0%/0.0% After FY 2036: 81.0%/ 19.0%/0.0% LRT construction period FY 2020 through FY 2028 LRT state funding share 10% LRT federal New Starts funding share 50% Annual disbursement cap for LRT federal funding share $100 M YOE Target minimum net debt service coverage ratio 1.15x [(Revenues—Operating Expenditures)/Debt Service] Final Page 45 of 65 70 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Revenue from the half-cent sales tax can be used for financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining local public transit There are four dedicated revenue streams used to fund the systems.The funds can be used to supplement but not supplant local share of projects and services in this Plan. These revenues or replace existing funds or resources for public transit systems. are collected in both Durham and Orange counties; the revenues governed by this Plan are those collected in Orange GoTriangle has statutory authority to levy this tax in Durham, County. These four dedicated Tax District Revenue streams Orange, and Wake Counties. Doing so in each county is used to finance this Plan are referred to throughout this contingent on the addition of the county to a tax district, a document as "Tax District Revenue." The Tax District Revenue successful referendum, and approval from the Board of County includes: Commissioners. GoTriangle created the Western Triangle Tax District (now known as the Triangle Tax District) in June 2011. • Article 43: One-half percent(half-cent)sales and use tax Durham County voters passed their referendum in November • Article 50: GoTriangle five percent vehicle rental tax 2011, and the Durham County Board of Commissioners passed • Article 51: Three-dollar increase to GoTriangle vehicle a resolution authorizing GoTriangle to levy the tax. GoTriangle registration fee added Orange County to the Tax District in June 2012. • Article 52: Seven-dollar county vehicle registration fee Additionally, Orange County and GoTriangle signed an agreement that GoTriangle would not levy the tax until the This Section describes these revenue streams, reports actual Board of Commissioners gave further approval. Following the annual revenues to date (including half-year revenues from successful Orange County referendum in November 2012, the fiscal year 2017), and explains assumptions used to project Orange County Board of Commissioners gave its approval. future revenues. GoTriangle formally levied the tax in both counties in December 2012. The North Carolina Department of Revenue (NCDOR) collects the tax in each county; collections in both counties began April 2013. NCDOR distributes these revenues directly to The largest of the four dedicated Tax District Revenue sources GoTriangle (in April 2017, following a similar process, NCDOR is Article 43, a one-half percent (half-cent) sales and use tax began collecting ahalf-cent sales tax dedicated to transit in collected in Durham and Orange Counties. Ahalf-cent sales tax Wake County). means when individuals spend $10.00 on certain goods and services, an additional five cents ($0.05) is added to the The forecast for Orange County's half-cent sales tax used in this transaction and dedicated to the transit services funded under updated Plan was developed by Moody's Analytics in this Plan. Under state law, items such as food, gasoline, November 2016, using county-level personal disposable medicine, health care, and housing are excluded from the tax. Final Page 46 of 65 71 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 income and metro area housing completions as the main The forecast for GoTriangle's vehicle rental tax was developed explanatory variables for revenue growth. This analysis in October 2014 by Dr. Michael Walden, an economist at North provided year-by-year growth rates for 2017 through 2046, Carolina State University, using enplanements at RDU incorporating assumptions about economic cycles. The International Airport and annual real Gross Domestic Product compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over the 30-year period (GDP) as the main explanatory variable for revenue growth. was projected at 3.71 percent. This Plan assumes the year-by- This analysis provided year-by-year growth rates for years 2014 year growth rates for years 2017 through 2046 and the CAGR through 2024, with an average annual growth rate of 4.8 for years 2047 and beyond. The Moody's Analytics Sales Tax percent. This Plan assumes the year-by-year growth rates for Forecast document is included as Appendix D. years 2017 through 2024 and the average annual growth rate for years 2025 and beyond. The second dedicated revenue source is a vehicle rental tax, which is imposed at the rate of five percent on the gross The third dedicated revenue source is a three dollar($3)vehicle receipts derived by a retailer from the short-term rental of "U- registration fee, which is an increase to GoTriangle's five dollar drive-it" vehicles and motorcycles. ($5) vehicles registration fee. Since 1991, GoTriangle has been collecting a five dollar ($5) vehicle registration fee in Durham, GoTriangle has statutory authority to levy this tax in Durham, Orange and Wake Counties; those revenues fund GoTriangle's Orange, and Wake Counties, and has since November 1997. general operations. To fund the Durham and Orange Transit GoTriangle collects this tax directly from rental vehicle vendors Plans, GoTriangle exercised its statutory authority to increase in each of the three counties, including at Raleigh-Durham the five dollar fee by three dollars in Durham and Orange International Airport. GoTriangle's Board of Trustees has a Counties; it dedicated those incremental revenues to the policy that allocates 50 percent of these vehicle rental tax county transit plans. GoTriangle needed to create the Durham- revenues to the transit plans of Durham, Orange and Wake Orange Tax District (distinct from the Western Triangle Tax counties, with the remaining 50 percent reserved for District) and receive approvals from GoTriangle's Special Tax GoTriangle's general use. The amount identified for the county Board and both Boards of County Commissioners. GoTriangle transit plans is allocated based on 2010 population as follows: created the Durham-Orange Tax District, its Special Tax Board 68 percent to Wake County, 21.5 percent to Durham County, approved the fee in February 2014, and the Counties approved and 10.5 percent to Orange County.As such,the Orange County the fee in March 2014. GoTriangle began levying the fee shortly portion of all vehicle rental tax revenues is, compared to the thereafter. The revenues from the three dollar fee that are total collected, 5.25 percent. collected in Orange County are included in this Plan. Final Page 47 of 65 72 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 The forecast for the vehicle registration fee was also developed Through the end of fiscal year 2016,the Tax District Revenue in by Dr. Walden in October 2014 using annual real Gross Orange County generated $23.1 million. Of that, the transit Domestic Product (GDP) as the main explanatory variable for agencies have expended $12.4 million to develop and deliver revenue growth. This analysis provided year-by-year growth the projects and services in the original Plan. The remaining rates for years 2014 through 2024, with an average annual funds are held in reserve to be distributed in accordance with growth rate of 3.3 percent. This Plan assumes the year-by-year the Plan. growth rates for years 2017 through 2024 and the average annual growth rate for years 2025 and beyond. To date,Tax District Revenues have exceeded the expectations in the original Plan. Figure 5.1-1: Year by Year Revenue Comparison (in thousands of $$) contains the actual year-by- yearcollections to date for each of the four dedicated revenue The fourth dedicated revenue source is a seven dollar ($7) streams, compared to the projections contained in the original vehicle registration fee levied by Durham and Orange Counties. Plan. The counties have the statutory authority to levy the fee, and since levying the fee they have authorized the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles (NCDMV) to distribute the revenues directly to GoTriangle for the purpose of funding the county transit plans.The NCDMV collects the fees and distributes them to GoTriangle quarterly.The revenues from the seven dollar fee that are collected in Orange County are included in this Plan. The same growth rate projection was applied to both vehicle registration fees, since they have the same tax base. Tax District Revenue has been generated in Orange County for a period of years. This section describes the total revenue collected to date and the total expenditures to date. This section also describes the year-by-year collections to date, as compared to the year-by-year revenue projected in the original Plan. Final Page 48 of 65 73 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 5.1-1:Year by Year Revenue Comparison(in thousands of$$) Half-Cent Sales Tax $6,560 $5,000 $1,560 From fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2045, Orange County's • GoTriangle Vehicle Rental Tax $470 $600 ($130) half-cent sales tax revenue is projected to generate $344.1 . 7Vehicle Registration Fee $570 $800 ($230) million YOE. The vehicle rental tax allocated to Orange County ' is projected to total $33.0 million YOE. The seven dollar and Total Revenues $7,600 $6,800 $800 three dollar vehicle registration fees are expected to generate Percentage projected vs actual 112% $37.4 million YOE and $16.0 million YOE, respectively. In total, Half-Cent Sales Tax $6,190 $5,100 $1,090 these local transit tax revenues are projected to generate $430.6 million YOE from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year • GoTriangle Vehicle Rental Tax $500 $600 ($100) 2045. $7Vehcle Registration Fee $810 $800 $1 Total Revenues $7,740 $6,900 $840 Percentage projected vs actual 112% A portion of the construction cost of the Durham-Orange Light Half-Cent Sales Tax $6,160 $5,300 $860 Rail Transit Project will be debt funded,with financing proceeds • GoTriangle Vehicle Rental Tax $540 $600 ($60) shown as revenues and debt service shown as expenses. In both . 7Vehic e Registration Fee $770 $800 ($ p) the original Plan and this Plan. GoTriangle, as administrator of ' the Tax District, is the sole issuer of debt. The financial plan Total Revenues $7,800 $7,100 $700 does not rely on or assume any debt issuances from parties Percentage projected vs actual 1109110 other than GoTriangle. Half-Cent Sales Tax $3,140 $2,700 $440 The 2012 Plan assumed that in order to fund the projects and GoTriangle Vehicle Rental Tax $310 $300 $10 services proposed for Orange County, $25 million YOE in Tax 7Veh cie Registration Fee $39f1 $4011 ($10) District long-term borrowing would be required. This updated Plan, in response to reductions in state and federal revenues, Total Revenues $4,010 $3,600 $410 adjusts this total borrowing to a total of approximately $209.4 Percentage projected vs actual 111% million (YOE). The $209.4 million is to be a combination of Projected revenues provided in original Plan short-and long-term borrowing, to be repaid by a combination Total revenues include interest and investment butexclude grants of federal grants and Orange County's dedicated transit tax revenues. Final Page 49 of 65 74 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Two types of borrowing are anticipated — short-term, Limited to provide a portion of the financing, and to assist in projects Obligation Bonds (LOBS), and a long-term federally backed being completed either that could not be completed without Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act the TIFIA loan or the TIFIA loan allows the project to be (TIFIA) loan. Some of the short-term LOBS are to be repaid by completed at lower cost or a more accelerated timeline. federal grants for the D-O LRT Project, and the remainder of the LOBS and the TIFIA loan would be repaid by Tax District The loans allow borrowers to borrow at the federal Revenue. The final terms of the debt, including the timing of government's own borrowing rates (the loan rate will be based the issuances, will depend on a variety of factors; this section on then-current treasury rates). Repayment terms are allowed describes the guiding assumptions used to develop this Plan. As up to 35 years past the project completion. Interest and implementation of the Plan progresses, the financing structure principal can be deferred up to 5 and 10 years past project will be refined to ensure the most efficient use of Tax District completion. The loan rate is set at closing, and the loan is Revenues. treated as a drawdown facility. No interest accrues until drawdowns are made. This Plan assumes that during the latter half of the D-O LRT Project construction period in fiscal years 2024 through 2028, The TIFIA loan is projected to utilize the terms of the TIFIA GoTriangle will issue short-term LOBS intended to be repaid by program and to have a maturity of 35 years after project a combination of Orange County Tax District Revenues and completion, assuming a debt service payment deferral period federal grant funds for the D-O LRT Project. The total amount of five years after project completion and interest-only of LOBS intended to be repaid by Orange Tax District Revenue payments for four years (2033-2036). All LOBS will be repaid in is$72.5 million YOE.The amount of LOBS intended to be repaid full before debt service for the TIFIA loan begins. This Plan by federal grant funds is $57.4 million. The repayment terms assumes that a par amount of$79.6 million YOE will be funded vary for each issuance, but all LOBs will be repaid in full before by Orange Tax District Revenue.The cost of issuance is assumed debt service for the TIFIA loan begins in fiscal year 2033. The at $148,000. cost of issuance for all LOBs is assumed to be one percent of the par amount. In addition to financing needed for D-O LRT Project construction, an additional $72.0 million YOE in borrowing is In 2020, GoTriangle plans to close on a TIFIA loan for the needed to fund Orange County's share of State of Good Repair project. The TIFIA program is a federal loan program costs for the project. These LOBs, which are to be issued by administered by the Department of Transportation. The GoTriangle and funded by Orange Tax District Revenue, would program offers long-term, low-cost borrowing for major be issued in fiscal years 2040, 2048, 2053, and 2058. transportation infrastructure projects.The program is designed Final Page 50 of 65 75 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 to pay annual debt service, given projected revenue and recurring operating expenses. GoTriangle's total borrowing to The assumed interest rate for the limited obligation bonds is implement both the Durham and Orange transit plans four percent. The bonds will be tax-exempt, and therefore the maintains a minimum net debt service coverage (ratio of Municipal Market Data (MMD) index was utilized in the analysis revenues less operating expenses over annual debt service) of of historical rate movements. It is expected the first series of 1.19x for LOBS intended to be repaid by Tax District Revenues, limited obligation bonds(LOB)will be sold in 2024.Over the last 1.26x for LOBS intended to be repaid by federal grants, and 5-year, 10-year, 15-year and 20-year periods, average rates for 1.07x for the TIFIA loan. The average net coverage ratios for the 7-year MMD have been 1.52 percent, 2.12 percent, 2.46 those same categories of borrowing are 2.28x,3.03x, and 2.04x, percent, and 2.99 percent, respectively. The budgeted rate of respectively. four percent is higher than the average rates over each of those time periods, which supports the reasonableness of the Figure 5.4-2 and Figure 5.4-1 show the net debt service assumption. coverage ratios (DCSR), distinguished by the intended repayment source. Figure 5.4-2 shows DSCR for the LOBS The assumed interest rate for the TIFIA loan is 5 percent. Under intended to be repaid by federal grants. Figure 5.4-3 shows the TIFIA credit program,the TIFIA Loan would have an interest DSCR for the TIFIA loan and LOBS that are intended to be rate approximately equal to the 30-year Treasury rate at the funded by local transit tax revenues. time of the loan closing.To receive that favorable interest rate, minimum credit qualifications are that the loan must be rated Figure 5.4-3 shows the total local transit tax revenue associated investment grade or be subordinate to an investment grade with Durham and Orange counties as well as GoTriangle's total credit. The TIFIA loan is expected to be entered into in 2020. projected debt service for the D-O LRT Project. Even as Over the last 5-year, 10-year, 15-year and 20-year periods, GoTriangle's debt service remains fairly level into the future, average rates for the 30-year Treasury have been 3.03 percent, revenues available to pay debt service are projected to 3.66 percent, 4.00 percent, and 4.54 percent, respectively.The continue growing. assumed 5 percent rate in this plan is higher than the average rates over each of those time periods. Given the Plan's focus on significantly increasing transit service, a key measure of financial health is GoTriangle's ongoing ability Final Page 51 of 65 76 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 5.4-2. Projected Debt Service Coverage Ratios: Federally-Funded Limited Obligation Bonds(LOBs) 1-) 10 8 4 2 0 00 M. e -- -I. C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 5.4-1. Projected Debt Service Coverage Ratios: Locally-Funded Limited Obligation Bonds(LOBS) &TIFIA Loans 4 3_5 3 2-5 2 1.5 0.5 0 Final Page 52 of 65 77 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 5.4-3. Projected Transit Tax District Revenue v. Debt Service for the D-O LRT Project -Debt Ser Total O&M -osts i ict Revenues(Annual Receipts! on LOBs-TIFlA' (Annual Expenditures! Tax Distri >300,000,000 -2-0-000-000 $150,000,000 5o M. c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Final Page 53 of 65 78 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 GoTriangle will maintain reserves for O&M and debt service As for debt service, the LOBS assume a reserve equal to 10 using Tax District Revenue. percent of the initial amount borrowed.The TIFIA loan assumes a reserve that is the lowest of: a) 10 percent of initial amount borrowed, b) the maximum annual debt service, or c) 125 percent of the average annual payments. The 2017 Plan assumes GoTriangle will maintain cash reserves for O&M equivalent to 25 percent of its annual system operating budget, including allocations made by the Tax District to the transit providers for bus operations and maintenance. Figure 5.5-1 shows the projected cash balance of the 2017 Plan This reserve can be used to accommodate unexpected from fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2045.The cash balance increases in operating costs or temporary revenue shortfalls. in the first year reflects the amount of local transit tax revenues GoTriangle could also supplement O&M funding with its cash that have been reserved during the Project Development phase balance. of the D-O LRT Project. This balance will be used to cash fund engineering activities in fiscal years 2018 and 2019. At the end of 2019, the 2017 Plan anticipates the first disbursement of state funds for the project, followed by a federal Full Funding Figure 5.5-1. Cash Balances(YOE) -45,000,000 n MOM O 51 000.00 \\ \ \ \ \O \\ \\ \\ \\ \O \\ \O \\ \\ \\ \\\ O\\ imni \\ \\ O\ \\ \ \ O O \ Final Page 54 of 65 79 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 5.6-1. Cash Balances in Durham County(YOE) >200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 - - $50,000,000 Grant Agreement in fiscal year 2020. Once the Full Funding funding debt service, operations, maintenance and reserves is Grant Agreement is executed, the disbursement of federal $3.8 million in FY 2019, before the first disbursement of grant funds will begin at the rate of $100 million YOE per year (18 funds for the D-O LRT Project. percent of which is reflected in the Orange cash flow). As project construction expenditures begin to outpace the federal Figure 5.5-1 shows the projected cash balance of this Plan from disbursement schedule,financing will be needed to address the fiscal year 2017 through fiscal year 2045. As a point of timing differences. Project construction will be complete in comparison, Figure 5.6-1 shows the projected cash balance of fiscal year 2028, and operations and maintenance for the Durham County under the Durham Plan,and Figure 5.7-1 shows project will begin in fiscal year 2029. From that point on, the both cash balances in the same chart. The variation in long- primary expenses in the cash flow will be operating and term cash balances in Orange County is due to the funding of maintaining the transit system in a state of good repair as well capital asset replacement costs for the D-O LRT Project. as funding debt service. Tax District Revenues are projected to be sufficient to fund these expenses, but the capacity for Year-by-year information about projected revenues and expansion is limited in the long term. From fiscal years 2017 expenditures is provided in Appendix A. through 2045, the minimum projected cash balance after Final Page 55 of 65 80 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 Figure 5.7-1. Cash balances in Orange County and Durham County(YOE) >200,000,000 Durlharn County o Orange County 5 150,000,000 - >i00,000,000 550.000.00 __ _ realized, or project costs may exceed estimates. Each of these could occur at different times in the course of implementing the As described above, this is a fiscally constrained plan using Plan, resulting in different mitigation strategies available to reasonably conservative assumptions. The key financial address the risks. assumptions are regularly evaluated in order to assess the extent to which the plan is susceptible to these assumptions In addition to plan level analysis, it is also good practice to not being fully met due to external risk factors. The key assess key risks for specific projects. For example, at this stage identified risk factors are: of project development for the D-O LRT Project, some mitigation strategies are already included, such as a 30% cost • Federal funding contingency in the D-O LRT Project cost and the assumption of • State funding conservative long-term lending rates. • Local sales tax forecast Our other available mitigation strategies that have been • Project cost overruns identified include: Though the current assumptions are reasonably conservative, there are risks that not all the forecasted revenues will be fully • Design changes to reduce project cost Final Page 56 of 65 81 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • Savings from property donations • Cost transfer to project partners • New revenue commitments Each of these risk areas and mitigation strategies for the D-O LRT Project are described in more detail in Appendix B: Durham-Orange LRT Financial Risks and Mitigation Strategies. Orange County, Durham County, and GoTriangle also executed an updated Cost-Sharing Agreement for the D-O LRT Project. The agreement sets forth quarterly reporting requirements from GoTriangle to the two counties regarding the progress of the project, including any significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls. If significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls are encountered or anticipated, the parties agree to meet within 15 business days to decide upon a course of action for the D-O LRT Project. Final Page 57 of 65 82 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 6. Implementation ActivitieAs discussed below in this Section, the SWG will develop the following work products to govern implementation: This Plan represents the county's transit vision, and proposes a set of new transit services, infrastructure, facilities, and • Multi-year programs for Capital Improvements and planning efforts to accomplish the county's goal of an improved Operating Programs (Section 6.1). transit network that increases access to jobs, employment • Project-Specific Agreements,assigning responsibility for opportunities, and social services for residents and helps guide executing particular projects (Section 6.3). growth in a sustainable fashion. Following this Plan's adoption, . Annual budgets which allocate Tax District Revenue the project sponsors will continue to refine the scope of capital (Section 6.4). projects to produce more accurate cost estimates, seek other sources of funding, and make changes to service plans based on Collectively,these documents will be known as an Annual Work the outcome of short-term planning efforts. In addition, actual Plan (Section 6.5). The full process defined in this Section will project expenses and revenues will vary from the assumptions be in place for the first Work Plan submission due in May 2018, in this Plan, which may require changes in the scope, schedule, so that all projects funded by Tax District Revenue will be in or need for any particular project. Therefore, the Plan compliance with the implementation process established in establishes an implementation process to translate the this section for fiscal year 2019. proposed projects in this Plan into actual funded services and facilities. The 2012 Implementation Agreement among Orange County, A multi-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies by DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle established a Staff Working Group year projected capital projects, project sponsors responsible with representatives from Orange County, the DCHC MPO, and for undertaking these projects, the financial costs and GoTriangle to oversee the plan implementation and to make anticipated sources of funding for those projects, and identifies recommendations to the Managers or governing bodies when any projected operating costs associated with those projects. A changes are needed.This group will continue to meet regularly multi-year Operating Program describes activities such as for this purpose. Continuing with current practice and per the development of local bus, express bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and Implementation Agreement, staff from all municipalities and light rail services to be funded by the Tax District. It will describe transit providers within the County will be invited to participate service changes planned for the upcoming year and preliminary in this effort. service proposals and financial projection for the subsequent years. The document will also describe administrative, planning, marketing, or other functions that are not directly Final Page 58 of 65 83 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 accounted for in specific infrastructure project delivery or allocated to service delivery, but are essential to the implementation of the Plan. The Staff Working Group will develop a format for project- specific agreements for all bus facility projects, vehicle purchases, and major capital projects except the D-O LRT Project for which a project-specific agreement has already been In conjunction with the execution of this Plan, Durham County developed (see Section 6.2). These agreements will include and Orange County are executing a Cost-Sharing Agreement expectations on funding, responsibilities, schedule, and specific to the D-O LRT Project.This agreement commits the use performance. The project agreements will also require of a portion of the Tax District Revenues contributed by adherence to minimum state or federal standards (e.g., Durham County and Orange County to fund the local share of Americans with Disabilities Act). D-O LRT Project costs. The agreement also establishes the shares of those costs attributable to each of the counties that The Staff Working Group will also develop a format for project- will be borne by these Tax District Revenue.The cost shares will specific agreements for operating projects. These agreements be applied to the planning, engineering, financing, shall state details of the services to be provided and construction, maintenance, and operating costs of the D-O LRT expectations on funding, responsibilities, schedule, and Project. performance. The agreement also sets forth regular quarterly reporting Agreements will be established between the project or service requirements from GoTriangle to the two counties regarding sponsor and GoTriangle. the progress of the project, including any significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls. If significant cost overruns or unmitigated funding shortfalls are encountered or anticipated, the parties agree to meet within 15 business days GoTriangle's Triangle Transit Tax District annual fiscal year(July to decide upon a course of action for the D-O LRT Project. 1 through June 30) budget, includes projections of revenues by source and expenses by category, including transfers to The Cost-Sharing Agreement defines the joint commitment of specified project and service sponsors. The budget is adopted Tax District Revenues to the D-O LRT Project, including the by the GoTriangle Board of Trustees by June 30 of each year. division of responsibility for capital, O&M, and state of good repair costs. The cost splits attributed to each county for these categories will be reviewed by the county Boards of Commissioners every four years. Final Page 59 of 65 84 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 in advance of the DCHC MPO update of the long-range transportation plan, called a Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Each year, the Staff Working Group will develop a Work Plan that sets forth the program of transit capital and operating improvements to be undertaken using Tax District Revenue. The Work Plan will include: • the Annual Budget discussed in Section 6.4 • the Multi-Year Capital Improvement Program discussed in Section 6.1 • the Multi-Year Operating Program discussed in Section 6.1 • All project-specific agreements as discussed in Section 6.3 • An update of the long-term Financial Plan The Work Plan would be presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Durham County Board of Commissioners, and DCHC MPO Policy Board to give them opportunities to review the information and to request changes prior to consideration for approval by the GoTriangle Board and DCHC MPO Policy Board in May for the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in May 2018. The Staff Working Group will review changes to cost and revenue assumptions and project and service priorities each year and decide whether any changes warrant an update to the Plan. At a minimum, the Plan will be updated every four years, Final Page 60 of 65 85 Orange County Transit Plan April 2 7. Development of this Plan and Public 2O17, an email alert was sent to over Involvement 2,000 individuals In accordance with Section 9 of the Implementation which comprise this Agreement, the Staff Working Group has been meeting list. regularly since November 1O pn8p8n8 this updated Plan. The County Transit Plans Available for Public Arnedia release was initial draft of this Plan was released on March 31 �Ol7 on ' sent to all members Our1r8nSi1fu1un8.COrn, starting 2l-d8y public comment period of the local media. to receive input from members of the community. Revised The DCHC MP(] also versions of this Plan were released on April 4 and April 10. The purchased an revisions were posted to the ourtransitfuture.corn vvebsite' advertisement in a along with errata which detailed the changes made in each revision local paper of ' general circulation to alert members of the general public to the draft Plans avai|abi|ity. On March 31, 2017 the draft (]range County Transit Plan and Select members of the Staff Working Group posted information draft Durham County Transit Plan were uploaded to and resources regarding this Plan update and opportunities for ' The plans were also public comment on theirvvebaitea and update presentations posted to the DCHCN1pOvvebaite: were scheduled with their governing boards. Additional alerts After posting the plans an email was sent to Orange County were shared onsocial media. Commissioners and elected officials, Durham County Commissioners and elected officials, members of the DCHC N1pO Policy Board, and the GoTriang|e Board of Trustees Feedback from users and potential users of the transit oyo1ern notifying them of the availability of the draft plans for public is essential to improving the transportation network and comment. setting a vision for a transit system. To make it easy for residents and other interested parties to submit comments, rnain1ainoa subscribers list for individuals xvhoxvasubmit multiple opportunities were deve|oped. Comments cou|d be 10 stay informed about transit planning activities in the sub rnittedfivevvays� Durham, Orange and Wake County. At 8:00 p.m. on March 31, Final Page 86 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • Via email: info @ourtransitfuture.com, • Via regular mail: P.O. Box 13787, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, � 87 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 governing boards of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Durham, and • 2 people attended the meeting at GoTriangle's offices Hillsborough. These meetings were open to the public and on Wednesday, April 12 many were televised on local public-access television and . 11 people attended the meeting at Chapel Hill Town streamed over the internet. Hall on Thursday, April 13 Over the course of the 21-day public comment period, many comments were received through the channels of public Between March 31 and April 21, 2017, channels for submitting comment. comments were monitored and comments submitted were collected and sent to members of the Staff Working Groups,the Durham County Board of Commissioners, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Durham City Council, the Chapel Major comments were about access to the light rail, Hill Town Council, Carrboro Board of Alderman, the connections to areas of the community, growth and congestion Hillsborough Board of Commissioners, the DCHC MPO Policy in the area, the cost and funding of the light rail project, the Board and the GoTriangle Board of Trustees on a rolling basis. benefits of the light rail project, and equitable service to all areas of the county. Across all of the avenues of public comments, the following input was received: Below are a list of general themes received through public comment. • 47 emails sent to info @ourtransitfuture.com • 34 surveys submitted through the online comment GENERAL form, . There are issues that should be funded before we fund • 12 comment forms were submitted at public workshops transit (i.e. schools, roads) Attendance at public workshops • Transit is an important issue for our community, which will enable smart growth • 11 people attended the meeting at Durham Station on . We need to listen to the needs of seniors Monday, April 10 . We need a plan that prioritizes community members • 13 people attended the meeting in Hillsborough on who commute daily for work/school Tuesday, April 12 . Building more roads will not work to reduce congestion • Plan has too much debt/We can't afford this plan Final Page 63 of 65 88 Orange County Transit Plan April 25, 2017 • Three County Plans should work together • Not equitable; doesn't provide service to enough of • 1 don't want to pay any additional taxes Durham or Orange County; doesn't help people who • Existing highways are under significant strain depend on transit BUS SERVICE EXPANSION • Project will encourage growth and smart land use decisions • Need faster/more frequent connections to RDU • Project should not go through Meadowmont • Need faster/more frequent connections to Southpoint • Project should go through Meadowmont and other areas of Durham • Ridership projections aren't believable/Other systems • Need faster/more frequent connections to Wake aren't seeing increases in ridership County/Raleigh • Project will help manage traffic congestion • Need more night service, specifically on Friday and Saturday (see plays or movies and take bus home) (service till midnight) Participants in the online survey were asked question about the • More cost effective to provide mass transit than light priority of projects and services in the plans. Figure 7.5-1 and rail Figure 7.5-2 below show generally how different projects in the • Durham buses don't have ridership plans were prioritized. TRANSIT FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS Of the 34 surveys submitted, 32 people believed that transit is an important issue in our community. 32 people reported that • Neighborhoods need to be more walkable they are familiar with the transit system, but 19 people stated DURHAM-ORANGE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT that they use transit often. 28 people would recommend to their local elected officials that • Project is too expensive, funding is uncertain they recommend this plan. • Project will negatively impact traffic, environment, housing values Appendix C contains all of the comments received over the • Project will benefit the environment course of the comment period and is available for review on • Project will help commuters travel to popular http://ourtransitfuture.com. destinations Final Page 64 of 65 89 Orange County Transit Plan April 2 Figure 7.5-1. Priorities Identified in Surveys Figure 7.5-2.Average Ranking mfProjects in Surveys Po�ectPriorities AVe[age Ranking C]fP�Ne[t P[iC][i�i�S '5 is 1 nig!?I est\ Train tation Light Rail Prolect BRTPnojeut TransitFaci|ities Bus Service Bus Service Transit o9TpnVmct 'Light Rail Hillsborough 1 Z 3 4 S Faoi|ibes PrNeot TrainSabnn �l (Lowest Priority) Z —3 —4 —M5(Hi8heuPriorit y) Final Page 90 APPENDIX A: Cash Flow Details 91 Operating Revenues 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Sales Tax 26,914,101 28,579,624 30,664,248 32,519,299 33,626,774 34,830,245 36,592,160 38,338,310 39,783,898 41,069,131 42,385,733 43,920,662 Vehicle Rental Tax 1,166,764 1,220,435 1,274,134 1,327,648 1,383,409 1,438,745 1,496,295 1,553,154 1,627,705 1,705,835 1,787,715 1,873,525 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 696,164 718,441 736,402 754,076 771,420 789,163 806,525 824,269 841,579 864,302 887,638 911,604 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 1,624,470 1,676,453 1,718,364 1,759,605 1,800,076 1,841,478 1,881,991 1,923,395 1,963,786 2,016,808 2,071,262 2,127,186 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating 1,821,214 - - - - - - - - - - - Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 50,494,796 82,717,509 32,194,953 34,393,148 36,360,628 37,581,679 38,899,631 40,776,971 42,639,128 44,216,968 45,656,076 47,132,348 48,832,977 Operating Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 3,821,281 3,965,821 4,294,536 4,597,881 4,734,401 4,874,129 5,018,027 5,165,300 5,316,955 5,472,164 5,637,873 5,808,613 Allocations to Transit Providers for Administration - 174,060 123,290 84,741 87,368 297,254 92,869 95,748 98,716 152,665 293,809 108,185 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus Facilities O&M - 8,079 16,713 26,948 41,995 59,391 67,423 69,513 84,830 87,460 90,171 107,391 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M - - - - - - - - - - - - Allocation to GoTriangle for CRT O&M 3,821,281 4,147,959 4,434,539 4,709,570 4,863,765 5,230,774 5,178,320 5,330,561 5,500,502 5,712,288 6,021,853 6,024,189 Deposit to Operating Reserve 634,628 108,514 23,240 22,500 22,952 23,407 24,092 24,568 25,284 25,780 28,002 28,844 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 78,261,600 27,938,480 29,935,369 31,628,557 32,694,962 33,645,450 35,574,559 37,283,999 38,691,183 39,918,007 41,082,493 42,779,944 Capital Revenues 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Carryover 53,904,375 45,842,418 52,958,260 148,328,534 153,200,665 130,139,063 82,153,263 8,167,908 18,913,507 11,319,147 8,569,523 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital 1,412,067 Durham D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017* 25,548,001 - - - - - - - - - - - OperatingRevenuesRemainingforCapital 78,261,600 27,938,480 29,935,369 31,628,557 32,694,962 33,645,450 35,574,559 37,283,999 38,691,183 39,918,007 41,082,493 42,779,944 Durham D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 Durham D-O LRT State Revenues - - 19,466,833 19,532,033 19,466,833 19,466,833 19,466,833 19,516,833 19,870,583 20,517,735 20,766,653 20,669,727 Durham D-O LRT LOB Proceeds - - - - - - - 50,000,000 - 70,000,000 - - Durham D-O LRT GAN Proceeds - - - - - - - - 203,750,000 13,000,000 48,900,000 - Durham D-O LRT TIFIA Proceeds - - - - - - 26,283,750 148,941,250 52,567,500 52,567,500 52,567,500 17,522,500 Durham Debt Service Reserve Release - - - - - - - - - - - 3,278,254 Durham Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings - - - - - - 25,826 222,175 477,577 612,229 712,782 679,999 Durham CRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - - - - - - - - - - In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - 15,791,793 - - - - - - - - Local Grants for Joint Development 465,024 478,886 25,655,793 26,451,122 105,221,668 81,842,855 95,244,619 201,410,643 281,990,329 287,812,948 292,990,032 419,617,519 405,489,774 297,507,863 282,504,367 201,451,070 Capital Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles - 3,622,934 2,164,189 - - - - - 676,621 455,412 244,264 - Durham County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - 1,964,329 3,206,093 3,001,542 2,240,127 424,562 208,027 342,140 147,416 198,125 106,331 - State of Good Repair for D-O LRT - - - - - - - - - - - - CRT Project Cost 5,211,041 5,587,263 5,370,281 3,001,542 2,240,127 424,562 208,027 342,140 824,037 653,537 350,595 5,211,041 D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)* 51,317,293 30,413,175 36,916,078 49,428,567 126,549,537 157,249,322 208,046,123 390,972,633 344,399,991 249,315,440 189,624,403 112,450,708 Durham LOB Debt Service - - - - - - - - 13,774,502 13,774,502 27,127,835 27,127,835 Durham GAN Debt Service - - - - - - - - - 8,150,000 46,287,774 48,243,774 Durham TIFIA Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - - - Durham Debt Service Reserve Deposit - - - - - - 2,582,619 19,634,839 25,540,237 13,465,237 10,055,237 - Durham Cost of Issuance 652,000 500,000 2,037,500 830,000 489,000 51,317,293 30,413,175 36,916,078 50,080,567 126,549,537 157,249,322 210,628,742 411,107,472 385,752,230 285,535,180 273,584,250 187,822,318 Cumulative Fund Balance 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Ending Balance 53,904,375 45,842,418 52,958,260 148,328,534 153,200,665 130,139,063 82,153,263 8,167,908 18,913,507 11,319,147 8,569,523 8,417,711 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 92 Operating Revenues 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Sales Tax 45,664,741 47,522,952 49,539,604 51,632,431 53,689,766 55,861,555 58,091,810 60,655,417 63,472,589 66,369,003 69,403,981 72,589,830 Vehicle Rental Tax 1,963,454 2,057,700 2,156,470 2,259,981 2,368,460 2,482,146 2,601,289 2,726,151 2,857,006 2,994,143 3,137,861 3,288,479 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 936,217 961,495 987,455 1,014,116 1,041,497 1,069,617 1,098,497 1,128,156 1,158,616 1,189,899 1,222,026 1,255,021 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 2,184,620 2,243,605 2,304,182 2,366,395 2,430,288 2,495,906 2,563,295 2,632,504 2,703,582 2,776,578 2,851,546 2,928,538 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating - - - - - - - - - - - - Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 50,749,032 52,785,752 54,987,711 57,272,923 59,530,011 61,909,224 64,354,891 67,142,228 70,191,793 73,329,623 76,615,414 80,061,867 Operating Expenses 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 5,984,538 6,165,804 6,352,575 6,545,018 6,743,305 6,947,615 7,158,130 7,375,040 7,598,540 7,828,830 8,066,116 8,310,613 Allocations to Transit Providers for Administration 167,307 114,996 118,561 342,261 189,038 129,932 133,960 207,170 398,705 146,809 151,360 234,078 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus Facilities O&M 110,720 114,153 117,691 121,340 125,101 128,979 132,978 137,100 141,350 145,732 150,250 154,908 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M 16,088,358 16,587,097 17,101,297 17,631,437 18,178,012 18,741,530 19,322,517 19,921,515 20,795,821 21,175,794 21,832,244 22,509,043 Allocation to GoTriangle for CRT O&M 6,318,254 6,514,120 6,716,058 6,924,255 22,350,923 22,982,050 23,690,124 24,640,056 25,235,456 25,948,056 26,747,586 27,640,825 35,252,670 35,811,284 36,916,027 38,132,897 Deposit to Operating Reserve 29,711 30,604 31,524 32,471 33,448 34,453 35,490 36,557 37,656 38,789 39,956 41,158 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 28,368,398 29,773,099 31,266,064 32,600,396 34,261,108 35,926,714 37,571,816 39,464,846 34,901,467 37,479,550 39,659,431 41,887,812 Capital Revenues 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Carryover 8,417,711 21,263,343 51,948,552 96,215,457 105,033,236 52,974,287 29,824,831 3,657,932 21,995,279 35,079,590 52,670,419 57,395,831 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital Durham D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017 - OperatingRevenuesRemainingforCapital 28,368,398 29,773,099 31,266,064 32,600,396 34,261,108 35,926,714 37,571,816 39,464,846 34,901,467 37,479,550 39,659,431 41,887,812 Durham D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues 81,500,000 81,500,000 81,500,000 28,995,898 - - - - - - - - Durham D-O LRT State Revenues 949,524 669,564 378,406 103,172 - - - - - - - - Durham D-O LRT LOB Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - Durham D-O LRT GAN Proceeds - - - - - - 16,000,000 - - - - - Durham D-O LRT TIFIA Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - Durham Debt Service Reserve Release - 1,300,000 20,375,000 11,890,000 - - - - 1,600,000 - - - Durham Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings 679,999 666,999 463,249 344,349 344,349 344,349 360,349 360,349 344,349 344,349 344,349 344,349 Durham CRT Federal FFGA Revenues - 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000 15,045,297 - - In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - - - - - - - - - - Local Grants for Joint Development 119,915,632 155,173,005 205,931,271 190,149,272 159,638,693 109,245,350 103,756,996 63,483,127 78,841,095 87,948,786 92,674,199 99,627,992 Capital Expenses 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles - 1,374,152 2,125,125 - 3,830,068 1,193,042 311,838 - - - - 1,069,609 Durham County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - - - - - - - - - - - - State of Good Repair for D-O LRT - - - - - - - - - - - 6,311,114 CRT Project Cost 19,167,169 22,365,181 34,998,118 58,291,240 77,325,361 52,718,501 72,518,250 7,495,733 19,167,169 23,739,333 37,123,244 58,291,240 81,155,429 53,911,542 72,830,087 7,495,733 - - - 7,380,723 D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)* - - - - - - - - - - - - Durham LOB Debt Service 13,353,333 13,353,333 13,353,333 13,353,333 - - - - - - - - Durham GAN Debt Service 66,131,787 66,131,787 59,239,238 13,471,463 - - - 8,483,137 8,483,137 - - - Durham TIFIA Debt Service - - - - 25,508,977 25,508,977 25,508,977 25,508,977 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 Durham Debt Service Reserve Deposit - - - - - - 1,600,000 - - - - - Durham Cost of Issuance 160,000 79,485,120 79,485,120 72,592,571 26,824,796 25,508,977 25,508,977 27,268,977 33,992,114 43,761,505 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 Cumulative Fund Balance 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 Ending Balance 21,263,343 51,948,552 96,215,457 105,033,236 52,974,287 29,824,831 3,657,932 21,995,279 35,079,590 52,670,419 57,395,831 56,968,902 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 93 Operating Revenues 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Sales Tax 76,051,260 79,619,531 83,338,833 87,277,447 91,433,982 1,541,438,919 Vehicle Rental Tax 3,446,326 3,611,749 3,785,113 3,966,799 4,157,205 67,715,696 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 1,288,906 1,323,707 1,359,447 1,396,152 1,433,848 29,466,255 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 3,007,608 3,088,814 3,172,212 3,257,861 3,345,824 68,758,231 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating - - - - - 1,821,214 Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 50,494,796 83,794,100 87,643,801 91,655,605 95,898,259 100,370,859 1,759,695,111 Operating Expenses 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 8,562,538 8,822,120 9,089,591 9,365,190 9,649,167 189,271,710 Allocations to Transit Providers for Administration 160,890 464,456 256,529 176,321 181,787 5,182,865 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus Facilities O&M 159,710 164,661 169,765 175,028 180,454 3,089,834 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M 23,206,823 23,926,235 24,667,948 25,432,655 26,221,067 353,339,393 Allocation to GoTriangle for CRT O&M 7,138,907 7,360,213 7,588,380 7,823,620 8,066,152 64,449,959 39,228,868 40,737,685 41,772,213 42,972,814 44,298,626 615,333,761 Deposit to Operating Reserve 42,397 43,673 44,987 46,341 47,736 1,638,761 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 44,522,835 46,862,443 49,838,405 52,879,105 56,024,497 Capital Revenues 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Carryover 56,968,902 66,337,165 75,392,595 86,445,823 103,920,720 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital 1,412,067 Durham D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017* - - - - - 25,548,001 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 44,522,835 46,862,443 49,838,405 52,879,105 56,024,497 1,142,722,588 Durham D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - - - 1,006,995,898 Durham D-O LRT State Revenues - - - - - 200,841,560 Durham D-O LRT LOB Proceeds - - - - - 120,000,000 Durham D-O LRT GAN Proceeds - - - - - 281,650,000 Durham D-O LRT TIFIA Proceeds - - - - - 350,450,000 Durham Debt Service Reserve Release - - - - - 38,443,254 Durham Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings 344,349 344,349 344,349 344,349 344,349 9,393,723 Durham CRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - - - 175,045,297 In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - - - 15,791,793 Local Grants for Joint Development 53,050,825 101,836,086 113,543,957 125,575,349 139,669,277 160,289,566 5,060,383,343 Capital Expenses 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles 220,553 2,497,006 3,463,515 - - 23,248,327 Durham County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - 375,988 387,644 470,189 581,718 13,654,232 State of Good Repair for D-O LRT - - - - - 6,311,114 CRT Project Cost 350,090,595 220,553 2,872,994 3,851,159 470,189 581,718 393,304,267 D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)* - - - - - 1,946,683,269 Durham LOB Debt Service - - - - - 135,218,008 Durham GAN Debt Service - - - - - 324,622,097 Durham TIFIA Debt Service 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 419,541,217 Durham Debt Service Reserve Deposit - - - - - 72,878,169 Durham Cost of Issuance 4,668,500 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 35,278,368 2,903,611,260 Cumulative Fund Balance 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Ending Balance 66,337,165 75,392,595 86,445,823 103,920,720 124,429,481 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 94 Operating Revenues 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Sales Tax 6,687,816 7,001,929 7,400,189 7,753,837 8,000,493 8,259,373 8,595,236 8,927,860 9,225,637 9,505,611 Vehicle Rental Tax 569,291 595,478 621,679 647,790 674,997 701,997 730,077 757,820 794,195 832,316 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 345,873 359,362 370,502 381,617 392,302 403,286 414,175 425,358 436,417 450,819 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 806,986 838,458 864,450 890,384 915,315 940,944 966,349 992,440 1,018,243 1,051,845 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating 2,131,063 - - - - - - - - - Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 9,355,894 19,896,923 8,795,227 9,256,820 9,673,628 9,983,107 10,305,600 10,705,837 11,103,478 11,474,492 11,840,591 Operating Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 3,100,195 3,155,000 3,241,593 3,342,082 3,444,909 3,549,297 3,656,854 3,766,829 3,880,121 3,995,939 Allocation to County Admin&Fac.O&M - 132,339 26,850 27,682 28,540 29,425 30,337 31,278 32,247 33,247 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M 3,100,195 3,287,339 3,268,443 3,369,764 3,473,449 3,578,722 3,687,192 3,798,107 3,912,369 4,029,186 Deposit to Operating Reserve 589,016.25 11,234 39,644 19,837 20,257 20,479 21,097 21,522 22,166 22,606 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 16,207,712 5,496,655 5,948,733 6,284,027 6,489,400 6,706,399 6,997,548 7,283,850 7,539,957 7,788,799 Capital Revenues 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Carryover From Prior Year 12,958,514 5,031,514 3,770,885 40,747,859 38,579,844 31,963,998 19,948,208 18,624,502 18,956,816 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital 575,507 Orange D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017* 7,824,006 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 16,207,712 5,496,655 5,948,733 6,284,027 6,489,400 6,706,399 6,997,548 7,283,850 7,539,957 7,788,799 Orange D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 Orange D-O LRT State Revenues - - 4,418,852 4,433,652 4,418,852 4,418,852 4,418,852 4,448,852 4,590,102 4,743,093 Orange D-O LRT LOB Proceeds - - - - - - - 30,000,000 5,000,000 27,500,000 Orange D-O LRT GAN Proceeds - - - - - - - - 46,250,000 - Orange D-O LRT TIFIA Proceeds - - - - - - 5,966,250 33,808,750 11,932,500 11,932,500 Orange Debt Service Reserve Release - - - - - - - - - - Orange Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings - - - - - - 5,862 69,083 132,057 171,282 In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - 3,584,640 - - - - - - Local Grants for Joint Development - - - - - - - - 105,557 108,704 Private Capital Campaign 18,120,000 24,607,225 18,455,169 15,399,098 54,693,204 70,156,110 68,205,095 67,852,510 114,058,742 112,674,676 89,701,194 Capital Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles - 3,496,436 376,939 - - - - - 191,496 233,373 North-South Corridor BRT(Tax District Share) - 1,531,250 1,531,250 1,531,250 1,531,250 - - - - - Hillsborough Train Station(Tax District Share) - 116,000 - 285,000 285,000 - - - - - Orange County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - 1,376,364 1,340,301 761,114 1,034,047 546,466 92,869 63,832 - - State of Good Repair for D-O LRT - 6,520,051 3,248,490 2,577,364 2,850,297 546,466 92,869 63,832 191,496 233,373 D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)" 11,648,711 6,903,604 8,379,723 11,219,981 28,725,969 35,694,631 47,225,194 88,748,389 78,176,685 56,593,075 Orange LOB Debt Service - - - - - - - - 8,264,701 8,464,701 Orange GAN Debt Service - - - - - - - - - 1,850,000 Orange TIFIA Debt Service - - - - - - - - - - Orange Debt Service Reserve Deposit - - - - - - 586,239 6,322,019 6,297,477 3,922,477 Orange Cost of Issuance 148,000 300,000 787,500 11,648,711 6,903,604 8,379,723 11,367,981 28,725,969 35,694,631 47,811,432 95,370,408 93,526,363 70,830,254 Cumulative Fund Balance 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Ending Balance 12,958,514 5,031,514 3,770,885 40,747,859 38,579,844 31,963,998 19,948,208 18,624,502 18,956,816 18,637,567 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 95 Operating Revenues 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Sales Tax 9,797,641 10,117,042 10,473,796 10,850,293 11,255,018 11,672,887 12,079,677 12,502,484 12,931,545 13,427,146 Vehicle Rental Tax 872,267 914,136 958,015 1,004,000 1,052,192 1,102,697 1,155,626 1,211,096 1,269,229 1,330,152 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 465,696 481,064 496,939 513,338 530,278 547,777 565,854 584,527 603,816 623,742 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 1,086,556 1,122,412 1,159,452 1,197,714 1,237,239 1,278,068 1,320,244 1,363,812 1,408,818 1,455,309 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating - - - - - - - - - - Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 12,222,160 12,634,654 13,088,202 13,565,345 14,074,727 14,601,429 15,121,401 15,661,919 16,213,408 16,836,349 Operating Expenses 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 4,121,646 4,251,310 4,385,056 4,523,014 4,665,314 4,812,095 4,963,497 5,119,666 5,280,752 5,446,911 Allocation to County Admin&Fac.O&M 34,278 35,340 36,436 37,565 38,730 39,930 41,168 42,445 43,760 45,117 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M 4,022,089 4,146,774 4,275,324 4,407,859 4,544,503 4,685,382 4,830,629 4,980,379 4,155,923 4,286,651 8,443,582 8,707,353 8,979,368 9,259,885 9,549,169 9,847,493 10,155,142 10,472,406 Deposit to Operating Reserve 24,882 25,668 26,479 27,317 28,180 29,071 29,990 30,938 31,916 32,925 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 8,041,354 8,322,335 4,618,141 4,830,675 5,067,179 5,312,473 5,542,243 5,783,487 6,026,350 6,331,017 Capital Revenues 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Carryover From Prior Year 18,637,567 17,624,565 19,093,816 18,588,446 15,385,523 18,774,371 21,846,919 17,944,666 17,718,003 17,283,836 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital Orange D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017* Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 8,041,354 8,322,335 4,618,141 4,830,675 5,067,179 5,312,473 5,542,243 5,783,487 6,026,350 6,331,017 Orange D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 18,500,000 6,581,891 - - - - Orange D-O LRT State Revenues 4,812,304 4,800,883 325,012 242,101 149,467 53,127 - - - - Orange D-O LRT LOB Proceeds 5,000,000 5,000,000 - - - - - - - - Orange D-O LRT GAN Proceeds 11,100,000 - - - - - - - - - Orange D-O LRTTIFIA Proceeds 11,932,500 3,977,500 - - - - - - - - Orange Debt Service Reserve Release - 2,109,174 - - 5,125,000 4,860,000 - - - - Orange Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings 199,107 178,015 178,015 178,015 126,765 78,165 78,165 78,165 78,165 78,165 In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - - - - - - - - Local Grants for Joint Development 5,823,708 6,004,243 - - - - - - - - Private Capital Campaign 84,046,540 66,516,715 42,714,984 42,339,238 44,353,934 35,660,028 27,467,327 23,806,319 23,822,519 23,693,019 Capital Expenses 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles 481,216 - - 1,374,152 - - 3,732,279 297,934 614,341 - North-South Corridor BRT(Tax District Share) - - - - - - - - - - Hillsborough Train Station(Tax District Share) - - - - - - - - - - Orange County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - 72,123 148,718 - - - - - 133,960 - State of Good Repair for D-O LRT 481,216 72,123 148,718 1,374,152 - - 3,732,279 297,934 748,301 - D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)" 43,043,576 25,525,621 - - - - - - - - Orange LOB Debt Service 9,564,701 10,942,152 10,530,877 12,132,619 12,132,619 10,755,169 - - - - Orange GAN Debt Service 10,389,004 10,833,004 13,446,944 13,446,944 13,446,944 3,057,940 - - - - Orange TIFIA Debt Service - - - - - - 5,790,381 5,790,381 5,790,381 5,790,381 Orange Debt Service Reserve Deposit 2,782,477 - - - - - - - - - Orange Cost of Issuance 161,000 50,000 65,940,759 47,350,776 23,977,820 25,579,563 25,579,563 13,813,109 5,790,381 5,790,381 5,790,381 5,790,381 Cumulative Fund Balance 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Ending Balance 17,624,565 19,093,816 18,588,446 15,385,523 18,774,371 21,846,919 17,944,666 17,718,003 17,283,836 17,902,637 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 96 Operating Revenues 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Sales Tax 13,970,844 14,518,867 15,083,325 15,669,423 16,311,515 16,965,941 17,646,412 18,368,854 19,129,984 344,130,675 Vehicle Rental Tax 1,393,999 1,460,911 1,531,035 1,604,525 1,681,542 1,762,256 1,846,844 1,935,493 2,028,396 33,040,051 $3 Vehicle Registration Fee 644,325 665,588 687,553 710,242 733,680 757,891 782,902 808,737 835,426 16,019,086 $7 Vehicle Registration Fee 1,503,334 1,552,944 1,604,191 1,657,130 1,711,815 1,768,305 1,826,659 1,886,939 1,949,208 37,375,563 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Operating - - - - - - - - - Prior Year Cash Balance Unrestricted 17,512,503 18,198,311 18,906,104 19,641,319 20,438,552 21,254,393 22,102,816 23,000,023 23,943,014 442,052,332 Operating Expenses 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Allocations to Transit Providers for Bus O&M 5,618,301 5,795,088 5,977,441 6,165,537 6,359,556 6,559,686 6,766,117 6,979,050 7,198,688 140,121,546 Allocation to County Admin&Fac.O&M 46,516 47,958 49,444 50,977 52,557 54,187 55,866 57,598 59,384 1,241,202 Allocation to GoTriangle for D-O LRT O&M 4,878,032 5,029,251 5,185,158 5,345,898 5,511,621 5,682,481 5,858,638 6,040,255 6,227,503 85,651,778 10,542,848 10,872,296 11,212,043 11,562,412 11,923,734 12,296,353 12,680,621 13,076,903 13,485,575 227,014,525 Deposit to Operating Reserve 33,966 35,040 36,148 37,290 38,470 39,686 40,941 42,235 43,571 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 6,935,689 7,290,975 7,657,913 8,041,617 8,476,348 8,918,354 9,381,255 9,880,885 10,413,867 213,615,239 Capital Revenues 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Carryover From Prior Year 17,902,637 16,908,518 16,269,685 15,997,790 17,890,495 17,774,597 15,738,190 15,742,904 16,849,344 Prior Year Cash Balance Restricted Capital 575,507 Orange D-O LRT Spent,Pre-2017* 7,824,006 Operating Revenues Remaining for Capital 6,935,689 7,290,975 7,657,913 8,041,617 8,476,348 8,918,354 9,381,255 9,880,885 10,413,867 213,615,239 Orange D-O LRT Federal FFGA Revenues - - - - - - - - - 228,581,891 Orange D-O LRT State Revenues - - - - - - - - - 46,273,998 Orange D-O LRT LOB Proceeds - - - 4,000,000 - - - - - 76,500,000 Orange D-O LRT GAN Proceeds - - - - - - - - - 57,350,000 Orange D-O LRT TIFIA Proceeds - - - - - - - - - 79,550,000 Orange Debt Service Reserve Release - - - - - - - - - 12,094,174 Orange Debt Service Reserve Interest Earnings 78,165 78,165 78,165 82,165 82,165 82,165 82,165 82,165 82,165 2,356,514 In-Kind Donation(Right of Way) - - - - - - - - - 3,584,640 Local Grants for Joint Development - - - - - - - - - 12,042,212 Private Capital Campaign 18,120,000 24,916,491 24,277,658 24,005,764 28,121,573 26,449,009 26,775,116 25,201,609 25,705,954 27,345,377 1,283,022,195 Capital Expenses 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Allocations to Transit Providers for Vehicles - - - 302,720 - 2,362,515 784,294 - - 14,247,696 North-South Corridor BRT(Tax District Share) - - - - - - - - - 6,125,000 Hillsborough Train Station(Tax District Share) - - - - - - - - - 686,000 Orange County Bus Facilities and Capital Projects - - - - - - - 182,198 2,307,482 8,059,476 State of Good Repair for D-O LRT 1,480,385 1,480,385 - - - 1,783,104 - 2,362,515 784,294 182,198 2,307,482 30,598,556 D-O LRT Project Costs(No Debt)* - - - - - - - - - 441,885,159 Orange LOB Debt Service - - - - 666,438 666,438 666,438 666,438 666,438 86,119,733 Orange GAN Debt Service - - - - - - - - - 66,470,778 Orange TIFIA Debt Service 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 95,233,282 Orange Debt Service Reserve Deposit - - - 400,000 - - - - - 20,310,689 Orange Cost of Issuance 40,000 1,486,500 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,007,973 8,447,973 8,674,411 8,674,411 8,674,411 8,674,411 8,674,411 711,506,141 Cumulative Fund Balance 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Total Ending Balance 16,908,518 16,269,685 15,997,790 17,890,495 17,774,597 15,738,190 15,742,904 16,849,344 16,363,484 *The D-O LRT Project cost shown in FY 2017 is a total of actual and budgeted expenditures for FY 2014 through FY 2017.Corresponding Tax District revenues spent to date are shown as revenues. 97 APPENDIX B: Transit Plan Risk & Mitigation Strategies 98 DURHAM-ORANGE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT—FINANCIAL RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES APRIL 2017 There are several financial risks to the 2017 County Transit Plans (Plans)that could arise at different times during the period of the Plans.There are also risks and strategies to mitigate those risks that are specific to projects in the plan. This document describes the primary downside risks to the Durham- Orange LRT Project that may emerge, their potential impacts on the D-O LRT Project,the schedule on which the parties would need to respond, and the options and timeline for mitigating the risks. Financial Risks: Mitigation Strategies: 1. Federal funding A. Contingency in the project budget 2. State funding B. Design changes to reduce project cost 3. Local sales tax forecast C. Savings from property donations 4. Cost overruns D. Cost transfer to project partners 5. Schedule delays E. New revenue Financial Risks This section focuses on the potential impact of financial risks to the delivery of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit(D-O LRT) Project.The federal funding risks and local economic growth factors are faced by all transit agencies seeking to construct major capital projects; the state factors vary according to the policy environment and funding mechanisms for transit in each state. 1) Federal Funding—The Plans assume 50%federal funding for the D-O LRT Project through the Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program. The President's federal fiscal year(FY) 2018 budget proposal calls for limiting the CIG program to only those projects that have already received Full Funding Grant Agreements(FFGAs).While the President issues budget priorities each year,the budget is set by Congress.The elimination of the CIG program was previously proposed in the House of Representatives budget in 2011, while the Senate version of the budget retained the program.The final budget retained the CIG program and funded it at a level of$2 billion per year. Although current federal transportation law authorizes the New Starts program through 2020, if the FY 2018 federal budget adopted by Congress funds no new FFGAs, then pursuant to the Cost Sharing Agreement, Durham and Orange Counties and GoTriangle would convene within fifteen business days and decide whether to continue advancing the D-O LRT Project at risk. Without federal funding, Durham and Orange Counties, GoTriangle, and the DCHC-MPO would not be able to pursue the D-O LRT Project. Although a one-year reduction in CIG program funding in FY 2018 would not directly affect the D-O LRT Project, it would call into question whether CIG program funding would be available in future years when the D-O LRT Project is scheduled to request federal funds. Federal funding risks could re-emerge (and be addressed) each federal budget year between 1 99 now and FY 2020 when GoTriangle plans to submit the request for a FFGA for the D-O LRT Project. If a federal funding risk is realized and the parties decide to suspend pursuit of the D-O LRT Project,the losses would be limited to the amount of money that will have been spent on the project development and engineering work to that point in time when the decision is made to suspend work.To date, approximately$40 million has been spent on project development and engineering activities for the D-O LRT Project. As the federal budget is typically adopted in October of each year—GoTriangle expects to spend approximately$10 million more between entry to Engineering and October 2017 if the D-O LRT Project advances into Engineering. 2) State Funding—The Plans assume 10%state funding for the D-O LRT Project. In 2016,the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law capping the state contribution toward rail projects at 10%of project costs. It also required that the D-O LRT Project wait until late 2018 to be scored and prioritized for inclusion in the 2020-2029 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Depending on the amount of statewide money available, the level of state funding available for the D-O LRT Project could fall below 10%of project costs. The preliminary availability of state funding for the D-O LRT Project will be announced in late 2018. If it is lower than 10%of project costs, in accordance with the Cost Sharing Agreement, the parties would convene within fifteen business days after the release of the Draft STIP and decide upon a course of action for the D-O LRT Project. To mitigate for the risk of lower than expected state funding, GoTriangle is pursuing new sources of revenue, including in-kind contributions of right-of-way from property owners along the D-O LRT Project alignment, grants from foundations and endowments, a private philanthropic campaign, and other sources of federal funds. (These activities are described in more detail in the Mitigation Strategies section below.) In addition, GoTriangle is preparing a set of cost mitigation strategies that could be used to reduce the cost of the D-O LRT Project, thereby reducing the amount of additional funds required. (These efforts are also described in more detail in the Mitigation Strategies section below.) 3) Local Sales Tax Forecast—The half-cent sales tax dedicated for transit is the largest local revenue source for the Plans. Over the past decade, which included declines in net collections in FY 2008 and 2010 due to the economic recession, sales tax collections for a similar one-cent sales and use tax in the two counties grew at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent (5.7 percent in Durham County and 4.8 percent in Orange County). In November 2016, GoTriangle contracted with Moody's Analytics, a well-regarded economic analytics firm,to provide a forecast of the half-cent sales tax dedicated for transit. Moody's developed two forecasts: a Baseline forecast and a Downside forecast. In accordance with industry standards, the Plans use the Baseline forecast as the planning assumption for the sales tax growth rate.The sales tax growth projected in the Moody's 2 100 Baseline forecast for the half-cent sales tax equates to an average annual rate of 4.2 percent in the two counties—more than a full percentage point below the 10-year average for the one- cent sales and use tax for the two counties noted above.The Moody's Baseline forecast equates to an average annual rate of 4.33 percent in Durham County and 3.71 percent in Orange County. In accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements, GoTriangle and our financial advisor have also evaluated scenarios using the Downside forecast, to understand the effects and potential mitigations that may be required to plan for less than expected sales tax growth.The Moody's Downside forecast equates to an average annual rate of 3.14 percent in Durham County and 3.00 percent in Orange County. The sales tax forecast affects GoTriangle's ability to borrow money to fund construction of the D-O LRT Project. In addition to sensitivity analyses on the sales tax growth rate that GoTriangle must complete for the FTA, a sensitivity analysis on the local sales tax growth rate to evaluate GoTriangle's ability to make debt repayments for the life of each loan will be needed in order to secure financing at favorable terms. With other financial planning assumptions held constant, planning for the Moody's Downside forecast creates a cash shortfall of approximately$100 million (year of expenditure, or YOE) toward the end of the construction period for the D-O LRT Project, because the lower sales tax growth rates would limit GoTriangle's ability to borrow funds needed for construction. To address the potential funding shortfall and strengthen GoTriangle's ability to borrow funds, GoTriangle is pursuing new sources of revenue, including in-kind contributions of right-of-way from property owners along the alignment, private grants, a private philanthropic campaign, and other federal funds. (These activities are described in more detail in the Mitigation Strategies section below.) In addition, GoTriangle is preparing a set of cost mitigation strategies that could be used to reduce the cost of the project, reducing the amount of additional funds required. (This is also described in more detail in the Mitigation Strategies section below.) In addition to the mitigation strategies identified in this document, another potential course could be that one or more local governments could choose to pledge other future revenues to increase the D-O LRT Project's borrowing capacity. 4) Cost Overruns—This risk remains for all capital projects in the Plans; however, it varies based on where each project is in its development stage.The D-O LRT Project has completed the Project Development phase and is at a 30% level of engineering design. At this level of design, the project budget includes a commensurate level of contingency to guard against cost overruns as described in part A of the Mitigation Strategies section below. Strategies to mitigate cost overruns beyond the project budget are described in parts B through F of the Mitigation Strategies section below. 5) Schedule Delays—Schedule risk is particularly important for large multiyear programs due to the cost of inflation.The cost associated with a one-year construction schedule delay for the D-O LRT Project is approximately$60 million YOE, which would not be offset by an increase in 3 101 federal funding for the project.The most likely cause of a delay of this magnitude is if the D-O LRT Project does not remain on schedule to receive a federal FFGA in FY 2020. To keep the D-O LRT Project on schedule, there are four remaining critical steps in the federal New Starts that need to be met. First, GoTriangle will need to request a funding recommendation from the FTA by September 2018. Second,the FTA would need to include the D-O LRT Project in its Annual Report on Funding Recommendations for the CIG Program in early 2019 (typically released in February).Third, the adopted federal budget for FY 2020, scheduled to be in place by September 2019, would need to include funding for the D-O LRT Project. Finally, GoTriangle would need to apply for the federal FFGA no later than December 2019. In the event that any of these four steps is not met, pursuant to the Cost Sharing Agreement, the parties would convene within fifteen business days and decide upon a course of action. 6) Interest Rate Changes—To complete the Project by 2028, the D-O LRT Project Financial Plan assumes that GoTriangle will borrow funds to pay for the cost of construction. As described below,the interest rates assumed in the Plans are conservative(high) compared to historical experience. There is risk that interest rates will rise above the levels assumed in the Plans, increasing the cost of debt and requiring the commitment of additional funds to debt service. If actual interest rates are lower than those assumed in the Plans, the cost of borrowing will be reduced, representing a cost savings. The Plans assume three issuances of tax-exempt Limited Obligation Bonds (LOBs) during construction, with a repayment term of between four and six years.The Plans assume that the rate on these LOBs is 4 percent. Over the last 5-year, 10-year, 15-year and 20-year periods, average rates for 7-year municipal bonds have been 1.52 percent, 2.12 percent, 2.46 percent, and 2.99 percent, respectively. The Plans also assume$400 million in borrowing under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act(TIFIA) loan program.The assumed interest rate for the TIFIFA loan is 5 percent. Under the statute, the interest rate of a TIFIA loan is roughly equal to the 30-year Treasury rate at the time of the loan closing. As of April 21, 2017, the TIFIA interest rate is 2.89 percent.The assumed 5 percent rate represents approximately a 200 basis point cushion from the current market. Since 1993, there have been no three-year periods in which interest rates increased by 200 basis points, which supports the reasonableness of the 200 basis points of interest rate cushion. The strategies to mitigate cost overruns beyond the project budget as described in parts B through F of the Mitigation Strategies section below would be applicable to addressing the increased cost of debt. 4 102 Mitigation Strategies Federal Oversight—All projects in the New Starts pipeline, including the D-O LRT Project, are subject to a robust Project Management Oversight program administered by the FTA.The FTA conducts Project Management Oversight reviews for major capital projects to ensure that the project sponsors have all the processes and procedures in place to effectively manage and deliver the promised benefits of the project on time, within budget, and in compliance with all applicable federal requirements and the project management plan. Oversight begins early in project implementation, and continues through construction to the end of disbursement of federal funds to the project. A Project Management Oversight Contractor (PMOC)was assigned to the D-O LRT Project in the fall of 2015. Over the past 18 months, the PMOC has reviewed extensive project management documentation, design plans, schedules, cost estimates, and other reports generated by GoTriangle for compliance with FTA guidelines and sufficiency for the entry to Engineering milestone. Based on its review and assessment of the D-O LRT Project, the PMOC recommended the D-O LRT Project for advancement into the Engineering phase. Once approved to enter Engineering, GoTriangle will continue to work with guidance from the FTA and the PMOC to move the project forward, secure federal grant funding, and successfully deliver the D-O LRT Project. A significant component of the Project Management Oversight program during the Engineering phase is the FTA-led Risk Assessments for the project, the first of which typically occurs within six months after a project's entry into Engineering. As part of its Risk Assessment, FTA will require GoTriangle to formalize a risk tracking plan, as well as to identify primary and secondary mitigation measures.The term "primary mitigation" refers to strategies that are performed in advance of a risk occurring, to reduce the likelihood or severity of the risk.The term "secondary mitigation" refers to strategies that are performed after a risk event occurs, to manage the effects.The PMOC will monitor GoTriangle's risk management efforts on a quarterly basis throughout the life of the D-O LRT Project. Mitigation Strategies for Financial Risks—This section describes mitigation strategies for the financial risks described in the previous section, which will form the basis for the financial portion of the risk mitigation plan to be developed early in Engineering.The strategies are organized in three primary categories: • Conservative budgeting(part A) • Cost reduction strategies that can be applied moving forward (parts B, C, and D) • Potential other revenues (federal and private)that GoTriangle will continue to seek (part E) Addressing the approximately$100 million YOE shortfall associated with the downside local sales tax growth rate (part 3 above)will require cooperation between project partners. It is important to note that project scope reductions do not directly reduce the shortfall on a dollar-for-dollar basis because the federal and state shares associated with that scope goes away. For example, eliminating$100 million YOE shortfall requires$245 million YOE in cost reductions, in the absence of new revenue. 5 103 The following table summarizes the cost reduction strategies described in detail in parts B, C, and D below: Cost-Reduction Strategies (YOE) Strategies Under GoTriangle Control Value Engineering (part B) $50 million Further Cost Cutting(part B) $30 million Strategies Requiring Cooperation from Project Partners Savings Associated with Property Donations (part C) $40 million Cost Transfer to Project Partners (part D) $55 million Total Potential Cost Reductions Identified To Date Total $175 million A) Contingency in the D-O LRT Project Budget–Including appropriate contingency in a project's budget means planning for a conservative estimate of project costs.Ten years ago, the FTA instituted a robust risk management oversight process, designed to reduce cost overruns on New Starts and Small Starts projects. In 2016,the FTA reported that of the 18 projects approved to enter the New Starts Engineering phase (or comparable phase of the Small Starts program) in 2007 or later that have since been completed, 17 projects (94%)were completed within budget. As part of its current risk management oversight process, the FTA recommends, based on historic project information from around the country,that New Starts project cost estimates include a minimum of 25%total contingency at entry to Engineering. For the D-O LRT Project, the amount of all contingency—allocated and unallocated—is approximately 30%of the base cost, which is more than the FTA's recommended minimum of 25%. In January 2017,the FTA's Project Management Oversight Contractor assigned to the D-O LRT Project reviewed the project cost estimate and concluded that it contains an appropriate level of contingency for entry to Engineering. Allocated Contingency(20%)–The FTA cost estimate reporting format requires that for each line item, a base estimated cost is reported, and an allocated contingency is assigned separately based on the level of certainty in the base cost estimate for that particular item. For the D-O LRT Project,the total allocated contingency across all line items is approximately 20%of the total base cost, approximately$350 million YOE. "Allocated contingency" is the additional cost included due to existing uncertainties related to the quantity of the construction items for known project elements. Examples of items that would be covered by the allocated contingency include: encountering deeper or lower quality bed rock, requiring more costly foundation design than anticipated; encountering unanticipated subsurface conditions, causing more rock excavation or more improvement of poor soils; and increased material quantities, such as concrete and reinforcing steel. Unallocated Contingency(10%)–The FTA cost estimate reporting format also requires an additional amount of unallocated contingency reported separately; for the D-O LRT Project, the unallocated contingency is approximately 10%of the base cost, approximately$170 million YOE. "Unallocated contingency" covers what are often referred to as "unknown unknowns"– construction items that are not determined until they are unexpectedly encountered on a 6 104 project, such as the unknown presence of an underground utility. Examples of items that would be covered by the unallocated contingency include: unanticipated utility relocations; unanticipated right-of-way acquisitions; and unanticipated changes in stakeholder requirements. B) Design Changes to Reduce Project Cost—Over the past 18 months, GoTriangle has engaged in several separate reviews of the preliminary engineering plans to identify potential cost savings that can be implemented as the D-O LRT Project advances. Some of these changes are considered "value engineering"—design changes that preserve the quality of the system, but that are more cost efficient than the initial design. Other changes are considered "cost cutting" —design changes that negatively affect the quality of the system, but should be considered as mitigation options in the event of a funding shortfall or cost overrun. Value Engineering—$50 million To date, the design team has identified approximately$50 million YOE in potential savings from value engineering strategies.This resulted from more detailed study following the 2015 Value Engineering Workshop, in which industry experts from peer agencies and engineering firms reviewed the preliminary design of the D-O LRT Project to identify a preliminary list of potential savings. GoTriangle intends to incorporate these changes into the design as engineering advances from the current 30-percent level to the 100-percent level for construction.These strategies include: • Constructing the system for 2-car train operations (not 3-car) • Reducing the length of aerial structures, where practicable • Economizing the maintenance facility design and rail systems design • Using less-aesthetic bridge supports in areas that are not highly visible • Adjusting the light rail alignment along US 15-501/Western Bypass to reduce rock excavation • Adjusting the light rail alignment along University Drive to reduce roadway reconstruction Further Cost Cutting—$30 million As described above, after the D-O LRT Project enters Engineering, the FTA risk management process will require cost-cutting strategies to be identified and reserved as "levers to pull" in the event of a need to mitigate a funding shortfall or cost overrun later on in the project (referred to as "secondary mitigation").To date,the design team has identified approximately$30 million YOE in potential additional cost cutting strategies.These strategies all would require further evaluation during Engineering to confirm feasibility and precise cost savings.These strategies include: • Using less-aesthetic bridge supports throughout the alignment.This strategy would have a noticeable aesthetic impact to the public. • Removing the Hamilton Road and Woodmont stations.This strategy would negatively affect customers in these station areas, and could affect the New Starts rating for the D- O LRT Project. However, these two stations were selected because they are among the 7 105 lowest-ridership stations in current projections, and are both relatively closely spaced with the Friday Center station. • Single-tracking on one or more bridges.Three segments have been identified as candidates:the UNC aerial guideway, the NC 54 aerial guideway, and the New Hope Creek aerial guideway. Implementing these cuts would significantly negatively affect operational flexibility and reliability of the system by introducing "choke points" along the alignment.The effects of single-tracking in multiple segments would be worse than implementing only one. During Engineering, an operational study would be required to confirm the operational impacts of implementation of one or more of these cuts. C) Savings Associated with Property Donations from D-O LRT Project Partners—The budget includes several costs associated with obtaining right-of-way for the D-O LRT Project: (a)the actual anticipated cost of the property, (b)a contingency in case the value of the property exceeds the estimate, and (c) administrative costs associated with making the purchases. When a project partner donates property to the project,these costs are avoided. Avoided Costs Associated w/Property Donations from Project Partners—$40 million The current financial plan for the D-O LRT Project takes into account item (a) above for properties that are expected to be donated based on memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and letters of intent (LOIs) received from public, institutional, and commercial property owners in the light rail corridor as of December 2016. When these transactions occur,the additional savings from items (b) and (c)will be realized.This would result in a total additional cost savings of approximately$25 million YOE based on the current cost estimate. GoTriangle is pursuing additional property donations in the D-O LRT Project corridor, beyond those already identified as of December 2016.The estimated cost savings associated with these potential additional donations is approximately$15 million YOE. D) Cost Transfer to Project Partners—There are many project elements included in the D-O LRT Project scope that are "separate enough" from the light rail system itself that they could be efficiently constructed by other parties. If project partners agree, the cost of these items could be paid for, either in full or in part, outside of the Tax District Revenues contributed by Durham and Orange Counties and committed to the D-O LRT Project. Cost Transfer to Project Partners—$55 million To date, the design team has identified two categories of items that could be considered for construction separately from the D-O LRT Project: • Pedestrian bridge and roadway/parking reconfiguration at UNC ($10 million) • Parking deck at Alston Avenue station ($45 million).This parking deck is needed to provide park-and-ride capacity at the east end of the alignment, and must be constructed on a schedule tied to the D-O LRT Project construction. It may also serve the 8 106 future Durham-Wake Commuter Rail project. Potential funding partners may include the City of Durham, Durham County, Wake County, North Carolina Central University, and/or a private entity. The$55 million in cost savings assumes that these elements are eliminated from the D-O LRT Project and constructed separately by third parties, which means that they would no longer be eligible for the state and federal funding shares. An alternate approach would be to retain these elements in the project scope but transfer the responsibility for the local share to a third party. In that case, the funding responsibility would be approximately$22 million rather than the full $55 million. E) New Revenue—As part of addressing the key risks in the financial plan, GoTriangle and its partners are exploring ways to supplement the current dedicated transit revenues. Other federal funds—In addition to federal New Starts funds, GoTriangle is seeking to apply other federal funds to the D-O LRT Project. GoTriangle has discussed with the DCHC MPO and NCDOT how other projects around the country have used such funds, and is exploring opportunities to flex funds from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) and Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)to the D-O LRT Project during the construction phase.The DCHC MPO has agreed to work with GoTriangle to further explore this funding source. Private philanthropic contributions and grants—In cities such as Detroit and Atlanta, private philanthropic funding sources have complemented allocations from traditional public sources to advance the construction of major infrastructure projects for their communities. GoTriangle believes that a similar funding model may prove successful for the D-O LRT Project. GoTriangle is in the process of establishing a nonprofit organization that will seek private philanthropic contributions and grants. GoTriangle's Board of Trustees authorized GoTriangle staff to begin the incorporation process in December 2016. Within the next few months, articles of incorporation will be filed with North Carolina's Secretary of State in order to formally establish the entity, GoTransit Partners. Once established, the organization will apply for tax-exempt status at the state and federal levels.The non-profit will be staffed with an executive director. GoTriangle envisions several roles for the nonprofit.The nonprofit will work with the Funding and Community Collaborative (Collaborative), a group of 21 private citizens and leaders from universities, health care institutions,the private sector, and local governments who are committed to securing additional funds so as to reduce the local share of the D-O LRT Project or mitigate any funding shortfalls. The nonprofit will be able to pursue the philanthropic prospects identified by the Collaborative and be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations of property (real property, money, and other personal property).The tax benefits associated with donations will expand the range of citizens and businesses that are willing to contribute. Additionally,the nonprofit will be eligible to seek foundation grants not typically available to public agencies. GoTriangle has begun the process of identifying grant-making organizations 9 107 whose missions resonate with the values of providing excellent transit service–namely, improving the economic, environmental, cultural, social, healthcare access, and educational opportunities in our region. Such foundations, endowments, and trusts identified to date include the Golden LEAF Foundation,the Goodnight Educational Foundation, the Sall Family Foundation, the AJ Fletcher Foundation,the Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation, the Bank of America Foundation, and the North Carolina State Employees Credit Union Foundation. GoTriangle is confident about the prospects for building private, corporate, and philanthropic support for the D-O LRT Project.This confidence is rooted in past experience where the people and organizations of the Research Triangle region have consistently demonstrated a willingness to make robust investments in their communities. Value Capture–As far back as 2011, Value Capture—the strategy of having the areas around stations that increase in value due to public investment contribute to paying for that transit investment—was discussed as a potential revenue stream for the D-O LRT Project.The adopted 2011 and 2012 plans in Durham and Orange Counties,which anticipated 25%state funding based on historical precedent with Charlotte, did not contain a value capture component when they went to the ballot. As part of the Transit-Oriented Development Pilot Program grant received by GoTriangle from the FTA, consultants at Gateway Planning are currently in the process of assessing the potential value of future development at each station along the D-O LRT line, and the potential amount of revenue that value capture districts at stations could contribute to project funding will also be measured.The results of this study and potential value capture implementation strategies for local governments to consider should be available in summer or fall of 2017. Efforts to round out the non-New Starts funding of the D-O LRT Project will be ongoing in the coming months and years. GoTriangle envisions our local government partners, the Collaborative and the nonprofit, described above, to be important components of this effort, as they consider the case for value capture opportunities and help to identify and secure private, corporate, and philanthropic contributions to the project. 10 108 APPENDIX C : Public Comments 109 APPENDIX C. 1 : Public Workshops Registration and Comment Forms 61/4 i\3 rsi Wn t �--� Z ' k t fr Q w CJ; J; Z tom+ V, ‘I'''' r Ok. gmb'''' '''''''', E , '‘,4,1 6 ,,,Ic'A a ?,nn i 1 p r''''' k / s I ri - $ '''''' '' %. q/ „4„.., r,o' ---- {— aI\I' � I W co ,....Q'' ei 44 44 rt■ -Z % Al .r-' 1 1 � t® c 4„,-11,---. t.1 4 I c H `�{ 4i t kA4 46 le' t� o t1 1 7.'il- \J ,--g 1 ,,,,,, 0 ... 1 (3 I :2 ql..— vr c,,,j j I, ,,,0 g°, 1 CSI Q �a H 0 W 1' W ,k 1 CS'''' '3 q X Z I Lj C z 6 " 1 Z 4 1 W m u 111 404444141 d ook iu' 1 11111111111, i 7:: .1111111111 J A *4' 1[101[i tel 2 id .4 W 4 1 CO 1 IH 4....J ) 0 j� Cu G W Cx C,> P I Z Z wI ''40 I a 11 c_D Q .w U) z _,,,,, M. 112 2 O 1 // % // // p/ r7/rYr 6 / ( �r COMMENT FORM ar /i it/�ii �/ /%„`l / i�r //!/r%/ r % //r r C.e o e1. .,...-..e 017 � ���' e ' G /I q s�'�(�h� 'C el"”,NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work 1 Retired Student I. Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system 5........................ I use transit often ............ ......n.....,..,..,......_ Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? What would you like to be able to do using transit? Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station . .... ...... W-D CRT Project ... Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? 7 i%% , !%//// 7,, fG/ „, / / %//// //%/// ////, l r i///I, 113 Iq ” ✓•„ , ,r, l l , r, i , ,,,, , ,.f J , � COMMENT FORM ( , ,,,,,� //iii / Z; / iii 1/% ,,;/4%0 ./ /or e1 %/�/& 1 / � % .,„1„,,,_. _ („H\H____L____1244 \''' ' ' ' _,.”,V\ NAME EMAIL ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: 1- 16urham County Plan Orange County Plan l m: Employed f Looking for Work i Rd ired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community ....... I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often ............................ Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? What would you like to be able to do using transit? � s F o::... ...... . Vt it'f ? y.._' Q."( ...S4 Cv... . ... ..nmm .... Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements ....,, N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? rj 114 rrr fll�fiti� f� l� r/f,,(r , ii � i / i/7, �, rri� )r1r ' /6 % COMMENT FORM J 5...... .Citre. _� ...., ......_ NAME EMAIL ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: urham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often ......m...m..... Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? What would you like to be able to do using transit? �. .... 1 Vwt 51 gf.tta.4 ......., ..- 5 " " 5_4(" . 0,0 Y cd 5t- Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? °G Lo W I m Z { I�d� C) Z hit 4 ft 11 000 r , , ,,:z. ..„ i i out , ‘q pl 0 0 m um o T 3 ,1 1 ,` t 2 ,„ N It. • y C (ID U OJ CO j■ V 1 1 , a èi k-� 1 Cr H C 0 1 -J i ,..7'. ,..4 , 1 z • N v a X00 w t (!i 1 3�' , 1 1 • c , Q `� ► l p �° 0 � �� v sip, ti-7 V J 1 .e' ( ', , /0 , , , , ,,, /,,/ 1 ( 116 I)) '11,,1} i I le,,'^ /• '7,','1,f')„:' ':i i', 6 i 1 1 l'; 1,I)1, rri I; ) 1 COMMENT FORM / c (a>te:,,, ., NAME 14,11\11 j re'''. 'A- - I ( C 6616 i"-1,4 - ADDRESS CITY 0 STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work Retired Student jOther Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often to Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? 0 C. ..w, -ra .343 C (,-A,„ c OP x , -1,, 7.0 A 0 What would you like to be able to do using transit? Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority 3=medium priority 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? /Bus Service Expansion /' D-0 LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station k_/ W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? lk)c- cjiar ,,-3--\-/ ivq■-----\1;:s c._(-\2..c,--__ yvas ■04/ 23(40.&.) --------7,' 117 ,4, , , , /: , r,, COMMENT FORM 0,7) 14.1/1/4i -pArt-e'AL4.67M4-1) Al 67- NAME EMAIL 5-r 3) Lig-t44evl .2)7 7 3 ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: X Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am. Employed LOOkIIlg for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often A)A-7" .004-1 Due2A ftl NI' lab RIC I, LLS13 le•DUarN) Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? OiC Asr 7 3 14,AK,01.4•1 5o 7345 poR Z45r /LE 136 $/ y immAriefArr 1 e ...L4 14 ."16 -rt, pLicicz 5-.0 -4 A) J47,- // -71; fAci /7 -r -Ae 7:4 What would you like to be able to do using transit? 41%6E, tip ply cAle ml) at 0,1 alai- .D 4.-er -7-25 y Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority 3=medium priority 7=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-0 LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? 118 ff rjf) 111(if filifi Filflif/ t/f)[M r if;f 7P.f, 1 11(1 RI /1(ff iif1111y7uli V COMMENT FORM 10 tel 049 /eel 2/71 C 544/ti ..1 /-9/V,A1 ,65? NAME EMAIL (7 /e. '; (1 /('' ;-Z('-'„n?," ADDRESS ,,,, CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan :„.1'Orange County Plan I am: Ernployec Looking for Work H,,,,;:f:Zetired cci Stuocnt Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) „--"' I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often 1“ Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? L. „, r -a-Lid 2-)01--.A L.,/ ^n^'L.Y ec:L 5'“'" , ''')"/'''''''" ,,'''," e"-6"- 4'4 e,sr2.1:-'a-' A/LA A- ''' 4 '--""" tee,c cc, , ,,, ,e6/cecee' fc%>.,,„„„„„„„„ What would you like to be able to do using transit? . , 0- ,,,,,,),,,,,„p, I,3 )„,,',,—'4!„„,.. , , :#,, ,it?9, .0,,- ,,,, (;1:,„„,e, Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority 3 - medium pm int y 1 -lon,^priority) ), What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-0 LRT Project ..} Bus Facility Improvements ":;), N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station 1,2r ( W-D(''( RT/Project . Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why iLL? fd ( : r d i?' ." f ruff)�1 f�1r fi fib ifi IG e rrx //III,// JlJ/( f/rfl�///I//////�r rrifif j////�////�:ii,r i 11J I///////�f n r9 11 911) .,1 ) ; 1 '/ ,�/;i , yj (1 9 ) ' .0 i , COMMENT FORM/�%// i%/%i0i� ioroi/Do i//k ">'1 ..%r //I iit�%ri//�/ri r,d///ii/ 4 laall_se e, ‘'D/r'� c.„9/1174//1 NAME EMAIL 1/S/‘7 a/V114'..) it./ ///141/ 1,476'('/ /1C? , 7,.? .d7 ...ADDRESS (/ ----._._._.—�... .,.... .. ... CL�... ......�.__ _ ..... ................... .... .................. r" STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan .......................... I am: Employed Looking for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) ," I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often Do you 1:7ehev:: this plan addresses current and�re ran it needs? Why pr why not? e, r- 4o a Se a Tyr' X /6 _II 1/1) ,06-- I—, 6,7d— 4,44541P' ,00 4/ 4,4, a", 111/S■Z 7-: 40 a/ dt4e. a, 04/yie-eethie- to , 4174 ' cir 'de. al '7 Ale ,00, ex/T (,,,90, 4.0p_ dici,v/ What would you like to be able to do using transit? Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements ........................................ N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project _..........................._...................._ Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? Lk w 0 cL1 (N 1--1 Z I )111 61'1 P LU 1 111111111111 CN z ----...... 0 0100001y III li 000 00 0 c E , DI Ili ,--i ......., , , 711-1 I , 11111111111 .0 1111111400011111111„111,11111,11111,1111,11,;11,111,111,111,111,111,11,110 0r II I 000000011 1 1 0 1 ..t 1 v c 1 •1, 1 01 Illi 1 I cn _ ,-- 1 --, _-. 0 ,c4:( --- 1.1.1 0..) , 1 03 1 ,--, p_,1 -1--,I Cl) II I 1 id ct H ,--- 1 I . 1--- 0 ,4•.;■ Lij --r ) 1 CO a 4-- 41 I 1 1 --1 = 41 F-1-1 1 z l'il p (3 U1 (f) Z 1 I 1 1 -f- 1 mil` a g ,I 0 tom^ Q CO "t\ LD a rO'. '�. N M � ,� 1 t7� O Z \i M a T �u ' N p �. p ► C-/ ; O C ��n ; or r. d N �. M �' Wfld . 1-1 i It tel 1 i ' q� v II% .....A.� pupupupupi4iVi e• -� • V" ,- p 1 , 1 F t, r .(1, ,„.,1 •.,1, ,,,) el I t ,S `i V a T on C __... .. I I— ..e) C31:5 I 2 ......_ -4-*" N't 4h3 cf.), ,....„ , , a al ,rte d b H ;, , * .„,„„, •. .ter „„i lT'1 Vie' O ' N�I cy W `^ h1 O "A ._ oe a' H W Iii. - 1 ...i.� ' 1 1 a • I IC. CV N.--- t........ ,_, z Ty )117,,,411)1 P LU ON r, g Cy% i 5 A t—i TIN . c-- ° • ( ..:....1,,. ..3 ..., 1 0 V R I J %v, 3 0 I co Is, ti) .....) (11 CC c - n C/0 4 ..... al .. ■•,-41 il i 1 H t. 4-0 Z -3Od 0 ' ' CA \■. C) IT (1) 0% " ey ■. cl - cli 1 0 I 1 zz "Z '1 H Cl) 3J1 x z II . 1 CD < - 11/4 cn 123 % rr�rl////fif/�//////'/% // /////%////0%//, %%%///%//////% !7 // ,; , i /&7 // ; .,� �r ; << ' �3 ; %. ;I COMMENT FORM i/rr/ )1i*riri/ &r /ir`„rr rirrarir/ri,, ar fill/ri///ri iri/ri%r r�i/r/ir/ 8evi G 4. 1 vlk,r; 8ie3 9 l @ c NAME EMAIL c33 0 Nbe q Chckpri c C ke !k'( NC 2 7.17 7 ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: employed Looking for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 7-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often J!— Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? S ko v--�- t%,& I (4.) 06d&s k Q I, € .K 5,,'I- © -9 r C ( 0(A.v a+.4-1 L.o -t e f c0. s Iiow DOL. I?.... ........ .dcQ .e1st,s -F s......... ............ What would you like to be able to do using transit? Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion c D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project 3 Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? �ecac,s0 ;f- ; 1 C Y'r.f, q...( f°...... 4 4c' 4_t1 v.Acf: 5 Scl.$ / GIN • y $'4,4)4 l H , e ' G ,,y ice, �mrA;": ✓ � AA61;i/f t/ s 6asiG / l Gl, /i,KQ fc /s °- CO1401A: rt. � '� a� / asfi t� S loQ ` oK � � C � 124 r rrir ,tr ��101���� rr rt�1f��'��°'f1f�111r»rp iil1llir l ruff,//,p fr�lrrfliff J��i��:Ql�f��� ff�1 ������1f ,f l/�1/, 111� 1�� �,�f � I��� // z),///, , / / /f� f//%A` %1i,�/�� /'f J% COMMENT FORM .../1/A FA, o.COVV) NAME EMAIL L. 5 rt 'I . _: fsj C. , 577 <-1 ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree,3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system ................. I use transit often Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? : .... OC3 N� 1 Cpl Gtr " 14 ,.:S. \IQ f1)1" LTX1'6V;(te; ck sltr--"/ tc5745 or.?pr?693 Vic, J� I Tv■Q ............... . What would you like to be able to do using transit? wms e .(19 _�� � Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion ..................... D-O LRT Project ..............._,. Bus Facility Improvements ............................,.,..,.,.,.,.,.. N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project ............................ Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? MC') /OST C1-1, 6)2_ 0 i'Vez3f1?5 Y f/%'/,725 0 ,, pIt , 4 IN ' If �/ , I, � COMMENT FORM (2,/oiiiP i�/ii i//ii,,;,A,i , ,�, '' ,,'„7'/4,7/„.Ja%i t'i//iii/ 0/ail Vii///5 to llis,do� iiv.al I co-M NAME EMAIL 1-1 l l (, ,, ALO(50A (wy G NI ( l 1I !:.......... Ai CaZ 7Si 7- ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: l Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed I ILool :ing for Work l etired Student: Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 7=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often 1 Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? t - , ;'L rvtL \.... \ :3)e)L ... :'—_,i: , . ...... :ko .acy.,Nikiji -.('t.IVa,_:3&V 13 gwIN1V .110t tic,1, j. . 1 d i 3 A(`m . ` ,,& .r .. t? 1, ..N . c ., -4 „1,01,i I:....I° 9.....,1,,, 4'p,.. v ,a e” 4 otei 6-' /I) to l I I not o-Ater, p r c o_n e, c_vi5io( -, . p(cov))(04_u9iI not ,v, 614,10(ys.e\ -� }wuz-tfa Y: ', mort. ., What would you like to be able to do using transit? Cro -ko f RILL sic- --l--6(-4- , --- w ° -4°� 5 s ( _ y � _. . 044\0.3\ ktr.).0)1Yn , Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? Bus Service Expansion c D-O LRT Project 0 Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project 5 Hillsborough Train Station ? W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan??rWhy or why not? d ,4 ''Wit(.)( '. /.�°.�.'. Z O L IZT 'CMCLAdta.- INV& rd\ b02. iaki2 4 ,q e SI C,/�iV1 V 5 r"00,JA/0,'if '' , "-n12 1 t" 6',I of .. Cr„t ` liNfti Q I —CM( w%'h5 `)-o ,3v.5 "3 1LLI ly) `-OwCvdd 'i'9)'' (, ) `i -liv Y2d 5'L_ LP-T i (O lC, e I pi_ �5&d. et w w 6,,§ B'°'w 0 I 1 No i-7\ct rt C`W LO W . 0 w v 1 k y -t 1 C ." I 5„:" , � i / /( dVI ) ( 4Q `t.1,R,112 Ct CIST-4',Ifv, - 4X49 "C i.l f'b ., ) ro„ e. t '� Lk tardt._�t 1s e1 (mss C ,,, `tiZ i i, 6,1e.011,,,,,, 10 t L� .. 1,Ct, ,� qA le . ) i�1� ane 1 i oocAl A;,ly A Q n f-ak©u.d .1-u01I( W_ei I,,Ovim Ace. U�r; a.�all , f Ow 0 I n F , r/I, ? vi,, 7,• /,,, :, ,,,7_ ,,,</c/,..7/ , , , Other Rank VV) 126 /C-6144\ '';511„11%Iffif;''' ' i„1 j1' ;)),'"" i,°) ' 1/P/ 1,',/ ,/ COMMENT FORM NAME EMAIL tf 6 7 () tle 4,..._ tiss, - t72 , , ,,, I,) _ ,,-) 7 <,---,, c) 471_61, ,;?1,,,,, - ,61, , wv ./..„4/v e-) ,,,, ,,,,,) / ADD ESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work `c11--Retired Student Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree,3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) ,?It I believe transit is an important issue in our community 65 I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? 1,13 e, r\e.r?e::':- h/tovc ,--v-e „ ttalt,-, - -Lit .„( , 1/4 , '1111, --,ii- i.,''''' .5;).6*--1) LC ----- ---1 „ -„, ,, ,(c: ' a 4,--- rf' ' ( crY\ . Fr; . 4- -5,24 --.. _fti,A-r-L._ k tu..e.:c,' ruAitift,; ,/,-, " + itf.c.;;'As II- tit-rrP fv\t'eivt-4cr 4 - __,____2 What would you like to be a le to do using transit? _1(;thQ-12C-' le,2C- iryxolitee er17- ,14-, S .'D U p i Of k 71 rir ( be- ,. -1.21e,-, +0 6L4-5 L11-Knia . Aliet_vev_ 'eLL"" -6',.J —0 0C-C-- vi -eK5 be -46-- veDi na-( v‘i,cAtt-t' e;'-ev.(A Rank on c?sni.lo o i l- cl, hi(77`qmoe ity, 3=medium priori 1=low priority) What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? „-- Bus Service Expansion -17 D-0 LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? 'rv- (-1) _ , ra,..4, et el 14/34,41___ezkia 2, ,--- - _,e a ,m _ f� lJll,ff �l1ififfilf/ ffr� �r/lllifi itrilff ll f�fjffff�ffl rI l�/if(I�l�llllliffi � /rt ff�l%�� 127 h°' I�. � 1 °f �")I) ` ff�( I /,If 1' ), ; ;,;� ; - COMMENT FORM 1, 1/4., n00-esc� OctArObe e n@ v►ikeitf•ca ►'� NAME I AIC... '11\ MO( Air\CDC1. Ctfi ............ ADDRESS CITY STATE&ZIP CODE I am commenting on: Durham County Plan [Orange County Plan I am: Employed Looking for Work Retired Student Other Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=strongly agree, 3=neutral, 1=strongly disagree) I believe transit is an important issue in our community .................. I am familiar with the transit system I use transit often Do you believe this plan addresses current and future transit needs? Why or why not? .......` What would you like to be able to do using transit? G V.X— rc.,cQ'f 2.... n 11-e_ _.. Iv -- r tl u n n d ...co Phi 6ove re‘to ilc-c pi)rk r tk-e_—(cpc—ICts' v S ,ort. 1C c ►Gil S -tl - b , u.V7a an— his racks e FLu I x Rank on a scale of 1-5(5=high priority, 3=medium priority, 1=low priority) to an 3 v v't 1-41 VIbV.e c What projects in the transit plans are most important to you? `'e cur-'e- ° et 00,7 S fe.r ike —bvs Users Bus Service Expansion K D-O LRT Project Bus Facility Improvements .................,..._.._ N-S BRT Project Hillsborough Train Station W-D CRT Project ................ .........y,m,m..m,....... A L ›c , cG ns I be "1/43— " c, k s u n bvs S. Would you recommend that your elected officials approve this plan? Why or why not? Les ", b"- t h'e vt<-e-e ._n.______ 128 APPENDIX C.2: Emails Received 0) c.1 22 S) l'■.? CU -5 2 .ff -2 0 :2 .G S c;_...s, 8 8 ff" a 500▪ -= c o to 5 C o 0 o C) c 2 O.F.— D 2 g, _C o o = C o t 'te t; o 5 as 5_5. c = cs, 2 E. .- , 2 =, O ,,, a Wi a) 2 F) m cs, Es cg 112; "- cs 20 cis C''- Fs csi a -2 t E t 'T) :n 5 N. 2 E 5 9 > -a-3 0 2, 6 cd- -0 g as g e .92 46 -0 =- C1 CO ,,,,, 2, "2 '8 0 :2 ±- ^5' as s _ -cis' = a - &-s, 2 CD '5 O .0 0 _2 c • fY CD &" t•I'.-2 0 -0 CTI .-. ''' C :fii $2 _r2 f5., 1 c -= -92 2 g'. .-5 .-0 2 0) „._._ -- 0 8 'Q .4 td '`.;"is `.5 u) .5_ 113 E. E ' g; - -0 E as s gi 'al e, 0 . c, --. 0 , _El 2 -cy) --F. -5- 0 2 u) >, ._ t_.. ,..! '-`: '=" §." 'i%) g: R E To 7-g, ''' c gs) 17„, l'fi 8 > 8_ _. . 'T -_2 'a .,)< -' i22 .E :4: E%-) . 8 , . CD _2. , 5 -o tani -5 ° ci) 2 2 2 ct) -5 ':.)) .-' ._ 2 ff_ c) a c`J 2 8 -., i . _C" ,- O a, T.,,- l= 65 t-- E Ws l= S' W ..q2 El E < .0 V, L' E TS CIS 7, 2 2 ..2 co to , -e ,,' < 8 2 d: 0, CC ui o z m • m 0 cr, cs, c u) ui t . S2 e .0 "0 >) C as .12 P.- „o ?a, 8 8 E -.) -6 u) 0 cL) ,6.= o 0 E E 4 = s--2 iz. 2 a E -2 0 - z +.), _-!. 4, c> 0 -, - .. 0 gi -- W E -°0 >- 0 >- al E a± =- Ti _2 555 23 -,c,; g .92 ,. >,.0 ", @ ? a -ct 1 E z co E = >,) g' @ .8- co o, . `>-..s 5, -EB 2 cu i= 0 „) :9: 2 '8 4_.. 8 C00 E r, :=: p•-• a; c o .g 0 >- -F, ,d "5 z a. 0 to' c z -,.;) E 2 "2.5 N. X N. F F._ '' as 0- us 2cua' 52 `e -5 (.0 m -0 0 u, C 0 8 c.) 6 1, Es.' (2 7- L T 7- u9 4 g 0 B '0 a_c2 8 Et -8 FE Q (5 0 w (%) z c., C71 04 co t--... to to — to CD eei _ 6 6 6 04 — 04 s_,, Z 2 8, - _ &-LT 52,... e <n o Z a) .0 .... ..-.., 0) —._ t•-' 2 E 8: ._a2 =1 -0 Cl E 2 $ 5' E ifl '''-',.ii 00 _2 ..:-,: CO vs 6 ry ct 0 as s— 1— z co 4— 6 o6 --- 0 M 6 s s - >, c -8 I.- 0 2, ccs c 8 i 0 _g -4,,, Ca ? 1:-: o o f,. — = u,I— _1 c ct ct cC , 0 i---- 2 _, _, _, u, VS 0 0 0 05 cC c ci 00 6 6 65' 0) E cc (I) ,..-,' s_ . 2 .— E as at LL 12 u) u) a) E z cc as c s.-. us -C (I) E -0 --,. cc <n "5;a css as ..J 0 w _I x C co 2 .E c>) m 1) .2 2 tb = til i:3 • tr, S ..= E ED, a2 6) co 0 0- 75 8 "E E .0 • a 'z as as co T, 5 ce co S' -0_ fii" -ct E C — Fo -. 5 43 =o a, ' -r5 112) ._ ,F2 . E , 2 .0 = E c o o ,z3 .-_, -cr.;1) i":-", a) B F, I • L ° = .. 2 ,.. -2 o 0 F-a----., o • g § 22 5 w -- E = 5''-' 72 2 u, -<- 2 >., X 2 j., F ::5"- co cc _N -9 € 00 0§ 9Ec„ 53 cE E>-.2 050 .0 5Yo mo 'o • 0 T- 2 • cc,o 0 0 ED, o 2 tr, - 4-' 0, co co,= .,.=S i. .5 ECD .2.tm.,.ri-0 = c' s.=0a0 3. -B b - ° = 5 a = R ., a, To -8 ITS CU4 r„ E - S -s 5a0 cE o,, • .52 2 '17, .E 00 '@ -0 =.3 '-5-', .2 --E. 2 g• .c_>_.) -1%2 t 2 : r,e, -g g, C -05 irj 8 S) 2 a .,L-, ,,i 8 :-_E_ .5 Ta5 c, 'TO T' =• o -t -.F, 8 c■-' w .= .cs, '- 4,-.0- '-' 2 a. S 2 7. Fp .f = "REa % (=r cc w -. >g< s—,g _9° > s - m > 2 8 7 . , _ g . = 2_' co CJ to csi O' -' tri — <NI ... -9 co co 2 o . :i:. "C3 cc,0 -G' 18 45 8 = = o co -2 0 O 5 co ,, E as o, 5 ■.`..' E -E = 5 = o . w 0 0 8: o = O .- .= . '1, 'ET. t- 2 --=- Fo 51' Et 0 . = ct 6676 O 8 -2 . t o :Et,' 05..... co v.) -cs ..g 2 co - co a I:2 2 '-2 oi -.- - --E Fri tr, 0 Cg 0 0- 8. cc; 2 0 ct C) 8 = -9' 2' 0 0 0 ..t..... <0 2 '<6 9. ... ,0 -5 5 23 co V, .8 2 E >.. cf, = > --- c). rE r5 9'. - Ta — 5 as 43 o ° -2 •-c; 2.2 .2 . .5. To' -Vs Ts -2 5 7_, '5 2 -5 , 6) 0 -0• o 0 a., cs 0 = <0 4-- ° u> 2 4,72 5 .9._ .,E, ,) !., M c'' E -= 8 co 8 8, 8 .G -2, E a '''- 05 2• -1 i -• '-‘,-) 2'1 >,' -.A ,o -.' '-' '-"- > 2 =12 = = o 2 .2 g;'.. "— s 2 2 s 4-F., 2 .... gi = .u) E g :2 cc..D' 5 5 '5 ' co -Eh- co a, as 2 8.-.2 .-7, .,.--:,.F., _. 2 - . E '5 S --. rE _Ec2, 4600 -t5 217.50- 4-.... ?—F_ F- .-r.',, z,_ 2 .2g 6., --5 ,>, 8 2 a -<6 0 -. 0 b- o 2 ,...- F= 2 5 52 s <6 2 CD F.- j1) -8 0 = <T) :1 2 8 PO cf, , -' 2 2 7 5 .0 a., -0 0 >,-5 -,5 -,-E g„' o g. m cn • 652 -0 7-1) '2 to <6 .E --g ,, ..E- -.. -c -_,S 6,_ us E 2, ".cla')▪ E ° .' 2 1'a2 '•-• 't •`•-9. 5) 0, --cei — E- E -22 ..° to ..,:,.._ _,..5 _2= -''' 2 9 2 co'o > 0 8- ! 2) 8 0 ) 0 ',,z, cr 0 .E, 3> 2 1`2, ›- g, 43 17; 6 --' E `'- 2 -,) <6 8 oo -s 0 0 ..2 -,, 2 - 5 . E 0 0 co 2 0 >,c, 6 -0 .5 o 2 . 5 = = -c-r, cncl. g-, ,5, gi -0 C — -5 E o o ” 7,5 as 0,._ ,._•).5 lig -,c-L CD :I' co 0- g3 4-- ..-. • 'ESi. 43 -5 .o) E -= 75 =2 -0 = >: — co — ,,)) 8 m O <6 <6 -0 -2 >..h.-. — -8 o = - -E 5 .= --•.0 Z = > "2 o <73 1 --F. ,7, CI! ° -§ -2 -5 2. = Fo 2 o 0 Jf = 15 =g E 4g 15 1 8 :2 3 : 3 s So= 8 05 8 zr, 6 as as •71- e.i 4 oo •71- •71- 2' C) `") E O g, -.- Et 42. F63 ., -.Li 0 CO 2' ti 2 2 u_ -5 Et To Co a O t: --< F-- to 2 2 3 2 9 -'-' o = aci -.5 --. u) c\i co m - 1) 7 5 _ m a) 00 T•ci _ mi $ 32, 106- -6 0 wE 2 = , >),-2-' g as =„0,_ — g2i2T6 wa = 8222 ! Trag -524 -6g < E2'42 0— >- -,-,2; _ ,0 sT2 ,---- . _a_i _,,, . ,.. 8 5N 2 ="(* T0 co = t b o a, '' 2 = ,t 0 .v.2 .- >, -. m 2 2 m 0 _ = --- „, = , .. — >, g (58c7) 5 .(7. oE cpc,:= 2 0 -„Ti c•i ° 0 -r6P - m0002 CO - -=r ta . 0. 0 . = = E . .. (3 -E -0 -2 = 0 S' ,c, -0 ". c” ■-- E -0 cL 0 o 4-, o o z .„.. o .,_ a5m a Fs `c,T It_ cp 2 .2 2 ., 0 s' Erg_ _=_ 0 , 5f„ - mE .. °- 0 € ZS17., ,T, 'Prp -5ERF mEic27; -ow8 ,;.) .-- a, .g."`'- 0 >. o .2 :-O- E 0 '-- - 0Z1,15. = ,c' cis 20 --.-. ° r_ 2 ° 2 -„ 0 -8 -=_- 2 E -0-55 i,i =-_- 0 , 0E0 -• E _2 ' E a, ■-. -0 -j5 g M 64T76ZIT TWE 2 ao =- o o - -0 --. 4c2 " 2 CO .._ c, o Egmf.8 . -0 eLoc.12c >) alcci8N- a =• 2Zo E () EU 4 = ",, c.i >„ 0 co8E., o sN- o rd• -.- g.' 2 .92 2 4,- < :Ii-; 2 2 .— MI cu c, •.- Ws - . m .,=_ $ 0-,-. o2 = Iiiucie, g, 2,3 , ff'--0' 4° ,13 '5 - ,%' -.'.. .2 :2 -L- -2 -2 'gw 0- 2EcT, 00 .0 .8 - 92 ,9,— g <T) 2S ,5 -42 8i0 <T, 8 -9 8.- g3 -€ P2 .5 ° . a agg0227-soui2 ,, a, KFE ,,--‘,- 0 --,-, Id]) 0Et,- -5aMZ' O62g2E3c Ti• o To 2 2 -as , 2_, . wc, 1755 = =': 0 , — 1.13 ‘-2 :.'4_ <88 m 000600 0E-F_ m >, . 2 .50a2 2 .?. F. 8 ,,,, 00 ,„ %, .. .. $2ao . sT,... — coaT6 , .0 2 . 0 . 0 .2E,22 . __ wT_ E = -?.: g 0 E .0 >" E " 70' 0002 -00 -00E .-E -<-50 = - -4502, . . 52 . _ .52, 0 = -0 M '''' 8227,5 '8 :9_ , = .8 - 020, E7-22 -, >) 8".. _ " = „, _ 2 = co a, 1:3 cD E - 0, ,- CO o .52 :5 ,-,_ V ,-E 0 ,2mT) •= 0Em -ES24'- mEz- omomt.', . pup 8 2 „o 0 2 gi, -.' 0 0_ t-,- 22s ....,-Ezg . w -6- Ogctl. .E cp a) Ea) = _. __. -0 -8 c o m 8 5, 2w55000 ,222 0N- - "-- oEs2 '5 -" , "E F= -08 -Fim . 0 . c>„• 00mm (.) 5' a) 9 a) 0 CO m § ) ,,s - , m . omoo, c) ,, , >m2E „.„ E .5_ 211 . c>., 22ff --, - wE 7- 0 ` ,:, -. = - 0.'. 0 = = -Eido - 4) -'' -' 2 P- .V 0 2 Ex2- 2 -- 8 ,--.,, 6- § a, •2 as ,, ,c,,, o S.) ET2 0 I- as EF, 2 >,-5 2 ‹. EP ',:, <T, --E' . 9cU --2 ,,, M = 4) >' ° -° 8E E9 85 g, -FEL E.e_ c9E.,57,54,752 *,' s, a21, c, c., N- c., ■ii Co - - op op -,1- N- CO To N- 0 ,.., o .-E Fa cp, -Li -c '9 a c, Cl) o i- O6 cc _, aa009 0 ii5 .9-__02 0 a zct ,g _ E-5 0, ,,,,. >,.- 0 -. -0 0 -5 -- ii — — LiliLn F— I- 2 E i2ctct E -o ..c, E2 _. o m o 0 --, cc) cc) 0 s 0sE00- m .2 -52 28 -21 .-g 00 .00 wsaa , —_ 3 C'E T'12W2 --5 -0 r_ <73 0 s cia- 0 . 8 .E , >, n . c g ' o °" "=" % 2 M-E. gi cs 2 0 .6 2 ,73 = t., 2 . -0 ED, u, 4_ --u--; ,2 -_e_, alt_ -2 -g 81.T, 0 clec 2 -2, 2 0 0 8 2 2 = ,, <ri S 2 .. ,i , a00 (0 24€ -82 ,2 g." § -= = = ET:, ,r2) "CA m 'ce.) iiict E =- . E gj 0 0 0 “8 -R F9 § a Ey u) 2 - - 0 - 2 .0 1,' .52 g,',g, '2 S' --T 0, 0 01 -5 .56 "2 "t: TF) -5 "Ci 22 = 2 tCSO 2 15 -■S g ? g 'Ts 3 kcs -a = 8 .2 ei -p, 8 "4----- .= fa L''- cci;IgP_ L .gAY1. "5 -= "5E -E .;"T-, e 7 a' --- 2 T-02 a ,- • 2 w E_ 8a,?, <a ,,,, 8 ca . 8 8 .= . 0oz s b- ..= 02408 5, c 0 E ''' E CD F'_ 2 Fa g Z2 E 0) 10 .0 ill8,t4 rg1F,-,i2 cla . y2 4,- 5 -- t 8 21mo g ti Fo' E - u)s) t `c = r5 -0 0 0 c 766 .2 .00002 .6 = 2m _ ,,,,, g -c= = = ..... 0 ., . " m „,, .. g., “ 0 -,, 0 -t -- -' E - 6 co -' co co -,1- 13 2 = E 2 --. 0- 2.1. = 0 , c1. c — co a, cri 'm Lcil, Erafm= 0 -o g2moRin 2 Zmom = m Mo .... ZZMI— Z 1Zco W .g :reT0) 1-. 0E8 m (o C')aa co to C‘i cm — — 'cc Lc) to •cr •ct 0- = -0 o B . g.) ' 5 0._I -8 = 0 ,._ ST2 = 5 0 0. 00 a— ,7, 3? t 0, 00 0010 c o 6 SE F-. = el"-- ag, "- cc 12 0 —, 0 .E. 4-- 0 = i.a „9, 0 a b- 8 0 . >. .o › cogm cto cp ., 0_ 0 — 0 . .. u, co co E c% Tr3 0 0 Z I— M -. (-5 'CZ 0 --0 (75 0, 0 M CO 'C o .-■ <ll u) g .-- =, 2 -r, E 0, a 0 CC E.'- -5 '''' g" g . 0 — >•,...0 8 8-;E• -c 0 o 0 1_,_ 'cis 2 g c>-,._ 8 -5-• o 15 2 2 to- ma, 8 -= E. a 2 8' 0 -0 a ;:-,- 0 '"5- -2 f_ rd ca 2 a">, -0 t 2 ••- 7,5 = < 00. co2O -E" 83 00 -4E' Ci m T6 71) Og 8 '0.' 4u)al 2 :EP:2 6 g -cy) '85 'CE, E20- S . >> -0 = 10 E = . .F, = -5 F --L- -E' sswm , I3 `) 52 0 2 5' 2 u,'1.) u, = .0 4-, , a . gi '5 -_. 0 ,i) • = CC g g ) r '' 2 ....c. ,,...4 ,,,.5 ED. . ..= = -- . -9.." T> 74 „ 412 -2 ms -5 C 0 :2 'to ' -. = 0 .E 0 E -2 5 E Js.,2 IL" -8 ,r2 23 g gi o' a, o -Fsi g ti) Tz' CD g 0 M g'.% --s :1' --F- - . w :52 $A.3 ,.... :,_.-. a) -$ 8 = . CO f- BL--C7 Lt- "S'9" 0 45 '"-= _. ,c- ,. ,,•-.__ .v2 -92 = 8 ..-., 3_=_, c'a 8 -= ..';.. 713 till r2 0 ui ,.- .0 ;2 .5.-, 0 -° E' '6.3 F,3 .9_ _. 0s a, -?,5 5 .,T atf.-.) 2 .F. 2 .1.) g - 1 15-g =0 - < - :.... 2 2 — .— -0 -- 2:1 ,.. ...., 2 -2 $2 U) '77 < ° 2 Fo >5 2 2 '2 -=.- = jg g g) 2 -I) -E — g _ >,-0 0 8-t E 1 E I-E' .2 >?, g3 -8 -'2 4°2 2.' 2.49. o ,8- 8 7.2 _92 <-, . = a 2 `2' < 0,= a;,-.,, o ,-= -g; -E as A) -E -8 :9_ .z, si, ze ',5., g, 2 $5. -3 „t 48 g •5 'di',;) 8 '8 .0 2 .s.o_ :c--.5 0 8 m r--- E o — 0 S — Z >". - 0 ■-- - . 0 -0 = ',E it >., 0 = S2 2 8 0 -0 2 i--. a C.) ...T,. E :C.) °-"a _c5 -0 co a -.E, -5 'a . 's a, K 5, 13 8 " 8 -5 .E; ,-;,- c' 2E g -6 =cm 02.--- - 002 0, 2 .8 — • --8 ,.; -g E E g E ce V, --, L''' a ,F.._ c>, -.F, 0 < = 2 -a) -$ 0 > u) $.-. CD "E. W a' $§- 0 0 fy >•-. 2 a' 75 -§ -,1- -, 0 E a, E .c...0 -,i, 0 5 ° E 75 i.3 = gi, 2 --5,- 8 g ,j3 gi F, .E 8 0. cu wi — 2 0 = CS 1! 4; 8 2 4; 1.3 (5) ZZ 8 -3. 12 12 8 z 2E li CD Co c.,3 C6 4 — _ Lo Lo 4 4 _V t to = V) E o 5 LL 0 t, 9 Il E Es 2 F- .-2 to o Fics = 0 c[ 4-- .- E ,,--. E gis. •■`-' -2 o co -.. , CC 8 N_-8 0 0 2, 6 6 0 .T 0 _.... .0, i -•=z".a 6 z ...Z EO.' ii z a >, f., 3 A , 0, <7, .0 E .Y2 co eii L0 CO ui '..5 >.. _0 0 _NC E2 = -6 C= 9 -° tr, .5' g m ..,,,,,:,,s5 1 F-- .._ CT-0 0 CT i .a2 E .s..., , E = = 0 0 2 --F-. I LI rT1 = to- E as $ g , m ,i, g ". 0 w, 2 E t, ? 2 -0 CD = -'-' '-- > 23 0 2 8 -2 i A 2 0 . -0 0 Ey -'''e 9 0 0- g -F, .0 ,E, 8 3 . 0 g .$_.' g 3 0 8 1 § „E °E '8 2 w0 • 8 Z") , : ._c_. ..8 .0 C" 3 - E -- -E ._, 0 0 0 g &2 ,2,' -2- 6, 0 . -0 s..) -2, a- 2 C t '-,, - m '5 2 .k-. 0, L2 75 , r' ,=',,-,,, '') n = - 5. 2 -zr5 p8 '' 0.--0 0 , o m 453 0 = ,,=„ 2 -§ Q.,.,.,_: .5 '5' -9-.) ,9,2 a. = C a -E 2 -8 ,F) 4- 0 E m „; EL m (,,,).) ,y2 ...-P.. _ •.0- a, E k: 2 0..-.- a =. .G 2 = 2' 0 a..._.; 2 -'$2, w g Na, 2 (7) ar,> 7 -= — .. 3 .. ., g . '-oli-- .2 -s . 0 8 .E tis -a 2 '2 si2 >., +(i.) 45 .1-2 — 2 c° 1' -5 E ,52 Tis" as 8 $.57's '€ 18 g 2 -2 m -0 — 2 li2 ''' ' .,F, 3 2 m . PO "5- -g .u) 2 --§ .. ? --,- <._,g.L>) ...,= aix -5 ''" 2 1 ' '80 s — LLi 2 -g. 0 >,-0 01 , 0 , = -= 0 ,,-,- 0 5 ,-,, ,.% _, ,,, E = 7 :,,,, = .0 ,-.., — .,... _I - 0 _c --' 0- 0 -5 $0- ,- as o _.= as os 2 0 2 0 — 8 _ -0 ■.- 0 = 0 - 0 . 0 C as gi > T.,-3 — ° 'r--- 0 to '— a, 0 a 0 sp. , a„a, c _,.,_.; 0 -'' E 2, .2 0 -6- 'o•-', 0-:•,_-_, ,.0 -.2 o .E 0 -.E, 0 8 ,E'L '-cal Td td ,,`12 .''. = = E o = 2 2' 4' as 8 s ' (2 ....- .g ,..=, O. ELS 15' 2 >.,-0 ss .t.,.. g 3, 0 ,F, 2 2 o < 45 ''.' 0. N.-. f2 E o z 0, 2 2 ca`)) 2 - '''" . = 2 a 2 C 2 5-- a2 -1),,, 0c° g-8 2 2 .9.). 2 -0" •'-'-. -2 2 m c•1 4- A .(2 2 a 0 c'si --E- '",t, --1 as 8 45 F '3 Er) 5 75 5- = --• = = 8 "7, ") A -0' 2 .'E.) cn ›.- 't -20 -.= 2 ,ci .g $2 -0 8 >.--0 •E ±- -0 E 0 = 0 L"1 s...-. -0 .9- 2 .-8 .2 0 "s' "s' sp. 0 = a, $-- TEr2 2 0_— a 0 0 -c•i; ,- m$-.- 2 ,,,>-. '- = w -E m 2 -= ' (00 - 0 _ P.- E o_ 1---. 0 - 0 OmOrzt_ os as -,1- ca to a; to (a -,1- -,1- , .= -Eis risici32=, CI -§ 2 E Ts-8 Tei g gi u) 0 z 2 E E as 7 -= E m = u) ,ss .,_ -8= — a-,-- 0 6 m Wei a m o 0 E >,. 2 < 0 -g 2 x m CO m L m w q 5 92 'g O N E a n 0, O N L a L a ° U N O n Z L L a m 3 • O .1 m m = 0 0 E u ca O 5 2 ._ y J O E ° O N _ U G O L N N F— o = '''''" ill _, c m ? m O 0 c E y a ? c -. 0 =m c . m T a m n w} a� o u T > ,z a G Q �2� a 0 d o w o c i U Z o - z ° a) u m n m o E S °O m O ° O - a m 4 m - o o a - 0 5 . O j a y O o .c -Q 6 ° c G) 0 . _. 5, o m u a t o • °) • = i, U u.a mma)W N o N N = j O N a °> U O D E G a) U j, a CC U`k W E y 1 o O o a) N m a ,_ K u T� O N to G °' °- - c 1-Li m 3 E o a N S fliliHT! fl >. g& . S ; i■ co ....0 kr) c -. % g cc, 2 ,i- 0 '- to tr, i:[ a' '5 0 3 o _= = = 2 o = - 0, o "2 5 >" C to .-. ci_ S gi 49 2 .8 to 8 s 8, S 2 . 8 8, 0a1 .05. -5120, E0 = E -2 f, . c .-ff -.2 2 E, co co EP 0' Q..= 5 0. E ..._ a, 0 = o o o 0 s - = -o E ! _92 , 2 i; = = ,,; -— § 0 3 , e, o, E 0,-F_-, E , ry @ ,.3 c<`" o , -6 - - '',al)) 12- 0 I 2 S '5 = = m 2 2 To m u) -= "0 < 4- = o 2 m -c-' = E ,,i V ° •-■-' .E g a a E -E 2 Z.,' 0 -E co a a ,-, "C- 2 wo — E ,, ,, 6 2 A 2 "§ .„?.,. s2 E ,-. 45 , 2 0 8 (~,) 1 - ~ E cti 2 co 8 ? , ,.,s 0 .52 -.', 7-5 -6 - ' ,, ,r 0 . -= E a co E & ._ 1-' e, g '=-• <,h) g -L° 79: .0 45‘, <,, .--'. -g,_, -z..5:., -.-_.. '.-:, 0 9 -_, Q ._ , >-. o = -0 $... >• 0 5 - E -- ---' iii i--z: 2 = o .o -- $.- . P. . „ .,0 2, c, - , --§ g >.) = 02 -' 0. C --F-' ° 2. 2 o o >ios '2 otr, moo ' -Y2 -, c' ,,i . . --- 0 .0 - h_ c= 6 -0 E, -E = ai , , ca = e, 2 s g _23 8 8 2 , s, 2 — _2 — c, -N., O.cp 5 wi 8 Ts-8 'A '5'. -`' 8) 2 s 2 ...?_, P_. if- , `>-,, (0, .4 ,..-6 18_ g2", 2 04 8 4.1 co CV .-...' g 1 t, 'es, E ce, u i c,b, 2 w E 2 .7. ■,..) ,,h) , -5 -L _4 j2 -;f_. -g, 7, = 0 § P--- ':2 2 2 .= _' ? 2 2 9- m E 7 "5"):,•=-.'' E "52 S - ° 7, -=, ,- -„, 2 E 6 0 t, F":= 01 „f_. a, 2 a, co ., Q..- r, E .- Ear dm= t, -F, '<rrt 2 F- cr co ■... 11., • 0 45 -. 0, .= 0 2 , co E "--- °- aa =. = 42 -0 n $6 :E. cz,- -E co 8 0- in .9- e, 00 9- '17-5 2 o .-E- ,r2 5 = . 2oo - 8 6 0 t•--. ,-. 1— -8 t6 .._:.: = -b- - 2 _ = ..=_ 8 & 2"76 6 e- <ri .E 2 '&1 15 E Yo) x) g -2 ac3- a-2-. .---'S 2 g 8.= to 0, :f-:.' 65) >., 0 .F3 -,:, ai ,.-- -' --- 8. o E •.-- = 2 ,c-,3 7<'. 0 ='. — = 2 0- ' 75" L.' . g -0 2_,) 2 8 2 „..c. s ..,-.8, Lo 5 -9- a- c.' 2 8 $2 t":, g L2 c; ,%-. <ri f-2 2 -.2 E 0. -2 F.C.,_ 0 ' -5 -2- .6 a> 2 „, '1- 42 aq. >,) — — 2, a, a) , = w= E -8,2 co ---.8 -g '0 -g &-,',' $8 f, t-2.„ 2 ra> m 8 -° To, T. S ..j., c.) 2 75 c% .- , -Ci-=-.. Ec ;E. --!-.'-, g E = 27-0 = E . ". 9- 7_2' 'z -2 -a T i 5 e, >.) = 2, 2 -5 c k d 42 g'2 0 0 ,0 0_ = 0 >-, a, -- _ = L- - = ' 0 2 — .0 = 0 .0 — — 0 0 E, u, u) 2.0_ :CB- ''' 2 r., 5.=,' 43 g ° t,' 2 -8 0 76-, "-6 8 ' 0'-= -5 C 0 a' -5 -5 . ,.-0- cu z -0 2 9, 0 2 m-> -c 0 ,,, 0,--5,,' ct, 0 ,c2 to -E _c,,, ,D > $2 4,5 5 0 ., r= -0 Ct. 0 -4,, 0 .0 -. co c co _0 0 ... •s 0 2 $... g - 15 ,.,i-...., a 'FE,' 2 8 '-_ '' 5 1.C2 == "-- "" "5 E -6 = E o, 0 ,_ ,_>:; = :si 3 , 2 0 0,-c- 4-- 2 0 °= --, a, 2 2 ,.. -2 0- 8 --F, -0 = 0 ° -'0' -'°' 0 -63 a) CO .° U) -0 0-"-- <0 gj 0 co - = ',' -0 -0a., 00 "-EL' 2 "0 — ° o, ,-. ... E c, co 8 ,..,3 „, E E 2 co 0 E ,- o o = E ,- = o —• 0 Lc? . , , >-. >.-.5 „, -0 co o, -5 1— <a 2 7 2 co 73 co .. --§- 0 2 '5 ., ;-.. 2 E :3 iii E E 2 O 2 --,--E cu -cS E LO RI MS 65 co Fo ,5,, 0 --, ..- '..E -5 a" o 7:5- g 0- to 2. f, (9) 5 2 1-5- E -2 .., 7 ci >.,) -5,.P-.., '"-' -.. .2 2 12 -E g @ L.u L'i_' ci 3 2 [ii 8 8 'LL' 0 -c -c o3 co cT, cT, ,- 07, 07) t E E E E 8 8 ,-. ,-- ct et o- o- 0 0 Et ct ct rY 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 i7;76 = Et 0 E ct = E 0 0 u_ Zi" 2 Ea_ 8 8 0 0 0 0 E E 8 8 0 0 00 co o _. .5 .5 -S 4§. .S 0- 2 S o 2 2 a --0 =2 <.;? 3-' 7s co 4E, = m .. 42 -' o 5a) 0 o, 0 o .= 4<i', 2 -; 2 = = 8 o 2 --' ..- — 5 2 E co g S o 8 C = 03 0 ET"p7 0, -E - '6 8 10 c> E o ,,, O' o o '2 0 9 E -0 '..5 o 0 o '2 o - g ai '"11 o '5 C5 5.5.. „,8 - 0 _ 5 -a) 2, -g 1 C - () -5 "9 9 o g C "0 5 5 = o o 2 .0= _o 9 -c5 __., >_.,, -.5 _. = -E 2 HI >, - 0 0 0 2 co V, .= . gl-, 5 Rs 3 -a- .% :2 w -2 it 2 SLicn 2 0_25- = i t: 1 i ,DE _E. = -r).. o ye % 2 C 0 : `,>" 17, ° E S g.) 2 2- ._ g . M O ..f. :E = 2 8 .7".„ 8 (..) = ,... Ri ;2 g co . 5 ,= g g',S g 0 - ° o = .- = -5 -t '•-• -5 L2 0 4E'0 _2 t 2 0 ., ., 0 -,--, Z . '25 co 'i-t. 2 8 =. 2 >, 8 A.2. 5-, g E -5 as o = c[ cci 5 , g 0 -E -_ o 0 us TO 1- as Z I..." d. cm 5 -° 2 = 8 '5' T.,,' ,T.3 0' 0, CS .?_ ..=_ E ...5. 1 "2 'EF '2' 0 ,, To 0 2 -, 5 o 04 u) C = = _2 co 0 8 2 ., 0 '''' c''' .5 0°-.::--_,.' i = ti., (6 '-0 .G ,9--. ,F, :=., co 2 0, - = .= 0 V ,g -0 2 a- = 0 4-., 0 g g I' ,.. 0. (15 t ff 0 0 2 8- 2 .0 o co_. o ..F, 0 0_ °. 42 — T —° —° '--- 5 2 2 o o c„ u, :E- x) _I 42 as rd 8 o .._ us ai 0 'CI) 2 2 2 • Ta.-$ ...‘ 2 0 : w .„, 46 &_ a, E _5_,, w o t 1-6 '' as = " o co 2 E.2 (L) , CO C '' rt- ?,-. ,,, g 0 0 _2 --,„ i' -.'. a , = _ E '---. a> =0, ,.,;4?"-. .5 .- o oi . cs 0 @ < -..... 0 > 0 0 0 .1f1"="'5 P- P. '- ••••, o 0- Td (.0 >,. = os 0 o. _8 2 ,=-. a, u) = -4-, 7,3 E "° En- ---. m CO C >., ,-,.2 "2 = = 52 CO •,, ti,-- o '5 , as -.- -5 -= 5 — _-=' -‘7, -,:, '0 >,) 3 .2 -5 > s2 E a 2 -'..E u) 00)- . 0 f, _,-. 5 0 ro_ .0 ,,._ 2 -5.- ,..?...„ ED_ 5 5 iii ,T, --25 r2 1.., 42 >,, iin' 5 2 c$.5 ,T T--., o -50 ff c, s ..- a, - 5 .3; 2 8 6 8 8 c) ,c.o 0 —,_ 8 4 ,.9.-. ..,0 ... -O co o a) c'ci -W3EC) =:” 8 5 co 2 -= 0 — 2 = 5 co > 0o5 ; u, a3 -5 = _.... it § 5- -;--, 'cii iiii 88 c'Dow -a. i-F- 5 8 L.' '+`) .2 & I' e_ i-F- f. L;";.. it 03 .---- isi 0-3- 8 fs C-) -= 0 0- - 0 c 0, ., <9 ■T) 0, cv LP 9 t:i c5- cv Co ,- - - 0 c71 ,_ _ _ _ — — — 0 0 co oo cr, -,r ,i- -,1- •-•r --; --; o = o 0 ,„ tw To a) 5 E 2'E S 8 2 2 6' -ci „F = -9C p-. = 0, S 0 E 2 0 s _I Z -E $ 5 -E g 5 -E S 0 0 0 = o 0 = 0 o 0 ._ - 0C 0 o 0 0 o 0 >, a) i., _'. co ,Y r, --. Li; O 0 t 0 E '1,--: 0 0 o E 0 0 ce = -o .2 -5 z < < d i = 0 — 0, $ :5 =- t o) o 0 p .c7o c 0 9. -., z-- Z 0_ co 0 al ".., .3 0 cc ct 1.. oi, 'co- IL: iL. 5 CC, tl) F— , r c.i) :.,-LI-1 z. cc = 5 c[ z > c[ 089 0 0 _I o c x .F, 0 L., .Et 0 0 ._ o g, 2' >, _I -' '6 o 2 '1 8 S' o 2 5 'C5. ES o 5 E S '5 2 -0 8 o 2 o = 9 .9 46 u_ 1.'73. ---6 0 0 f co 8 co C) co ui o, 5 s 3 z .2 .88'.2T '284g 2 5'Ew0 OES -.-. 2 2 -6') 0 .. 0E 4a, .5 Ez.. E c.-., - :4:.F.. c.1 2 - a 3 ,D 2 -,1 > 2 _0 c 50 ro L>1'— 3 o 2 ! 37Z -0 cc-62-, E zta >, 2 ) 3 2 "E 2 .52 -0 m t 5 ■ VD co cc 1 cd- ' ;; s S'0 8 — t 8 4u2 8 c` 2 E. 5 f , o -S 4,2 76 0 7.75 " o >-. •._,,,, ..c o_ 2 >, ,..T.; .0_T. fa. S 2 0 .., 02, _, m ..... (c-,3 175 -2 . 3 52- 8 E Lc1:$3 cuz; 2 ,e <.,,,,., L- ',II) ,F E -2 0. CI, '.- 0 . .7..,'- CD --,'' -'- '-' 0, F, >,492 --.. -.-' ,2 .., -E ,„ 8. ..c. 0, - 0 _2 T) —,..- gg ,s pom .5 . ,‘A -,4€ 2-' E 8 2 '4;= se -c -,,,, w — zm 0 8. 8_ 16: :2 - 2 .0 E .F., 0 -=. E . _ ...?._ ..c g 8. -0 2 .2 o ,....• 2 L.- s..-.,.. `g w ,`-,& s_•) o g .t 2 i gDai .. m ‹o ..0 TE t:o- 5 P— ., w 1) t: <.'B' >, >,0 ° E '2' c71 2' ,s.,, ... "E'. ,-. 0 s:2 w 's) -5 2 <' á5.S.--.. ."'"--.. >",2. ,.s 0 .2 E— -,2 -=-• ,0-9 ,...a) o. 4€ F20 !.) ._, W coas Ogwm g3., 8 om .7., <;.) ...0- '-) 3 2 8- E -. 8 8_ 0 — <;., ..,- o .= 42 9—E-. 8 3 FE 5 a -, -,E. 2- rEP_q_ 42 ._.. E 0-S 52 ?- 1.0 0 66 8, S cu F• s+ Er- g 2 S -' 't 12.7 TT, E a s .5 E E S O 00 = o 0 o -a,- ',.t. i z c§ VLE .., ,.....s. >„ < w002 _t a 1_ ro .a s 2 --, 0 'S 2 >, _2 o ... '5 o 0 0 C - -a .0 2 0 , ,i 0 tr, -2 0 0 w 28 o to o E E ,%. 31- „, 0 &.,, loo 20L73 .. -o5. lao ct cs tr, o n 0 Q. 2 ''''-2 0 0 ci, "E c 8 8, - :T2 8 w to cd)) 43 E cC "5 .E _E:2, a, >, 0 — ..- o u, 0 ,- 8 ED. E 0 2 8 •.,,- 2 Lc, 12. tr, .S..., E m 8 c,., 0 ,.„ .= 2 ,... -.2 > - x >, u„ 7,) o =-. 0 2 E ui. 0 0 -E . o 2 -7, — .E '5, ■-• .— 0, a' .C.9 "-- .. us o = 8 ,:, .0 >-. 0- o o u) '5- -5 = co o co o — c.0 = iri I-- il 8 ,a- — 0 .g2 ,... . as 0 cm ,„,—, E = E0 0 5 S ' E .2 7 0 5- 2 5 _„..,,.. 'ZS , 8 '. -= -0 8 0 E Fs' „E 2-5 c>" 2 2 2 ',,-,', E 2 ,..„_5_,:, . .5 --73 = = 0 0 a >,;74 2. 4a2 <■-, .2 it. g -47, 2 t'.. 2 ;.:-2' "=-• -,.-;.' 2 cs us o us t,..-' 7, E cp a., 2 2 n.,>. 17,. o Tos e- E 5 -2, -° ca. a >, ' = C' . 5 E c"" ., a' 0 ca. 0 o 0 8 3 o c, o co cri z, 0 — ; 8 2 a, 8 .78 2 v, fd 2 = 2 Z. -6.3 0 ,-,. —• 8 = -5, g), cri co ,-.% 8 ., .E 2 8 E3 = 2 r., 0,-E .= ,a .5 .0 g.i = a, -= 2 z -F- 2 0., >-, - ,.0 z' 2 .0 --g ca9 A >,, S'2 '52 <E, ° a-'' ' — 0 .= 0 (0 0 0 $2 -8 zo -0 _. 0 ,- ti-.) .20"L'" 2 F7 2 0 - '<7 '-' 0 = R.5• 5 2 2 6) = us .?,,, 0. --;.-, as as ui 0-.- -. 9 2 a.— . ra o_ . 2, 2 20 -§ -'...,.: ci. 2 '5 rs, Lc_ 1E o ,._-_- 8 igl.g co,-0 -, 4), c, u) o fa, 2 jE .4a, <„, 'a-, '5' 4E. — 0 0 _92 0 r a =.,--E 2 0 c -0 0, ° v 2 2,42 -.F. 7.2 _E, 2 .8 cl, -5- .5 Cl) 4' .E Cl) 2 0 433 0 o >,- i 72' -.. 0 4-, >'' ° c us Z') us -0 0, ..9...., • ,--- us o -0 V, .00 ca.F.:.-7 M Po 23 -g 2 -k g =8- li c..) 0 o p._ • ;2 2 ...::,140 ,_ -E- ''(.5 `` _2 _p ., ce ";".>„- ? cpE o 2 _§, E S2 0 ° o 2 u)0 -u) -92 E. 2 E ° . ._ — 2 tr, = E ,., ..(2 ., a, -, 2 ., 012 0 E 2. 0 -.5 = -5 4'2 g gi — 2 .F TD-us E Lr, Ct g -a >) '5 E. O 70 7 s fa.' = E72 2 '1.--a' g '5 :EL' m= s' p,- ,,, § co o , -0 , -o '5 0 2 0 <r, 1 7-' S 35' #2 4, . .8 .2, -2 E ',,-, ',,3 3 4-, g . ca; -. ,2. , 2 ,:p ct e; ,. x ,s = <NJ 8 ...,= E -F_ E 32 o 2 2 IF., - E ::',..- 0 , a 2 To . 2 o = i ai .,- ETTri ca. '§- § w 0 .E = g 1:2 a, 0 4' <= ..,. a ->, 8 2,8 <> i,' _. '0- :>., 8 ° ,,Y, a F.? g n -Is',, L= 0 -0 2 43 71 'Ca. ? f.- .52 -$ . . as .6 TO = 0, 8 ,- 8,—',,, cL) 8 5.2 .8 0, , E = t 5, ow 0 .2 ..- 2 t "-E 0 20 > 00 < , _ . „, r), , 0 0, ._ 0 = 112 _ „., ..-. 0 -0 . -5,- '9) 2 --so ,L)., 2 -g -:4 2 +2 1-3 tz3 _2 '2 .= >' ?,,‘2 ,%,- 2 -.= -5. -E -z -r, 02 -52 >,z >,-. :I) To: -0 ' .2 0 g (13 2 '4,-, 0 = —• 2 g b --g, g g a, ..c. 0 — --?,-, 0 0gra :-..... ,= = 0 ._ 0 -- 0 2 ,.„ 07 .>< "-' .N.' -= -C co co to co to to to to cv cv cv cv cv cv cv cv ES ES (71 (6 0 5 0: Vs Vs u, CC) ,2 0 --= F2 F2 2 F2 ,,, = -0 = 1- 1- 0 = 52 ..5 ..5 0.5 oZ5 -C• aa `) Eo - _ E -E S , i, _, _, o = o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cii C Z CO ice,j (.) E z ..4-1... ,o 0 ..c- 0 0 8 FL.: 1.1-1 0 CC Z `2 o O 0 m- o, COoZ .2 " g , , 0 , o >, 2 0 (i) .1' co co 102gie, -.F, ,,, 0 .0 c>-,._ as ;E• .0 .. ,,, ,:o: sarg ,8 i• ? 1 0 _.D. a. 43 -c-6gE565 Ea' s= 6 (92-' ruce' 000 a E 5 0 o 6 co co _.F. E < - 2 2' 42aIAE -2 9 -„Ti . - t ..._ Faz co m m 0 o -- 0, co = E ..-- '-= -rxo IV mcs' mm. ct ., 2 g g 0 8 ° -..e 9' .,, 8 .2m2 .0 2 ,-,, e0 , 2 4,2 , ;..,-a -c.6 ca = 'E' 8 2 2 'E' 0 .9_ 0 -,75 - , co ,sgm _-22p, 2 .. . ',.G g '€ g7E 1 2 ,__,-, 8 E - , - s H6E ,-±- .EI ,R- 2 . ,E, . zi, 5 "-° -E , Szp 2 ..e E- 0 E iz ..?.., '-) :1---= -Q 9. 2 E -,,-) E s i'2 'z5 "2 _-, Fri E .'_&) = L- 8 - w , 2 _LL) ,, , . .52 -8q . „, -5 ,,, O 0. tr, -0 wc Il3 ° I'' c, .,,,2 >, co .5 2 a g3 > = -- , . .'@ 2 E,, mc,r-2m S = _, E 2ET22. 3g. -51' 712 -<-5 .08R5. 6- -0E 5 45 8 Aft 5 -E20 ...! 8 0 .02E 8 Mil _0 .8E = c.f.50-z-i5S2 o _. .-- 5 (NI c'' ,-, ,- >„ ,_ = .E = ''' --, a, . _-. = = a, —, , o -= . ui = = -E., 2,, ,,,i — 2 g g,, , o -5 = .o 8 2 1 .9' -§ :c E .._ 0 Z.) ',+,"? cz, ,t-2 2 z tir lull, - 0 2b- .2, g; --, 76- .EZ - "0 - 1b- cri s 23 o E __, 0.- _9_,, 0 w w tr, >, 1 cr, 0 2 TEE.:= -&; 52; 2,_., -= E -1, (Dn - , @ .8 2 ,.. 7..-i3@ -,5 -61 9 2 -.- 8 ,s E, 0 E E . as .,7r — to .2 2 2 '8 2w E -a- E $2 , = >0 CE 3 gE5. 2 gE0>"-rE>_,-!.E E 0 5 9 5 2= 0 t" .r9oa _0 2 2 os ui , 5o02 • 200 2E2 pw E a " -0 00 78 9 2 a ri 2 " ,' 5 a8' 8 r 8 T , oE m . - 2 8 24 2 0 a, :2" m -0 o 2 = a, E 0- F = :E :0 cs72 , ,'„ s2 -E. 4 ---_4-, F... 0 '(-) CD .. •- CD E 0 43 7 E E E :-a- w "E T.,51 U' J -C. PHI CO ,•,_ 0 E . E ,,S co 2 , 9 a) = .n = . 2.), . 0- — ..0gz,, . ca m x a, 75 2 t.6 a 8. >, '§ 2 84''.2rEl gFt-l'f Eff2g3R-g ,,, 25g 5 0 22 LL 1 >••, • ED .S9 >, ,: 0-, va 0 a -92 `2.FE as -- c'' 8, '.`..P. -c.' S E . 4o2 a, ; ;=.- . ,!---- --6 -= m ET22 , 0. o o = > o Es '@ c'' -$ -c' 2 --F ,_m .,..7 TM 9,.. gi ,e- 4"-'0 1-L 9 2 4) >, . ST 0 "6 .1-1-3 2 - .= <ri y - .L... 0 ,_ • - = 9 E ° 13 8 2m0 L.u 00 E . p, _9,2>• T3 -,7', E 0 2 -529 E _ 4502 9 s2 g 3_, ,gj o -589 0 -F.6 cx = Lq = -FL-5- . ch >, a 9' 28 2 >, E > 0 .8 - -76 1-.) .-lb22 2 Oct g '52g2 -0 "5 >:'.-0- = 3 a, -i','3 0 9 .,22 .Y2 To T.,- = -' .E 12 , @ 70 ;"; ..,E >.,z E 0. - 0 Eo00 .-= 0, ,`,31, 8 0 0 , 0 4o2 = .4e ,b,- 122 -. . w m -- -5 -- E . S.12. '- -5 t __ . 9 0 9 8 co ET: , '8 c2 ,', _ -0 „, -E E 2, E O -20 co- CD = ■•-• tr, j.) .°- 52 ° m 95O ° 4,.. -0 - 2 E co5 8 = -8 ' - -m o 8 = 7.-67228 EcLtS '77 fu '' "l2 E ° !g- -7`.1i. 0, __. ..a., ..-, g5, r,, i 2 -CD CD 49 aa Cm't c = ,_ sii..2. ..- -c --' "C -. 2 e, 0 . o . m 0m 0 22 .,0z e2 ,92E1 .e .,-5, 00. w -5 = = 8 _9E.5_ 9 E .28. 1-E88.458 Ef. 28F0 E" -= 0 0 0 o_ o_ o_ =, co co co m L1.5 65 65 65 — — — —c,) cm cm cm 4 — _ Cc) :-,-r- m -cTi co a, = co 2 on co ,,, -cii cv E%_ 2 co E72 8: co Fs ili: 20 --20t -$ 0t --20t ° 2 2 ET2 22 z m ,.... E -ecoll--- S g 2 -a c Z 2 $ilz= t8 E as E -E S E € 5 o 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 u) c 000 000 000 0 8 cc 8 0. 9 'ea o_ :5 (53 Z-, e H , -00 0 - E 2s 328 2 2 :1'• E z p Z 00 Z Z w IL, . :-: i:-: 5 iL: :.0_ Etct --... ry E 1:-: ct cc' 05 008,0t6 0 a) CO 0 0. aaoso cad '3 -0 -0 .g '5 0 ca '4 co o 0 = = E 2 E S E E E i ca '2 o - '2 ca z x x x cN .ct c 0 -a as 0 • 0 .45 -0U) -2 E 0 5 7,' . 5 as =6l MC -o 'T 2' 2 , „, , .5-1) 2s 2 0) -iii --(5'. - <6 _ ,_ ,) 0 Ta ..° 5 I? 7- 8 2 2 o 7 0 E g 05 0 D 5 > 0 ▪ E - O 7: O ;__Er, o E CO , 0 -. :5 as css va .52, as .2? C, ° S Ts t :5 -. 0 0 -=' "- g E 2 o ^-' g E ce . 0,cci it F- ..... i rc, ,,, asEEra o 'Efs 2 0 0 p 3 = > -E 5 >• - a' . 7F3 -3 '0- in ..... .0 'i5 C 0 ▪ 9,= = , 42 0 _0) a5 8 ct -E Ex5 "; a- t g, -0 ET2 .z- ',-, E 0_ c c c, z 0 5 c▪• . i- E - 7_ 11 Co . 17 ..= m 0 S -2 CO -,5 7 a., 0 ,- 00 . 0 O 0 > v, .0 _.., 8 -i,,, _ .. CO ,) ,;:i s s 16: % t.,.-. T-2 , st2 2 as 8 0 2 ..0 2 R: 8- 0 (...) _• = Fo E 2 = cm .. 2 2 u"-2 '" 113 .9 S 0. CO - - Ey :---. E o ▪ $_,' i- C” CO 0 (T1 C Tar ,T :5 .0 _9 ff.' ---• 06.,@ , >, .0 • t-, -e E 2 --,-6 .0 0 8 _..-.. E .. >, ., 4-- "-k- -5- -.0_ 1=-5 -,', 5 CO T 5 .0 - ") - c 0 -• 0_, •-• >-, as 0, 0- C) § 3 2 0 .=. O 0 Ey a, 1--75 2 0 o.. X, CC ,_ cl. ..9...) E "b" oo -.V.2 e, E § r.„ .,01:.,5 Eoai ° -8 g 8 2 g S- I.0 -c'E 1 = z En 8 48 En 2 Ta 2 0 .3; 0 '0 -ro .;77-77d >0 `>) 0 5 ,, it. - __, 0, 2 S' -5 8 0 0c n • 7.' " Tvo i ei 5 8 0= .E<6 ,=g 0&, g E-• .5n .u.,.._.. s • E .= 0 .0 j5 "0 `>) ^-2 E ° 0. %64' o g 1'6 "iq ._g"-.T , S - 0 .. 7_ Et % >, o 45 '--..42 C C 0 .c_.) 2' .2 ---= ,.. 2 0 = Or_ -e3. s2▪ 8 ,5 `13 0 0 2 _c.&) -5 u; 2 -= aa▪ 2 7, if 45 0 2 2 1-.2 -6 8 ET?, g & >' c 0 -a CO O -,7; S' 8 - 0 ., a ,-. c D "E. 2 f, ._-- 12 K•,,.-- s) a) 55- 5 a = E) 7_ 0 , E . ..._ --' ',E,?, &., a 0 5 o ..-. <6 0., u) -_F. a, 0 8 2 2 43 42 g b = . 0 0 46 1:T) Cr, fn2 6 • , ja,) g3 12 '-&' ral .',-..x; 6 .G z;, ”,, 4, p) w E 0 CO ..8., C. - <6 .0 -0 ,>. ,..., E=n (C .C. .5 2 >, T.2 65 E K -5 .-E. m 4-3 --F-■ 0 0- S3 S' 2 a f: "c'5) .,c2- ..g- ±"." ill Cl- 0 0 < < < 2.' -2 -2 o_ o_ up 10 up c‘i 10 up ai ei - - - - -,1- 4 - ZE 0,1 c c 2 P- F- :95 >, >, u- E g g ---ai E 8 8 E... 8 . o --. .0 5' o, c c 5 :8 12 0 55 00. o5 0 E I_ `J E ._ 3 c o -,•-•6 CO _ E FL.: 4..,: O. .4.,.: rY Et 22 4; ±- 'a; -6 0 0 , ,, .52 cS c 0 t m w .52 -= y_ „.,'- 17.5 17.5 0 0 r..- .a, .a, z '5 - _, e.,- c3 ...5 -c .• c c , co LL J E Co 0 2 0 5_ 2 tn, o o C .,= 5 `) < i9- '5 .§ E CO 0. u_ co O ,...- ...L. .G O 9 197 rY 0" _ o ,,,,_ o 2 2 TB m 0 = .. 0 a E ,s, $2 -0 = 2 0 ,0 g 2 < <, 2 . 5 o 75 _2 2 .= 2,- c's -0• 2 2 . --. 75 -0 c "5 0. S 2 I 45 CO 0 0" O Ui ET2 20 ' >c`o) ›e'•a -0 G • ' a -2 Fi "i-t 0 ..= CS ,- '--FZ:• -"1-4 g 0 -' -0 442 a --(15.) -5 .-E• -2 -L-- C "5 0 -2 r-= -0 0) 2 o, a >-. Is g .o -c = 0 § c --- 0 0 5)-. .2 '_, o, o <6 2 O t, 's 2 , . -r,s 0 -0 >". .0 +?'". E _T>; Po _2 -r0' ,E3:> 2 b- -,' E 0 To o co g ,d5 S 8 -0 .0 +-' 0 0 _ o 'cr..) -2 , 2, I..., ., o- 0 0 33 8 -2 , .0 E c o 0 -- <,, 0 _., > 5, o -2 = 2 . m -c.,2 CD 0 43 m o cn 45E) -2 • = 45 -6 35' S' g "Ez2 g > ,-,3 .-o s2 0 >) -t ,0 t ---- O 0 1.,3 -2 2 2 , o °-0 , 2 6 2 O9 0 — E o g .G a ,,, O c 0 0,-,-. 0+ g ..c c., -E = <,, 0 _ ,,, 0 g o o - rE -,3 ,-a- -0 , 0 --- gi r, z E7 ,,,, tr, (9 -0 i KS' f w0 os, tn" .C2, ,- (7) +9 '- 452 g (() +9 0 0,.G "5, = ti — .9_ _> ''.,' o IL' -0 "s.5 2,, E. Co 2 2 = 0 5 8 c, .."-E- -0- 0 .42 .0, 2 .G E a. &) o -. 2: 8 -5 ..C. co m _a_., r_..) -0 2 > z to 0 CO 0 't a ..2 E 2 ;!„,., 2-, 2 -.- 2 0 . o _2 'E Si ▪ O 8 2- i a .,!. .0 ,,, 0 . 0 0 __ 2'.,,,,0 -0 0 E 2' 1--- -D a) <9 E? m cuzi:.5_ = "' g to- 8, 1 .. .. . ct - , .. ,_ . 0 >,- a., . , 0 , --,.1 c. 0 0 .., — Tst ps x-F0 ,- 2 2. .. :--=2 § 0 E E z .—72 2,2 --, o, 5 o a, "5 a, '2 o .se 8., o E E o '" a) ,--.-- .E -§ 0- '5 aa g ...,,.. 0 8 :9900 90 0 -- co gi 5) --ti: > 0+ -.z .,__, 0 ,,, ,,„ 0 . 0, .• " 2 2 ci .c 2 = g .2. s_,, .-<.:, ".-C- tb C0 1 -5 .•-• ,=, c)- as+ -8 -= Et ''' -E 4-, 'E 1:1.- 46 .-5" . F? fl'§- , 0 ,,, D EY 'To 2 a. O -0 -.0. .= 0 0- a;.>„P- 2 E "8 g 5 ,g y> g - a 5 0 -0 300. ' ,_ a) o 0 :-., = < ca a 0 El CD 2 2 --E ,0 .2 .}.2., g -,- o o -.. 2, r., E „... p_ 0 0 -F., -0 2 0, - 0 0 _. 8 0 0 11,, .2 .2 2 -2 z = - 00 = 0 = 1--- 0 -. :T, , = o co 5 g a- - ct, .,- g ,.... .L-_, 2 E -2 0 ,- = -o ,.. _, o _ ct 7, 05 .--) g .g E5 '--g. e, a, -a2 -.P, i 5 Ri 5 0 cc, = 2 a u) 0i-7, tn o 55 E :" 2 5.) 0 '°- = -= 2 'ar, cy o - "To 'E) 2 0 '-. c -2 a >''' El E t 5 .?.5 "' 2 o ° E -E — -,75 E2 O 2 " '''' Q) m = = ... ... .='-') 0 c . 0 0 T 2 2 3 2 2 s ... 0 65 ---, w T 'ig o 0+ F.-. 1--- -c% 0_ Lo r.... (N co Lo 4 a a 8' 6.1 t:i 4 — — — _ — — cn :4-- co :-71- .-.-71- .-.-71- E7'.. Fs_ _._. :-,-"A = 0 P.-. 5 0 >, 0 .`,Z ._ i n_ g -E = u) 8 0 ..) .. '.<-.ij 0 2 .2 ct 0, 0 0 2 = = .42 x 0, O0 0 Z. in 2 .s.S..) a IL: '0 .2 ii, 0 .2 ct (2 &1 co _92 0 . _, 0 0 co .0 -,9), --Z3 ,,,-... i 6 . a . 0. r, .5 .CL.' ic A an ;0;0 0 2 0 0-0 0 I-L U) 02 ' .,- >:-. ct 8• 8 2 -= ', 00 0 ° 0 .-0 -E- o 0 = = — — , 0 g -2 -2 o .-- 0. Ez = _-,-_ 00 0. 0-, 0 -Fs., 0 o o o 0+ CLT 0 .-ZE-.2 8 1' -g 0---LF: E.-.)-'4.b-.: 3 Ei m :;c-8 8 co 0 E --, , a 42 0 a, -5 c. u) .ct .ct o E a 0 > 0 m -5 o- 7,- 0, CU tr, , C 6 0 ui 0 17, co 72 P <4 ,4 co 0 3 "._ 0 o — 2 9 0 E o >'•,o- —, 2.." cr' a.) ra '2 '6 '6 8 -E fa = 0, 8 >.. 0 - . „ s; 0 <:;., ._,,, 0 = 0 -E t"Fci 2 2 s ) 'ft' EE . co ‘1, ,,c° 2 -f, = $2 O FE▪ 2 8 2 ,... — — c'• I 6 7s t- g in• ,_. s ui E .- g f Dr' ,.3. .$ Ea 5•-'-'= F.- CO 0 .SP- 6 ;5j, E a s 0 a. 0 -,... . o,--o WI 2, to -0 cNi Is cL)8 2 3 3 2'-15 'Eu1'7 a o o ,,, 8- '-• 3 6s,--' ' 2 0 2 Sc2 aa .E .0, 0 2 2 ,:-;..•-, , .se gi ,..s! . c> a,, . E 2,2 .2 -,a s 1 , , ., „i r.s 2 2 ,y2 . "ia = a a, -.2 ca -2.- c _c u) aa .C' co -2 . -r,', c 2 ,.:, g &3 7'i 0 8 tF , '. ,.. = g o .g2 = :,.,.3,,E 0,2 o co rn- -' ; -5 co ' ,c>,- 3 o -0 .- ct, 'Ft - = — e2 • __ E, 0 Ws >., = o E,.. 0 8 g i.1 ?: - ...., 0 E E 'i22 ED, 15 -C' E o g 0, = 2 2 o ,,22• bg11.38820 ".6 E ,, 2 a) '--. o ,-, ,-- u, 0E m- = $ C' co cf; >,"a. a = Cr, 2 i .g E 2 o o ‘,... o = co u) •,,, M -`5' o 0 .,-, -= . (7) `43. x>, .? T .8 E- -6 O Q E -, 2 s2 .2 >-, a> ;2 , E 0 -Ea g I' .) -,s, o E0 >az' i..5 = co o 0 8 - = c" 5 5 1, a- -_F. 8- cp 83 -'' 2 c, _ 0 _ .v.2 2 2 5 0 - :5 -8 -0 72 . E -0 • 3 -0 = to 8 a, Ti -E-2 _, o -65 3 S' 5 8 -f„) _H- 0 _.--. 2 ., -6 ra § 4'.,. > 6-.2 , • oss 0 as co al - a) =,- 0 2 .=_ = . a -E E. E- <4-• <4 'a 2 SL-.) '6 as u, 2 To e, '65 . a -E -Z•,- t) 3 E ,a, CO —, 12 s LL) E 2 g 2 2 1.---= .-c'c2, ..... F.' EL2u) 5 a, T.,i- 2 = >'-. ,-.° co Ea C1 — co -Z-O w Co _1 .o o 3- -o ...=_ 3 0_ _ — eNi c:i.— eNi eNi- 04 Lo csi LC, 0.1 LC, 0.1 LC, _..— —04 —0) —-,1- CO -g CO -t s— ft CO -t `— 0 CO -t `— 0 --,1- 0- 4 0- `-,--1- 0- 4 0- F' CC 0) 0, CO 9 E CO = = '5 ai 00 t 0 E 1 Olo" g cao) t') o_ 2 •- C.) W IL: Ez.. ., 0 :, Or,, 0 ° -.F., ., ,.... r, o .. . 0 g o a_g a.c' a iY.3 a<i' 2 CO CO -D Co 1.0 .ct .92 .5 >•. 1L2 , -?'6') 5 "-ci" .0 1 2 .2 = F-- -5 .0 2, .co I .co 0 . 0 = CL E Z.- E 5 CZ ..F, CO Ct -0 82 '5 ET)2 rfa, g 'a 8 2 1 2. .-5 ? ,_Ocx „a„d) s2 15 E, 2 b co '5" Eg 8_ 0 2 "-_E 2 ..g .4F75 '-5 ui•TB ,. 0. .F., (._:, 70 @ CI) :e TP: 42 tl) 3 0 .,,e_ 0. 0 4,2_ 2 >c._:".-' o., .5 h) 7„ -= E E E ,-.,, 2 2 .5 • cu -2 s -',,',' ,.- 2 :g :.: F_ .,, 8 E 0 „... 3 2 -- -cT) .0 -2 --' a, ... -0 .2 g 2 > 2 . 0 aa c::, 0 > > C :i) '42 .F5' -8 8 2 a, 23 L- 6 0 0 0 2_ . F g - 5 0 ,... . 2 -g 8 g _8 Kt .8 - -F-08 w - 0 .0 2 S +g -4-,' .-?`. '&9 .55 .2 0, ED: 0 = CD (%) 4 -2 .,.- 2 a . -0 o r, w To . ? '41)) 1 "g' 23 23 0 -5 m -5 ,... 0 23 .2 0 .- a, .2 gS „, = = = o c? 43, 6 1,3 'al o-E -8 2 2. P-• `,t' g.) -.5 2 .8 2 1 23 F? . 4,, 8 :=_.-. ‘,5 g). -2 :2 ''.3-. (9 = 23 4? 6 = ...., `',.)) 3, ;,5 2 2 -, 0 0. o t .2- Ta. oo 0 2 o o 0 -0 0 0° V 21-2, 8 - CL-0- ...-, 46 ° . 33 2 :5 ■-!.-6 o :x-5 := 2 2 2 0 -=', § -$2 ° e) '-- ..., CC -C-15 2 . 0 .2 23 23 fi- S) *) = '2 E = = = ..3 O 0 'cg 2 :-`L.2 = .- 5s .>.). co ....E. - 6 c, 6. .5 a_L- ED_ t"; E- '''"t 5 >:" 8 Eigg g .F_ >, ;,, ,, . 23 42 .0 0 "5 S2 E co 4,---,, 2 .3 -_, b ,-, 2 6 r-- .5 aa ca . ,... 0 =0' Spr -C42 C= 2 =„..,. 0 113) :48S C>." E 2 3 co 2 5 .2 E .2 S- '5 t g g al 8 ? 2 1?) _cw 23 4:'-'2 IP_ "-. . E 0 . o ?..) R a()) -w -- -- ai -0 2 8 3 I < 6 ,.. a, E S ,.... as 2 Te, 'eel. 2 -_9:-.) 2 2. -52 2 gg, .0 1 g: i -6 2 o 2' -52-.. cis' = o .- 72- -5, .5 --2 .L.,. . -----j ›ct . 1) 85 O. r, E E '' 3 5- g..3 ,-- 2 ..2 .2 .?_ s) -5 g 0 2 aa E E- 2 a) 5 0 2 , -.9 - 0. .... 15. -2 2 a 2 8,.2 g ,,,Eia, t;., .F.5.2 ,o • -5 5° g 10 .5 8. >, w V_ _ . = E 0 . 2 2 c co 0 E a. 2 as 45 5 = ...>.o >al 6 criZSB .42T5 2 S 0 0 = CD >ala oi 8 4- "..-.8 a. CDa 420M ; ,q; '- WE, -,8 ..,, 2' "&"3 2 4`-' 2 2? as 2"-_2. = "a3 - 2 $_,) 2 cg- 8 --.2. '5 1-- S 2 12 CD = --2 5 .F- ''ss b E cS = cn= . _2 ` 2 8, 2 = 0 - a, 0 u, z-E1 .55 -oE .5 4iii >, aa, 0 o - 2 2 - 8.-?: a 3 6 7,- a.) 25 :cos a/ tu- '' 55- 0 ... = „... >., = -,-,- E 72 5sZ .S.a_ -5 vs' 2 .2 0 O ,2 E cn 5 , E. 2 f= ‘7) ,2.. 2 Lt .55 .co c a..-. .s5 2 ,;6 • 45 E 2 . ,:-: 7E5 42. -6 2 - :_.- 0-2 5..0 .-8 ,T, En ;,- E 5-`=-- co• 8 °- > 8 .2 . 8 co p.- 5 aa 5 2 co -0 $2 o -E - 2 fa 0 0 - Td cn sn To 6 -2 >-. -2 o 5 2 8 = 2 55 I' .2 :-= =-, ,,, ff gf, 5 w -, "5- = 0 f . ...,., 0 0 = CL C5 = 7' I (CI C.r.2- C% 2 g, ',70 E 8. -t,-; 5 co t 8 . 2- - -,73 - 0- 0 --= CC C' a> m a 3 E 8 ,.-') Z, 8 o-i = , = = a _Efa u=-..= 8S u) 8 .2 1..- -- 1-- -- , Cc, Co , 23 -9: 6 - CV L° -C.1 -C.,3 0 -Lo _- cr, -t c.si 0 co cs cr, - ca a-7 aa ,I- 0- -`7_ 0 .--7- (0 4 0- •71- 0- -,1- 0- -,1- 0- t t2 til r- E cc" E o 0 II' 05, 0:: IS. 6.5 0 C) 5 8' '..7"," = 0 8..., 0 -8 a, ,.... 8 _5, -8 __,... 0 C.--.- :5 . g 0.. -6 CO V '5 37,, '., 2 t." 8 >:-. 0 0- ,6 o o Lt . .0 ca z 0, 0 u, 0 al 0,, 3 3' 8 I.:-. 0 1- 0 (6-. 0= .2 :-: -5 5 1- IL -Tr, 4ggi - cc .> ir_t o So .6 ,t -9-..),.,, = 0 c, c, 0, -= CD ith _I iT, ca 2 8 o .-=-.c; 8 3 o o .2 -. 8 -2 -2 o = o 0 2 o c2 2 z g.) o w 1.- '5 0 CI C 0 .0 Ll'-:L.-- -(T) -.- .-;:E'ill E 0 11:-8 et 0 a0 00 0 w .20 = t = 0_ = g = c. E '42 5 -*" u) co 0 8 F 2 , ,--- E ._ 5 2 E u03 m ,c L @ "-- g 5 i- 0 E a .:4 = ?; 5 ,2 8 E 8. 2 0 .S2L' F---, "r2c.,-, 0 z., s, 2., m >, . 0,— ,- E - --S -r, 81 >, 0 m .5 u) ai "5 k -o a.) O 4- . >, 0 c7, L--5-.' 5 1: gi 43 8 -42 2 0- = --=- ._,... '27E7? c_ 5 '-,T, c..i-.) 2 CE, 'ffiw = ';'-, -_E -8 ▪ cLo § 2 trcs :41 co 332 0 --- 8. 2 12, 0 = 0,— 5 _c2, .5 - 0 -ES_., S7f§ i- cq I.,5' ...-, > 0 = w =. o o 2 a) 5.12 .S 53 TC1 --,. 7A --C2 a) f Si In = = 2,-5 -t,--, ..= ,a) § -2 33-%-0 ,i2 12 2 e) 2 1T80 0 ,r2a _2 ': > ly3 -12 m m . 0, 22 ,r, -o0• w0 g.52. 0- cecETI o z '.5 -5 .26 24- 0 rug (5 -5. ;260, 0 20 -'- -5 -u -8' Pm .8 2 0 g c ca. -5- CI' = E 0+ c"5, a) E m 2, = to- .52 A). 0 ,,, "E7 a _P_., .-- -,15 - 0 _c,,,, = ,.. 0,= 4,-6 .0 >-.— 0. t--) a . -=- 0 8 r„ 2. — 0, _ 0 0 -= = _ ,0 ,_ , — 0 .2 -2 6 2 3 z .. .42' -E, 4- E S'3 S) 6 m , 8 ,-E. 0 i_ c5 '''3 052 .G _. 2 -= --6- . ...,,_ ,=, a-g2 g,i- :LB = 2-2 - 0 = ,a- ✓ cn .52 ''' 0, 1,) 0.8 IT, 1,5 -En- A- .=--a0k--. 0 .tm>d :=-0 w5-§ ".> • 0 2 -2 A S' E o o - 5 ,,. -- E J , S S 2 2 ± i ,2 Ea5.,',,,1 ,6 --E. g• '' -- - ti, E. 0 w,- -§ -_, ,-, m _= +-• 0, mE n22 ., EAg <O—egEi 2 cu = 3 -"-,--. — FM 0,. ,T8 8.-r, 0- 8 (20 0 0 0 0 i,-, `."- 0m _c - ,..5 _c ' -= '8 — 0 – 0 o o 4 2 =a) i '-'j -,j ›„CL 5 .2, >., ,_ .0 .,..„ -0 SO co 0 g 5 "Fa IR g 4- .._ - a 0 8 5 -2 0 a' = 9 = ...?_ o , = = 0 .52 ms L70 -' 8, S' ° -02 -SE -0 0 Ea _9_,, ai cis "2 &C .5 0 = 0_ 0_ o co cp op <,-, 0) 6 6 6 gl.1 m (.1 ,,, Tei CC Z 0, CO C2 6 Ia , w z , , ,-, 40 vp b• . ,, , co 0- 0 = 0 91 7 0 z 0 a og , o - o a• o -fa 0 a) E 0 o . 0 5 . i- '5 1- ai 0 -0-0 > 0 o) 0 OF, a 0 = inc, a8P8 6-88 aE LI:—(T) aL,D -±-- t ..-E-ga 0,c2 aA' S LL 43 0. 0 .8 0 , _o -5 co N- .c1- -5 w E 0 0 -0 -c 0, >'• 73 = c. .5 a >., _,, m , , 82ctl r, 0 CI) a) g . 2 152a-E g '3 2gmmf,. 1-9 2F, •=z Ef! g g ''-8 2 -, -`g aTL6g 2,... .-5, 22 E . I 2 "E' Eca-Stg cp 0 0 . _ 0 0 00 2 =• 2 = :•7_=• = 2 8 --g = 2 . .•2 8 2 0 2 — = 0. g = 12 ■•-• 52 2i-gE2St, --F"' S' 8 ,-,,, ,,, c> ' -r, • = ,-= m — g.) :: 51' -0 - - > yn---6 - gigiEm2 , orm . - MAIM-0 -c, 0 -0 0 o -0 , = 0 •- 0 - E- 45.-g g 2 0 0,s — s SE -5-g -'' 8 -2E112 0 .Eui <T) , 2 -6 00 20. g > ) 4gL,13 m , LTS• ,F. § -5 „5g = 000 15 2 E E -2 g g-9 g-s 2 „7 ::: 1522b .5, 0 -5 _57@g -g, mcL= C' cu = ,a2g 4- PaE -= aL> E0 .E-3 2 E - S' ?._ Eg ,01a'g -E' wu) - 00 -42 , Ecno - E 1-gt -g. ° ,7, a'8 s, ,z 0▪ 0c .0E cII_ ca2 l-E 02 8 . Tf g 2 Lr — ' 0 , y2„, . 0 - =15 rf8E1- _2 2' 82 b- 0 in = 055 = o ... — . 0 -0 a.), .€ 0 >. g ',it 41) tiwSLo - 'cl)) '_, gi 22 ' Fa_ 71 4!,72 § 1'tic> g mwg g2E — 7.=0242>. Egz25'55 -Y - T008 -F T — . = 2 ag 0 c Z,J3, E -.„, ',g 2 a)- g' 2W 0 5 aWa52 3 0 50 4) — '73 a'T.' 3 - --E' b_ e,, . .=:, ,@ = s „. 0, ,-,-- „., 0 0- 0 ,..,- '-' 0 21 2 43 a' g▪ '2) ',IT' 2 3 8- 25 -0m -0EL, 02 -0E2 ..L.- 2 --st E0sts ° 2 'a-5 2 8 — To ui % co s 2 =• -g ”- 8, 2 Y.4. 2 c, cp E = "- = S' 0 . E '5 82 1-. 0 c2T -88 -. § — 0. <I ,aa 00 , , Z -7 ',J- O 0 0 1■: ',1- 1■. ,1- 1■. ,1- —0 —CD —-,1- CD - 0 -t 0 -t 00 CV 0 CV 0 >, :i---. 0 ,C) -E. &=3 ;`=•5 g t 82L 1) 2 m 0. 02 0 E 'CA cl -ci, ET2 af, E-3g ag CO .ct. CO ED- ,-a .. .. :2 co >, E T> 2 Co 2 'a_E,i g -5 -,,E- SS c>3 2 8 .g cc 0 .f..) "-. -,,,.• $_,) a) "c 2 2 2 8 g _,-0 5 >-. CI3 -4= CD 0 CD 4:-,D .5 . :0 2 .o E 6 a) •= t • 2 c/ >„ (-0 4,- 0 - .2 <., , . 5 _ 0. -E F -° -5 -G a- 0 5 n. a, 0 --2 0 .CO ' -.-, 6 2 2 a .,.,n 6 . D. -- .... 0 C 0 - 0 CI3 0 go 0 c 0 2 ai 0 o 8. E ° S 0 -c.' 2 Ti_ ,--= P- ,T, cEjr.) T, 0 8. 8 1 8 2 .2 8 ,,,- -0 co ° E .. c "5 co -.5 cii °,2 -- • E 0 > = co 'oo -c >, :5 --,I o 4 on 'm ,z, 0 o c 5 = o 8- .c 0 ...., ..c 0 , "C 12 , := -9- E -?.. Tc; ''@ 2 8 -F.>, ,co tii 8 '2-, t E I ---C>f C'76) *6 . - C 0 -f--- 7,-; 8. 5 - .G .-- ,,.: 8 lig a) as CL 1= - ■ ,,, ,c- 0 cS -6 0 o ..a.2 6 s _tn _. „>, . 0 To 2 0 - ° ° 5 = b T' E cn .-E 4%• ) 2 2 8 b t P. ''' -' ° t 8. 0 ..-. 0 F0, z 2 .6 5 :2'eii 8 w ri -2 ra -- 0 cx, a. a" a) ",2„ 2 mr' °-f," ci, g -2 ° 7.-- ,.- -;,. `t,,, 0 'gm 63 .E -- 0,_c - c Ts.' V: T, -E, E "''E' < g E C 2 .415 m 4; .0 .19 2 c>,.) It 3 42 ET2 P-' _2 4>) CD 2' 2 >, E - '-- - co 4-2 I 2 -5E0 9 - 2 - .ff.5 —.0 0 s, „, a) 2 o _ 0 , tin) cy os} co , 0 7, -Ce m2M , EIT - -u) = a) = -,-,. ,,, 0 >,z,, a) -. ct co a, x 52 c To 2 a) ''g 7-3 L)) Lt_ ›.„ 0 0,7„--, ,... -5 c if- 'FL)) ;— i '' 0 .ff 'E' -S 4 2 LL ..0 ti 2 0 2 2 Tei 2 0. n = >, '--• s o w E 0 . 0, .- -4= 8 .%- 0, E-2 -2 0 3 8 0 0 mc:' c n_-- 0 --, ■.... ,6 o s- >„-.5 -,.;-, 0- § 2 ;-; -;5 7.:-ffi. = -2? `Ss' 12 -2 0- E ki = >,= Tn o 0 a) g a . 3)8 g ....5- = ,•:, . D. § 0 m = = 4-' 0 0 I? a) c m -,-, o -go $ 220 -‘2 ,) 5 E'l. 0 -2 ""Ca) 0' .5 `,'1, -5 o = 2 g, '-'.; '5 ,--' o g- ' 0. .G =di i..3 • ir-; S> 2.2 .5 8 M F-' -S r, 8) g 2 ,, t>' ai 4?'''c 2 -= m = C i 1-' E 0 0 4- ".-6 D. = 0 a) -° 6 '- 7 .5 C D . R3 Q 0 0 a `) 2' O 0 41. - 'S 'c"6 -5 8 8 4' a> ' g Ta- 8 c'.- ---, o ,,,:" 0, 0 5E0 = -° .2 E ° - '-'.- a' co m -2 -• 0, ° TT) .6_, -E 5 6 42. 2 Ø . 6 - ..?_ 0 S, ,- ,._ CC ° -8 co -t ° - -2)-= 0 cc, ■-• u., 0 2 -.= 2 t", .- 2 F. u_ -. '&-", -c .94 0 '''' . = 0 ., -`-2. ..° 02 '.-- 2 0,.6 = 02 4,, 2 0 a) • 2 ..0 = 4-, ,-. =§--- 8 E 5 2 ox bEi a) _° .-- 0 -- cn ?.„-.)) rE 2 g. E., S2 :,5 1-. = E ',--d -m .,-. 4,-, $2 a, 5 .,,,, •= 0 .c a) -0 E- ,,,. a) 2 8 '-• 2 . 0w5 - a) co - ''' ,,3 12 -= E p` -5 2 Tn.12 .1.c 'Fa. '-,•,-, 2 .2 , ,. 2 <1 2 0 72 3 -0 -0 DD 0 co 'Fa- 0 0 co 0 , -- -e 5 F 3 0 -§ E u_ 0 = = 0 2 1-2 2 3 2 '5 f E E g gn 2. a i-- A A eNi t:i _- —04 -(--1 Cri Csi oy Z 0, -1-' a) = CC o S, -2 FEt 3 c,- . — • <-6 ,.... Et „,,.. 8 $2, ill i.) E c m a,@ S.) J C[ 0 -2 0 3 0 0 o _I > 00 . c. -g E co _t 0) ,- >, -0 -, t 46 -5 0 8 2 2 4 g -9' 2 7-2 , co 2 -0 5 . Q.',,5 = = Tom o - 2 g, w € g5) co .E ci, 22ct '-- • = > 0 ..?-., = z2 -glgow e --= E 8 = c6 52 ,3- 2 8 5 0 2 -a § o - 5 . 2 • .- 0 _ .0 -2 = - = -9 0 02 0 -° O --'- m -F - ' O' 4'- t co 0 ,• ,,3„ 0 .-_- --;-1) 8 -875' .. . s_2 ,0 -c; c0 3 9., 'Z c .0 o -. >.0 . o g c 0 0 -o o 2 -5 0 0 -= u".= 1--> 2 t' 8233 ° T ., .... .''' ' 0 CD I.■ ‘,., 0 t = ana' . 0 0 . ° -52 1:) 5 0, ,, ,,, = 3 0 -.-• -C 0 Z5000 -50 <0 s - n E _ . ....-0_ -5- 0▪ 8 --= ° --Q -6 E -.a' t a 1:2 .- 0 0- =,- 0 2 .F-, o' 2 O % 'clq ,-) m -tES >.) ,4,, .._ 5. 2 E -g- —, -5 >, a, wE 'E'D .P- = 0 e5^T a-) 2 -2 8 1-12 ,T) gE -6.2 5 2 . - 2 ,,,, --- 3. 41 --F. 8 :g' ,_ 45 -,73 :.e. 40, - - -4--„, S.2 c" 8 -- 0 o >, „ = m 2 -0 2 0• - 2 .. "t- = .6=7, 82R! 52 Tc,, Fsgs2 2 "Z i E ..a o .., S 4,7,,, x 2 ,)- .° g '5 cF5 2 •.-' 15 0 x = .-0.:- 'En- , --.0- 7c,, S.-2 ild 0 0 f„ 2 -, m- 4' = Eatk 0 .480 -t -Edg 0-0 cs .=, ,_ 2 -, .8 .2 >, '5 . ? 2 _0 -2 _- 2' 0 .2 0 " >'..'?, 1 r,, ti.r, 4g ,t0- 0 76 .5g8. -C au 0 >'' 0 2 '.-,' ::=7 co ra $ -g6 --' o37-,Y, ',;; PC' g ! IPI. w "E 5o o (..) -a 2. t-:,-, . 2, .§- a) 1) c> = 8 . 42 • 7, - . 28 i 2 .--",'8 tO -2 o c= .0 ,-,- co 0 o co 2 -0 = co .9 .9_ 0 .,,;,, F = ,508 = ,. L8 '8 _a.2 -0 .. >. ..„,- 3' "s 0 -o 0 ;,"'2 --- 2 E ,.),.C--'' = w 15 E . ,C.,)-MogocLo m0 ,Tt, = a' w a cF5 c,3 f.'-' =' L o o m gi g .0 as >, 8gE ,D .,=.. , gl-a5. c,i 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 -0 ' 8 .> -ard - - . .0 ,2. s„ a, s = cx= c ! 2 -Elotg g2 .51, Fg -.• T. “)- tw- 22 Cc E 2 703 -o S-n w a 7 a 0 0 l-cto i i2 .?.>, 2 w c•a 2 1 LT 2 1.-E 2 8 -0 co . g ? 10., _E.Fr2 ▪ = :2, 2g 3 -2 -E2m4 -8 .cimg "--= 8 = = TO _ o § g .=:: 2 g 2 EY ;, +a, o) 8 f 7 020g5 2 ,4a, 2• 22 _20, 5, 0 = as co 0 ,Ecaa, -• = 0 ,- (nai - 0 000 -,:: -.--op , o --, cs ,= = — °-''Lf02241OZ . ‘„ ,aoS:-.: 92 ,','-E- .c .2 2 E a 1,c9. 0, E ,,= . 0 Fi C a--. ._.,. TF-, <T, T; a5 '.-2 • 1, --E4 >., E-Llfg 216, 21, 82 -58 P-- 70 e, .t, ... E a, (73 CL 0 o, <r, Eom A A _• ., — 'D _, , cs, 0 C NI co ,r 0- -,1- 0- E S.? -92 o w 8 8 z .-7.6 ot6 _.• , 0 2 0 a'if Cu'0 C 1.0 aa = a7) co -2 --C' co 0 El? 2 aa ca :=--' 2 _• 2 aa -5 E 2 7, ' 113 • I) a' '§ 0- a. 0 -0 w C) "- 6 '-.5< .G .Z 2 2 F § cls _1 = r, --; "i • a.8 - V) •■-- :7 E .2 o = — 2 =..f. co ,, 2 .5 0 ca TO ca fra r ca 25 . , s > 2 -5 .E -,:.= E , g_ •E' a, 0- 2 8 8.._ 2 F,,,, co 'P._ g, •.5 ,-':__, 2 "t" 2 ca .c, t3 22 T '-' m g -5-1) s' .`x S 0 0 -', g 8 `L') r, <- =5 z 8 -P ca Pa t ca E• ) ,aa 7E, -_9. o- ft, & cm E Pa a, o8 8 ::,_,• c;.—— .-.••,.. ai :77, ;2 ---E' :'-= 4- 2 .7, E -± ca = S2• la 'a k•-: S' a IP "8,' - 8 -F; -0 2 ti = — 0 = -0 —, 11'5 0 ° 0 ori Ms. 0 . -'S2 M < 8 - 45 E if, ,"ii- g -E o , E -_0: . -,.,s•▪ = z ,..c..4 0 ai 2 5. . C. ? - CD .>4 -) 0 - 'a 42 -v, ,...'. §' Yu' A _ <,.; -,1- — to ai —10 ca _ cv CD cv 5- >-. 8 ca ca, P5 2- . w m . O —0- Y) f , 2 F-- z g . = = 8 2 F.-. a,, u-:- <,' E >-. ti 151 APPENDIX C.2a: Email Attachments 152 SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL L A CENTER Telephone 919...967...1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE: 220 FdcsimIle 919-929-9421 CHAPEL HILL, NC 275.16••2356 April 21, 2017 VIA E-MAIL Our Transit Future P.O. Box 13787 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 info @ourtransitfuture.coin Re: Comments on Draft Orange County Transit Plan Please accept these comments on the Draft Orange County Transit Plan("Plan"). The Southern Environmental Law Center("SELC")represents a wide variety of citizens' groups with an interest in North Carolina transportation issues, and as such, we are pleased to submit these comments in support of the Plan. We believe this Plan will generate many benefits for Orange County and the region,particularly by investing in long-term transportation solutions like the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project("D-O LRT project"). In addition to our general support for the Plan, we submit the following specific comments. I. A Comprehensive and Varied Plan The Plan continues the County's past commitment to enhancing public transit options for all residents and visitors with a balanced mix of projects. Much progress has been made since the 2012 Bus and Rail Investment Plan ("BRIP"). The updated Plan carefully evaluates the improvements made since the 2012 BRIP, highlighting progress made toward specific goals. Where goals in the 2012 BRIP have not yet been met, the Plan carries forward those goals and updates them as appropriate to ensure that the new Plan is not merely a restatement of the old, but instead builds and improves upon the 2012 BRIP. The updated Plan supports an impressive suite of transit improvements for Orange County. Further expansions to bus service hours, coupled with the "rail dividend"bus service hours that will result when the D-O LRT project effectively replaces existing routes, will ultimately support as many as 70,000 or more bus service hours.' Furthermore, the Plan continues to fully fund the Hillsborough Train station, as well as a number of other transit facilities. The Plan also maintains the amount of funds previously allocated to what was formerly called "Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Bus Lanes and Corridor Improvements," extending from the University of North Carolina Campus to Eubanks Road near I-40.2 The See Draft Orange County Transit Plan at 2 (Mar.31,2017)(stating that"nearly 33,500 hours of bus service are funded in this Plan"); 18 (estimating"30,000-45,000 rail dividend service hours"in Orange County as a result of the D-O LRT project). 2 Id. at 29-30. Chdrlottesullllle 0 Chapel D-iiillll 0 Atlanta 0 Asheullllle BirmiIng;hdm 0 Charleston 0 Richmond WdshiIng;ton, DC 153 project scope has further developed and grown since the 2012 BRIP, with plans to have a bus rapid transit corridor extend beyond UNC to the Southern Village Park and Ride, and is now known as the North-South Bus Rapid Transit project.3 Most importantly, the Plan continues to prioritize the essential transit investment that is the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project. The Plan has carefully incorporated a variety of transit options and solutions and has demonstrated that funding is available for all of these different components of the Plan. We appreciate that the Plan contains a variety of transportation solutions to achieve discrete objectives, all supporting the overarching goal of establishing a comprehensive transit system to serve residents and businesses throughout Orange County. II. The Critical Role of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project's The Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project serves as a keystone piece of the Plan and our future transportation network. While the funding scheme for the project has shifted with waning state support and a different federal funding structure, the project's importance to our region has held steady. Investing in this project now, under the current environmental documents and in the current federal funding process, is critical. Waiting or postponing is tantamount to choosing not to do the project at all. The recent independent financial analysis conducted by Davenport and Company demonstrated a feasible financial path forward for the light rail project. The project costs include a 30% contingency—more than the minimum amount recommended by the Federal Transit Authority—creating a funding "cushion" for possible cost overruns.4 Additionally, GoTriangle has identified a set of risk mitigation strategies to further insulate against the unlikely event of a cost overrun or need for additional funding.5 Even if such an occasion were to arise, Orange County would have the opportunity to reassess the project and its support for the project at that juncture. Importantly, the debt incurred by this project will be GoTriangle's, not Orange or Durham County's. Given these funding assurances, SELC is satisfied that the light rail project continues to make financial sense—and that the D-O LRT project is in fact a sound and necessary investment. The light rail will create economic opportunities for the County, while fostering desirable compact, walkable communities and preventing environmentally-damaging growth patterns. In addition to providing a reliable transportation alternative to personal vehicles, rail transit encourages smart land-use decisions such as mixed-use, dense development. Permanent, fixed-guideway transit options—like the D-O LRT project—help land-use planners, businesses, and residents establish long-term plans about how to guide growth and development in their communities. In turn, compact communities use less land compared with their sprawling counterparts; as a result, fewer natural areas are paved over, farms, wetlands, and forests are preserved, and water quality standards are maintained. These dense, mixed-use communities are in high demand by individuals and businesses alike, offering many economic development 3 Id. 4 See Draft Orange County Transit Plan Appendix B: Transit Plan Risk&Mitigation Strategies(Mar.3,2017),at 5. s See generally id. 2 154 opportunities. Many of these proven benefits of light rail systems,particularly the environmental benefits, are detailed more fully in our comments submitted on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the NCCU Supplemental Environmental Assessment, attached and incorporated by reference.6 When considering the financial costs of the project, we encourage you to consider them in the context of the plentiful benefits that will accrue to Orange County. Finally, SELC continues to urge GoTriangle and the local governments to carefully consider affordable housing concerns and incorporate appropriate planning tools to ensure that affordable housing opportunities exist near the light rail line. We are pleased that GoTriangle has included funds for Joint Development projects in its cost estimates, and that the agency is already investigating plans for a number of viable affordable housing projects along the light rail line.' Enhancing access and equity for residents of all socioeconomic backgrounds in Orange County are some of the many benefits of this light rail system, and establishing affordable housing is important in order to maximize those benefits. Conclusion We are pleased to offer our support for the Draft Orange County Transit Plan and to submit these positive comments regarding the Plan. We are particularly excited about the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project and urge you to maintain your support for this essential transportation investment. The Plan demonstrates that not only is the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project feasible, but so are other transit improvements that the County has envisioned. We look forward to watching the Plan's recommendations become a reality. Sincerely, Kym Hunter Staff Attorney /�* .. ( Ramona H. McGee Associate Attorney 6 See Attachment 1 (2015-10-13 SELC Comments on D-O LRT DEIS)and Attachment 2(2016-12-07 SELC Comments on D-O LRT NCCU Refinement Supplemental EA). See Patrick McDonough,Joint Development and the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit(D-O LRT)Project:A Prospectus for the Federal Transit Administration(FTA)(Dec.28,2016). 3 155 SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL L A CENTER Telephone 919...967...1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE: 220 Fdcsimllle 919...929...9421 CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516.-2356 December 7, 2016 VIA E-MAIL D-O LRT Project—NCCU Station Refinement c/o GoTriangle Post Office Box 13787 Research Triangle Park,NC 27709 i/ fo(a),our trarisiI/ulurc.con Re: Comments on Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project NCCU Station Refinement Supplemental Environmental Assessment We are pleased to submit these comments supporting the proposed North Carolina Central University("NCCU") Station Refinement for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit ("D-O LRT")project. These comments are submitted by the Southern Environmental Law Center("SELC") on behalf of Clean Air Carolina and Medical Advocates for Healthy Air. SELC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the natural resources of the Southeast. In particular, SELC works with groups throughout North Carolina to promote transportation and land use decisions that strengthen our communities,protect our natural resources, and improve our quality of life. Clean Air Carolina is a non-profit committed to improving North Carolina's air quality through education and advocacy efforts to reduce pollution in our state. Medical Advocates for Healthy Air is an initiative of Clear Air Carolina comprised of health professionals dedicated to educating others about the health impacts of poor air quality and advocating for stronger policies that will promote clean and healthy air for North Carolinians. We see this modification to the original light rail alignment as an improvement that will result in even greater benefits for the environment and communities in the area. We incorporate by reference our earlier supportive comments on the D-O LRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement which continue to apply to this project, specifically with regards to the benefits of light rail, the general environmental effects of the D-O LRT project, and the importance of collaborating with affected communities. We provide these brief additional comments on the Supplemental Environmental Assessment("Supplemental EA") to specifically highlight our support for and limited concerns about the NCCU Station Refinement. I. The Refinement Will Result in Negligible Negative Environmental Impacts and Significant Positive Impacts The NCCU Station Refinement represents a minor adjustment in terms of additional light rail line distance but will yield significant benefits, primarily resulting from increased ridership. The NCCU Station Refinement would extend the D-O LRT line past the original end point of Ch rlottesvIlllle 0 Chapel NM 0 Atlanta 0 Asl~oevIlllle Birrer Ingham 0 Charleston 0 RIcl~ouioio Washington, DC 156 Alston Avenue to a terminus located next to NCCU. This will require a slight modification of the alignment for the Alston Avenue station, and will extend the rail line by 0.7 miles. This short extension of the rail line will reap great benefits by significantly increasing ridership—the NCCU station is forecast to be the highest volume station in Durham. The line extension and new NCCU Station will go through an already developed area of Durham, and will largely follow existing roadways. Negative environmental impacts will be negligible largely due to the developed, built-out nature of the affected area. As noted in Appendix A to the Supplemental EA, the NCCU Station Refinement corridor does not include any jurisdictional waters of the United States, streams, wetlands, riparian buffer zones,ponds, or key floodplain areas.1 Even the limited undeveloped areas near the NCCU Station Refinement are "dominated by invasive species."2 The environmental impacts resulting from the NCCU Station Refinement will be insignificant. Any minor environmental impacts will be far outweighed by the environmental and environmental justice benefits of extending the light rail line to the employment and education center of NCCU. Including a stop next to the historically Black university and the surrounding neighborhoods of color increase the equitable benefits of the D-O LRT project. Enrollment at NCCU is more than 8,000, with a mix of graduate and undergraduate students, and the university employs more than 1,800 faculty and staff 3 With the addition of NCCU, the D-O LRT project will connect three major universities in the region, all of which serve as key employment and education hubs. In turn, connecting NCCU and its corresponding addition of potential ridership will enhance the air quality and land use benefits we identified in our original comments: the NCCU Station Refinement will help reduce vehicle-miles traveled and thus reduce harmful local air pollution, as well as greenhouse gas emissions.4 Similarly, extending the light rail line will enable more people to be less reliant on personal cars and live closer to school or work. Reducing car-dependence and instead fostering mixed-use, walkable, and bikeable communities corresponds to less sprawling development into more rural, undisturbed natural areas. As NCCU continues to expand—including with the planned addition of a business schools—ridership and these consequent benefits will likely increase. We do note that the NCCU Station Refinement will interfere with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Transportation Plan's inclusion of 4-foot bike lanes on Alston Avenue and Pettigrew Street.6 While disappointing, we understand and appreciate that the addition of light rail will ultimately enable more alternate modes of transportation throughout the D-O LRT corridor. Moreover, we are pleased that GoTriangle is committed to offsetting this 'Appendix A to Supplemental EA: Resources with No Impacts Supporting Documentation(October 2016) at A-6. 2 Id. at A-6 3 Quick Facts,NCCU,lrttp://www nccu.edu/discover/qurc1cthcts c ,(last visited November 27,2016). 4 SELC Comments on D-O LRT Draft Environmental Impact Statement(October 13,2015),at 2-4. 5 Supplemental EA,3-10. 6Id. at 3-8. 2 157 loss of bike lanes by"work[ing] with the City of Durham,NCDOT, and local advocates to identify the potential for off-street [bicycle] facilities or on-street [bicycle] facilities on parallel or nearby roadways."7 At an approximate additional cost of$100 million, the NCCU Station Refinement represents around a 5.5% increase in cost of the D-O LRT project. By comparison, the percentage increase in light rail ridership with this modification will be more than a 16% increase8—nearly three times the relative increase in cost. The NCCU station refinement represents a smart transportation infrastructure investment in light of its low relative additional cost compared with its significant ridership benefits. II. GoTriangle Should Continue to Collaborate With Affected Communities to Mitigate Harmful Impacts We note that GoTriangle has worked diligently to connect with affected communities about potential impacts of the D-O LRT project as a whole, and about the NCCU Station Refinement in particular. Indeed, it was GoTriangle's genuine receptiveness to community feedback that ultimately led to the NCCU Station addition and route refinement. The NCCU Station Refinement stands to provide significant benefits in terms of access and connectivity for communities in the refinement area. The NCCU Station Refinement expands the D-O LRT corridor to include 400 additional zero-car households and an additional 800 individuals who are either under 18 or over 65.9 In other words, populations potentially in greater need of public transportation will be within the vicinity of the NCCU Station. Even as GoTriangle has already expended significant time and resources in community outreach, we encourage GoTriangle to stay the course and continue its public outreach and community collaboration. In order to continue to ensure community impacts are mitigated, this public outreach must be a continual, ongoing process throughout all stages of planning and construction of the D-O LRT project. As we mentioned in our past comments, we hope that GoTriangle will continue to do its part to ensure that affordable housing is available throughout the D-O LRT corridor, including the new extension with the NCCU Station Refinement. We also urge GoTriangle to engage in an equitable process for the acquisition of five businesses and 14 residential properties that would be relocated to complete the NCCU Station refinement.10 The statement that community adhesion impacts are not anticipated" should be supported by a relocation plan that embodies principles of environmental justice. Meeting environmental justice goals for ensuring public Id. at 3-9. 8Id. at Table 3-1. 9 Id. at Table 3-6. '°Id. at 3-15. "Id. 3 158 participation by modest wealth communities and communities of color includes meaningful involvement not only in the decision to extend the line, but also the process of acquiring properties to effectuate that extension. To the extent practicable, GoTriangle should actively seek minority-owned firms in close proximity to the refinement area to work in the preliminary acquisition process. Having the title work, appraisals, and appraisal revisions completed by qualified firms in close proximity to the refinement area can have the effect of establishing trust in negotiations to fairly create the value of the residences and businesses, and may expeditiously reach offers of just compensation and acceptance. In addition, in order to meet the needs of those living and working in the acquisition zone, it will be helpful to coordinate with NCCU staff, local business owners, and public community space directors to set up an in-neighborhood negotiation and counseling site to assist those who may need to relocate. By seeking qualified residents and NCCU staff to provide counseling in the Federal Relocation Assistance Program process, and by increasing accessibility to affected residents through conducting negotiations from community sites, there is a greater likelihood of successful community engagement. Finally, whether by agreement of the current owners and tenants, or in the unfortunate event of settlement impasse that would necessitate property acquisition by eminent domain, we urge GoTriangle to not be limited by the relocation benefits allowable under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. Seeking additional state, federal and local funding to provide payments above Uniform Act limits when necessary, will result in a more equitable acquisition process. Conclusion We are thrilled to continue to offer our support for the D-O LRT project as it progresses and adapts in response to feedback to incorporate additional ridership. As discussed above and in our previous comments, the D-O LRT project will provide communities in Durham and Orange counties with a reliable, environmentally-beneficial transportation investment. The NCCU Station Refinement will enhance and extend those benefits by increasing light rail ridership and connecting more communities to regional public transit. We look forward to continuing to work with GoTriangle in advancing this exciting transportation investment. Sincerely, mita Kym Hunter Staff Attorney Ramona McGee Associate Attorney 4 159 SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL L A CENTER Telephone 919...967...1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE: 220 FdcsimIle 919...929...9421 CHAPEL H I L L, NC 27516.-2356 October 13, 2015 VIA E-MAIL D-O LRT Project—DEIS c/o GoTriangle Post Office Box 530 Morrisville,NC 27560 info @ourtransitfuture.coin Re: Comments on Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement These comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement("DEIS") for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit("D-O LRT")project are submitted by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of Clean Air Carolina, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and the Orange-Chatham Group of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club. SELC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization dedicated to protecting the natural resources of the Southeast. In particular, SELC works with groups throughout North Carolina to promote transportation and land use decisions that strengthen our communities,protect our natural resources, and improve our quality of life. Clean Air Carolina is a non-profit committed to improving North Carolina's air quality through education and advocacy efforts to reduce pollution in our state. Medical Advocates for Healthy Air is an initiative of Clear Air Carolina comprised of health professionals dedicated to educating others about the health impacts of poor air quality and advocating for stronger policies that will promote clean and healthy air for North Carolinians. The Orange-Chatham Sierra Club Group is a local division of the national nonprofit Sierra Club, which promotes protection of wild places and responsible use of natural resources through education and advocacy. Orange-Chatham Sierra Club Group's members live in Orange, Chatham, Alamance, and Caswell Counties. We are pleased to indicate our enthusiastic support for the D-O LRT project and the National Environmental Protection Act("NEPA") Preferred Alternative identified in the DEIS. We see this project generating many benefits to the region, and we appreciate that GoTriangle has identified light rail as the best-fit solution for the growth demands of the Durham-Orange Corridor("D-O Corridor" or"the Corridor"). In addition to our strong support for the project, we submit the following specific comments regarding the DEIS. L Light Rail Creates Significant Benefits Beyond Public Transportation Improvement We are thrilled by the prospect of a light rail system within the Triangle Region. Light rail lines have been successfully implemented in cities across the country to enhance public Chdrlo tesullllle 0 Chapel D-iiillll 0 Atlanta 0 Asheullllle BirmIng;hdm 0 Charleston 0 Richmond WdshiIng;lon, DC 160 transportation options while generating a variety of corresponding benefits. We are encouraged that a light rail system will finally be constructed within the Triangle, and we hope that the system will continue to expand as its promised benefits become a reality. In particular, we wish to highlight the environmental, human health, economic, and community benefits a light rail system will bring to the D-O Corridor and the greater Triangle area. A. Light Rail Yields Significant Environmental Benefits The environmental benefits of light rail are myriad. Most obvious, light rail reduces the number of vehicle trips that are made each day and correspondingly reduces tail pipe pollution. Pollutants from cars contain a variety of toxic and carcinogenic compounds.' Such pollution includes harmful carbon monoxide ("CO"), nitrogen oxides ("NOX"), and volatile organic compounds ("VOCs").2 NOX and VOCs emissions are precursors to ozone, which is associated with a variety of detrimental human health and ecological effects.3 Car emissions also contain greenhouse gases ("GHGs") like carbon dioxide ("CO2"), which contribute to global climate change. In addition, urban light rail systems such as this one encourage concentrated growth in already disturbed environments, rather than the sprawling development into undeveloped, natural areas that is often enabled by new-location highway projects.4 Light rail facilitates these concentrated growth patterns primarily because it is a"fixed-guideway" system. Once the light rail line is constructed and its various stations are fixed in place, the D-OLRT project will allow investors and developers to confidently invest in an area that will thrive due to the transportation options in place. Light rail will effectively anchor development within a predictable corridor along the light rail route. Such guided,planned land use with built-in public transportation options is environmentally beneficial on many levels. By containing development within a specific, planned, high-density area, the light rail system will help stall sprawling, unplanned growth patterns into suburban and exurban areas. This type of unplanned growth can lead to long commute times and an associated increase in vehicle miles travelled("VMT"). With more cars on the road driving for longer periods there is an associated increase in local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed above. Likewise, as growth sprawls out of urban areas E.g. HEALTH EFFECTS INST.,SPECIAL REPORT 17:A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON EMISSIONS, EXPOSURE,AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC-RELATED AIR POLLUTION 2-17-2-18 (2010),available at http://pubs healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=553 2E.g. id.;EPA,AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS:AN OVERVIEW 2 (1994),available at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/05-autos.pdf; Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation Sector Emissions, EPA,http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/transportation.html(last updated September 11, 2015). 3 Ground-Level Ozone, EPA,http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/(last updated October 1,2015). 4 DEIS at 4-291 (noting that"[t]he proposed D-O LRT Project and associated land use policies are expected to encourage more compact development,which has a smaller footprint than the auto-oriented development likely to occur without the transit investment"). 2 161 into less disturbed, rural areas, there can be significant impacts on other aspects of the natural environment. Forests may be cleared, farmland developed, and wetlands and streams paved over. The increase in impervious surfaces from this development can have an extremely detrimental effect on water quality as run-off increases. In contrast, compact,planned land use enables developers to use space more efficiently, requiring less new development into rural areas. Moreover, compact, mixed-use communities mean residents can walk, bike, or use public transportation to reach destinations. In turn, fewer people rely on cars in their daily lives, which equates to fewer harmful pollutants being emitted into our air and water on a daily basis. Moreover, the D-O LRT will serve as a keystone piece of a long-term vision for an improved Triangle-wide public transit system. As explained in the DEIS, the D-O LRT has not been proposed or developed in isolation; instead, it is part of a broader regional plan to invest in fixed-guideway transportation solutions.5 As such, the D-O LRT is an important regional investment in an environmentally-sound public transit solution which will facilitate compact, less environmentally damaging transit-oriented development. Indeed, the affected municipalities have premised their public transportation plans on this light rail project being implemented.6 Local governments' land-use visions "call for more compact, walkable, higher-density, mixed- use development within the D-O Corridor," and a light rail system will accordingly"channel future growth by providing a transportation option that supports compact, high-density developments."7 B. Light Rail Improves Physical and Mental Health By driving mixed-use, compact development near public transportation options, light rail encourages more active lifestyles. Walking and bicycling to destinations, or to the closest light rail station, will be feasible and easier than driving and finding parking. Transit-oriented development, and the corresponding greater use of public transportation, increases physical activity and improves physical health.8 For example, mixed-use neighborhoods with public transportation access correspond to lower rates of obesity, while sprawling neighborhoods correspond to higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, asthma, and cancer.9 One study of individuals living near the Charlotte Lynx light rail system showed significant increases in physical health, including that light rail users lost weight and substantially reduced their likelihood of becoming obese.10 Public transportation access and 5 Id. at 2-2-2-8. 6 E.g. id. at 8-7. Id. at 1-22;see id.at 4-291,4-298. 8 See TODD LITMAN,VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE,EVALUATING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HEALTH BENEFITS 13-15 (2015),available at http://www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf. 9 Id. at 15. 10 John M.MacDonald,et al., The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass Index and Physical Activity,39 AM.J. PREVENTIVE MED. 105, 108(2010). The study concluded that"[t]he findings from the current study suggest that 3 162 walkable communities are also associated with numerous mental health benefits, such as reducing emotional stress and symptoms of depression.'I Moreover, in terms of general public health,public transit use is safer than private automobile use, with a much lower fatality rate than automobile travels.'As one researcher has observed, "[p]eople who live or work in transit oriented communities tend to drive fewer annual miles, drive at lower speeds, and have better travel options that allow them to avoid high risk driving, such as after drinking alcohol or when ill."13 Light rail, as a fixed public transportation system, will lay the foundation for such healthier and safer transit-oriented communities in the D-O Corridor. Additionally, light rail's resulting reduction in tailpipe emissions corresponds to significant human health effects. As noted above, driving individual automobiles creates toxic particulate matter pollution and ozone-producing chemicals that can have a wide range of adverse health effects. A recent study published in the journal Nature suggests that air pollution was responsible for 3.3 million premature deaths worldwide in 2010.14 Air pollution exacerbates asthma, which was the leading medical cause for school absences in North Carolina during the 2009-2010 school year.15 It is also linked to low birth weight,premature birth, miscarriage, autism, ADHD, obesity, diabetes, compromised immune response, increased susceptibility to allergies, stroke, liver disease, dementia, anxiety, and depression.16 Particulate matter pollution is created not only by burning fossil fuels, but also by road wear, brake wear, and tire wear. The cleanest electric car will still cause particulate matter pollution because it cannot avoid friction with the petroleum-based asphalt comprising our roads. However, light rail avoids these friction-based sources of pollution by not using the petroleum-based asphalt. Moreover, light rail can avoid or mitigate these many adverse health impacts by providing a high-capacity public transit alternative to driving private vehicles. Fewer cars on the road equates to cleaner air for North Carolinians. increasing the access to LRT transit for individuals to commute to work may help overcome some of the barriers to engaging in daily utilitarian exercise."Id.at 110. 11 LITMAN,supra note 9,at 17. 12 Id. at 8-9. 13 Id. at 8. 14 J Lelieveld et al. The Contribution of Outdoor Air Pollution Sources to Premature Mortality on a Global Scale, 525 NATURE,367—371 (2015). 15 N.C.DEPT.OF HEALTH&HUMAN SERVS.,ASTHMA IN NORTH CAROLINA FACT SHEET 1 (2011),available at http://www.asthma.ncdhhs.gov/docs/factsheets/2011/AsthmalnNorthCarolina.pdf;N.C.DEPT.OF HEALTH&HUMAN SERVS.,THE NORTH CAROLINA ASTHMA PLAN 2013-2018 2(2013),available at http://www.asthma.ncdhhs.gov/docs/NorthCarolinaAsthmaPlan-2013-2018.pdf(identifying Reducing school absences due to asthma as one of four priorities of the North Carolina Asthma Plan). 16 E.g.Ambient(Outdoor)Air Quality and Health,WORLD HEALTH ORG., http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/(last updated Mar.2014);ARB Fact Sheet:Air Pollution and Health,AIR RES.BD.,http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fsl/fs1 htm(last updated Dec.2,2009);Bradley S. Peterson,et al.,Effects of Prenatal Exposure to Air Pollutants (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)on the Development of Brain White Matter, Cognition, and Behavior in Later Childhood,72 JAMA PSYCHIATRY 531 (2015);W.James Gauderman, et al.Association of Improved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children,372 N.ENG.J.MED.905 (2015). 4 163 C. Light Rail Brings Business and Boosts Economic Development As alluded to above, the proposed light rail system will draw concentrated economic development.'? Large companies are deliberately investing in and developing areas connected to permanent public transit systems like light rail. Mercedez-Benz relocated to downtown Atlanta,18 and Kaiser-Permanente decided on Georgia over Colorado because of the public transit options available, specifically the rail system in the Midtown area.19 Indeed, The Charlotte Lynx System has proven to be an enormous economic success for the area: "From 2005 to-date, the Blue Line has generated approximately $900M in development projects completed within a 1/2 mile of the Blue Line Stations."20 This has "transformed portions of the community from vacant or underutilized parcels to vibrant,pedestrian friendly communities including housing, restaurants, retail and small businesses."21 Charlotte Area Transit System staff project an additional $500 million-worth of development in the coming years.22 The Blue Line Extension, which is set to begin operations in 2017, has already attracted more than $200 million in new,private development projects along the future route.23 Clean Air Carolina, which is based in Charlotte, has witnessed first-hand these positive community—not to mention environmental and health— benefits of the Lynx system. While this success story from within our State is particularly impressive, it is not an isolated instance. Light rail systems across the country, in metropolitan regions similar to the D-O corridor, have likewise experienced substantial economic benefits. These include systems in Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Santa Clara County, California; and St. Paul-Minneapolis, Minnesota.24 Notably, bus service, including bus rapid transit("BRT"), has not and cannot spur such economic benefits precisely because of its unpredictable, ever-changing routes.25 A BRT system includes fixed guideways for buses, thus removing segments of bus service from mixed-use traffic to enable quicker travel times. However, BRT is still characterized by flexibility in route 17 See DEIS at 1-22; id.at Table 8.1-1:Project Need Performance Summary for No Build,NEPA Preferred, and Project Element Alternatives. 18 Matt Kempner and J. Scott Trubey,MARTA A Sudden Factor in Company Moves,THE ATLANTA JOURNAL- CONSTITUTION,Jan. 16,2015,http://www myajc.com/news/business/marta-a-sudden-factor-in-company- moves/njpnF/. 19 Maria Saporta, Transit and Walkability Key Factors in Kaiser Permanente's Decision to Put 900 New Jobs in Midtwon, SAPORTAREPORT,Apr. 17,2015,http://saportareport.com/transit-and-walkability-key-factors-in-kaiser- permanente s-decision-to-put-900-new-j obs-in-midtown/. 20 E-mail from Tina Votaw,Transit Oriented Dev. Specialist, Charlotte Area Transit Sys.,to Kym Hunter, Staff Attorney, S.Envtl Law Ctr. (April 22,2015);see also Alternatives Analysis at 5-86("North Carolina's first LRT line,the Blue Line,has been a catalyst for almost$1.5 billion of new or planned development along Charlotte's South Corridor,a formerly underutilized railroad corridor."). 21 E-mail from Tina Votaw,supra note 20. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Alternatives Analysis,at 5-86-5-87 (listing the significant economic benefits which have accrued to the areas surrounding the respective light rail systems). 25 Alternatives Analysis,at 5-88 (citing limited available studies on BRT and noting that potential economic benefits of BRT are unproven and speculative,unlike light rail's demonstrated positive effects). 5 164 and still relies on mixed-use traffic for portions of its trip. Businesses cannot plan on bus service, but businesses can and will plan on a fixed light rail system. D. Light Rail Creates Desirable Mixed-Use Communities Private citizens are also increasingly choosing to live near established public transportation options. Indeed, a recent Chapel Hill poll indicated that the D-O LRT project is "overwhelmingly popular"with 69% of voters supporting the project.26 This is in line with national trends showing that people,particularly the Millennial generation, are consciously driving less and prefer to use alternate modes of transportation.27 The vast majority of Millennials express a preference for living in more urbanized, mixed-use, walkable communities with public transportation access.28 Existing compact, mixed-use development along public transportation routes have shown that such less automobile-dependent communities are a reality with corresponding real benefits: "[r]esidents of communities with high-quality, well integrated public transit . . . own half as many vehicles, drive half as many annual miles, walk and bicycle four times more, and use public transit ten times more than residents of more automobile- dependent communities."29 Light rail will also assist less mobile populations, such as the elderly, 0- or low-car households, and lower-income families. These populations will be able to depend on light rail for their transportation needs, while also making long-term housing and employment decisions knowing that light rail will remain, fixed in route, for the future. Indeed, the D-O LRT system will connect large employment and education centers with its end points near the institutions of the University of North Carolina and Duke University, respectively.30 Public transportation to such employment hubs will provide a low-cost, reliable means of transportation to jobs for low- income and 0-car households. These same individuals will also have greater access to the educational opportunities at both universities on the D-O LRT project route. Light rail and its corresponding transit-oriented development"provide basic mobility and accessibility, particularly for physically and economically disadvantaged people, such as people with disabilities and lower-income seniors."31 Public transportation and more compact, mixed-use communities can provide a means of greater access to necessary medical services for the elderly and disabled.32 The D-O LRT project exemplifies this attribute by connecting to both the UNC 26 Memorandum from Tom Jensen,Dir.of Pub. Policy Polling, State of the Chapel Hill Election 2 (Sept.23,2015), available at http://chapelboro.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ChapelHillPo112015.pdf. 27 TONY DUTZIK&PHINEAS BAXANDALL,U.S.PIRG FUND&FRONTIER GRP.,A NEW DIRECTION:OUR CHANGING RELATIONSHIP WITH DRIVING AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 21-25 (2013),available at http://www.uspirg.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/A%20New%20Direction%20vUS.pdf. 28 Id. at 23;Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs,Subways to Driveways,NIELSON(Mar.4,2014), http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2014/millennials-prefer-cities-to-suburbs-subways-to-driveways html. 29 LITMAN,supra note 9,at 3. 30 E.g. DEIS,at 1-3-1-4. 31 LITMAN,supra note 9,at 16. 32 E.g. WENDY FOX-GRAGE&JANA LYNOTT,AARP PUB.POLICY INST.,EXPANDING SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION:NEW OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT 1 (Jan.2015),available at 6 165 Hospitals and the Duke/VA Medical Centers. Furthermore, fixed-route transportation helps older adults maintain a more independent lifestyle while remaining in their homes and communities,particularly when paired with well-coordinated, community-focused transportation and growth policies.33 Public transportation and compact, walkable communities will also assist families living in poverty by enhancing transportation options and access. As recognized in a Federal Highway Administration paper, "[i]mproving mobility and job accessibility are very important factors to escape poverty."34 Light rail will serve as a reliable, fixed, accessible transportation option and drive development of less automobile-dependent communities. Such characteristics appeal to and benefit populations in need of greater transportation accessibility, as well as those who are deliberately choosing to rely less on private automobiles for their travel needs. II. The NEPA Preferred Alternative is the Best Option for the D-OLRT Project The above-stated benefits of light rail inform our support for the specific D-O LRT project. The stated Purpose and Need of the D-O LRT project includes implementing a high- transit transportation solution that facilitates future land use plans which focus on compact, transit-oriented development.35 As the DEIS states, "[i]n order to address the transportation challenge faced by the region and more specifically within the D-O Corridor, and to cultivate a more sustainable cycle of growth for a future, a high-capacity transportation infrastructure solution is required."36 Thus, this project is intended to address not only transportation demands, but land-use demands. Indeed, the Alternatives Analysis completed at an earlier stage of this project identified four needs to be addressed, one of which was "to foster compact development."37 A light rail system is by far the best high-transit option in terms of promoting compact, less-environmentally damaging development. As documented throughout the DEIS, the D-O LRT project will best satisfy the defined Purpose and Need of the project as compared to other transportation options and the studied alternative light rail routes. A. Light Rail is the Best Transportation Alternative for Meeting the Stated Purpose and Need of the Project Light rail represents the best option for alleviating the already-present problems of increasing congestion in the project area. As identified in the DEIS,population growth in http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015/AARP-New-ACA-Transportation-Opportunities.pdf(identifying access to transportation as a critical need for elderly individuals). 33 E.g. TRANSP.FOR AM.,AGING IN PLACE,STUCK WITHOUT OPTIONS 3,35 (2011),available at http://www.t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf. 34 FED.HIGHWAY ADMIN.,NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY BRIEF:MOBILITY CHALLENGES FOR HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY 3 (2014), available at http://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf. 35 DEIS at 1-22-1-23;see also Alternatives Analysis at 3-1. 36 DEIS at 1-16. 37 Alternative Analysis at 3-1. The other three needs were: "to enhance mobility,""to expand transit options between Durham and Chapel Hill,"and"to serve populations with high propensity for transit use." Id. 7 166 Durham and Orange Counties is exploding; indeed,"[b]etween 2010 and 2040, the population of each county is expected to grow by 64 percent and 52 percent, respectively."38 We agree with and applaud the DEIS's acknowledgment that"[t]he existing built and natural environments limit the ability to widen the roadways to accommodate additional travel lanes," and that"[i]f left unmanaged, this rapid growth will not only continue to constrain corridor mobility, but will also result in sprawling development patterns, which would lead to the reduction of open space and farmlands." 39 Building more roads is not the answer to population growth and increased transportation demands, and expanding such roads would result in environmentally harmful development patterns and further exacerbate dependence on automobile travel. We further agree with the DEIS's conclusion that"[e]ven with implementation of all roadway projects programmed in the 2040 MTP, the capacity of the roadway system will not keep pace with the increase in traffic volumes."40 Importantly, building new roads can sometimes paradoxically cause an increase in congestion. Travelers who previously avoided congested roads by foregoing discretionary trips or by traveling at non-peak hours might now opt to take more trips at different times. Moreover, development might expand along the new road, creating new communities and new travel demands. As such, building roads entices new vehicle trips, creating what is known as "induced demand" and in turn causing more, not less, congestion. Light rail is uniquely suited to meet the transportation needs in the D-O Corridor. GoTriangle analyzed a variety of different transit system options in the Alternatives Analysis phase, and correctly concluded that they would not meet the identified Purpose and Need of the project.41 As identified in the earlier Alternatives Analysis, "the flexibility in the delivery of conventional bus services fails to provide the permanency in routing and stop placement necessary to shift current development patterns."42 Furthermore, adding additional buses on already congested roadways will not address increased travel demands.43 As observed by the DEIS, "[t]he number of buses serving each of these areas [near UNC hospitals and/Durham VA Medical Center/Duke University Medical Center] has surpassed or is approaching the feasible limit of the number of buses that can be accommodated on the roadways."44 We have been pleased by the increased bus ridership in the region, as identified by the DEIS, and believe this is indicative of the shift in the public's desire and willingness to utilize public transportation options. However, the DEIS correctly identifies that the current bus system at our present-day population levels is increasingly inconsistent and unreliable in adhering to bus schedules.45 38 DEIS at 1-5. 39ld.at 1-6. 40 Id. at 1-17. 41 Alternatives Analysis,ES-4—ES-8, 5-113-5-118, (2012);see 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C), (E)(requiring evaluation of "appropriate alternatives"when preparing EIS);40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(limiting EIS review of alternatives to those that are"reasonable"). 42 Alternatives Analysis at 3-8. 43 DEIS at 1-18-1-19. 44Id. at 3-9;see id. at 1-22. 45 Id. at 1-10. 8 167 Clogged roadways already prevent efficient travel times of both private cars and buses, and this will only worsen with an increased population in the area.46 Like increased bus service, BRT falls far short of meeting the Purpose and Need of the project. Triangle Transit ruled out BRT largely because of its inability to meet the economic development and compact growth elements of the project's Purpose and Need.47 While proponents of BRT tout its flexibility and ability to respond to growth and development, this characteristic is precisely why BRT is less effective in driving compact land use patterns. Light rail outcompetes BRT in passenger capacity,partially because cars can be added to trains, and additional trains can be added to the entire light rail system with minimal impact so as to easily increase passenger capacity. Finally, commuter rail or heavy rail was appropriately rejected as a feasible option for the D-O corridor. Such vehicles are incapable of stopping quickly enough between closely-spaced stations, such as are needed on Duke and UNC campuses and in downtown Durham. In contrast to other options, the D-O LRT project is a fixed transportation system which will drive smart, compact development while decreasing the numbers of cars on the road and enhancing public transportation accessibility. As the Alternatives Analysis succinctly summarized, after extensive evaluation of other modes of transportation, "the [light rail alternative] alone can fully address the stated Purpose and Need for a fixed-guideway investment in the Durham-Orange Corridor."48 Ridership forecasts of the NEPA Preferred Alternative demonstrate that light rail will provide a substantial reduction in automobile trips; by 2040, the preferred alternative will account for more than 23,000 trips per average weekday.4° These forecasts are supported by the ridership rates of the Charlotte Lynx system where daily ridership exceeded 2020 forecast levels within three years of its initial operations "and now averages about 15,000 trips per day."50 The DEIS also projects that the light rail system will yield 23 million fewer vehicle miles traveled annually by year 2040.51 We agree with and support GoTriangle's determination that light rail is the best mode of public transportation for meeting the transportation and development needs of the D-O Corridor. B. The NEPA Preferred Alternative is the Superior Alignment for the D-OLRT Project We urge GoTriangle to proceed with the currently identified NEPA Preferred Alternative. We agree with and applaud the DEIS's observation that"[t]he NEPA Preferred Alternative would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect, 46 Id. at 1-18. 47 E.g. Alternatives Analysis at 5-88, 5-113 ;DEIS at 1-16. 48 Alternatives Analysis at 5-113. 49 DEIS at 3-14. 5°Alternatives Analysis at 5-86. 51 DEIS at 4-252; id. at Table 4.13-1: Comparison of Estimated Annual VMT for the Triangle Region (2040) (in millions of miles). 9 168 preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and natural resources."52 The NEPA Preferred Alternative represents the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative ("LEDPA"), as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency("EPA").53 The United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") likewise supports the NEPA Preferred Alternative.54 In completing its thorough review of alternatives, GoTriangle carefully considered whether certain sections of the proposed D-OLRT route could be aligned differently. These Project Element Alternatives constitute different possible routes in the New Hope Creek and Little Creek areas of the project's route. As determined by the DEIS after careful evaluation, the other Project Element Alternatives have greater environmental impacts,particularly to undisturbed natural habitats, than the NEPA Preferred Alternative. For example, the C2 Alternative impacts 23 more acres of biotic resources than the NEPA Preferred Alternative.55 The Cl and CIA Alternatives would impact undisturbed natural areas, such as the Little Creek Bottomlands and Slopes Significant Natural Heritage Area.56 Importantly, the USACE informed GoTriangle that given the existence of a less-environmentally damaging alternative, the USACE would not authorize the Cl alternative with its corresponding significant adverse impacts to natural resources and public use of the Jordan Lake Game Lands.57 Although the DEIS nonetheless carefully studied this alternative, the USACE's unwillingness to grant GoTriangle use of the Jordan Lake Game Lands for the Cl Alternative effectively eliminates it as an option.58 The NEPA Preferred Alternative also outperforms the New Hope Creek Alternatives in terms of impacts to the natural environment. The New Hope Creek LPA ("NHC LPA") Alternative would result in fragmentation of undisturbed forested areas and wetlands, and would create a new transportation corridor in the New Hope Creek Bottomlands. 59 The New Hope Creek 1 ("NHC 1") Alternative fares slightly better than the NHC LPA Alternative, but would impact 7 more acres of hardwood forests than the NEPA Preferred Alternative. We are pleased that the selected NEPA Preferred Alternative impacts the fewest acres of biotic resources as compared to the other element alternatives, and we support GoTriangle in advancing this route for further evaluation and implementation.6° 52 Id. at 8-26. 53 See id. at 8-14. 54 See id. at 8-14. 55Id. at 8-18. 56Id. at 8-17. 57Id. at 8-17,G-99. 58 See 16 U.S.C. §460d(authorizing USACE to"grant leases of lands . . .at water resource development projects . . . for such purposes as [the Secretary]may deem reasonable in the public interest"). 59Id. at 8-18-8-19. 6o See DEIS at Table 8.2-1:D-O LRT Alternatives Benefits and Consequences Matrix. 10 169 C. Fewer Harmful Effects Correspond to the Farrington Road Rail Operations and Maintenance Facility In addition to studying different alignment routes, the DEIS reviewed different possible locations for a rail operations and maintenance facility("ROMF"), where trains will be serviced and stored, and where the technical operations for the system will be based. The Farrington Road ROMF included in the NEPA Preferred Alternative surpasses each of the alternative ROMF locations. Leigh Village would permanently impair use of the historic Walter Curtis Hudson Farm, and the Patterson Place ROMF is incompatible with the Preferred Alternative New Hope Creek Element("NHC 2"), as well as the perhaps "second best"New Hope Creek route possibility of NHC 1.61 Because the Patterson Place ROMF would rule out these two environmentally-preferable routes, we oppose the Patterson Place ROMF and strongly concur with the NEPA Preferred Alternative's selection of the Farrington ROMF. While the Cornwallis and Alston Avenue ROMF locations may result in fewer impacts to water resources, and natural resources in the case of the Alston Avenue ROMF, the resulting operational difficulties, higher costs, and community impacts render these locations less desirable to the NEPA Preferred Alternative location.62 Specifically, the Cornwallis Road location would have significant impacts on the Judea Reform Congregation, Levin Jewish Community Center, and the Lerner Jewish Community Day School.63 The Alston Avenue Location would be located in an area with high low-income and minority populations, result in a net loss of jobs, and displace multiple businesses.64 Such significant community impacts would undermine the community support and longevity of the D-O LRT project. In sum, the NEPA Preferred Alternative utilizes existing transportation right-of-ways and follows a route that minimizes new impacts to sensitive environmental resources. By sticking close to established transportation corridors, most of the NEPA Preferred Alternative's environmental impacts are to already disturbed environments. As such, we are pleased with the identified NEPA Preferred Alternative and strongly support GoTriangle's continued selection of this route and ROMF location as the NEPA Preferred Alternative. III. GoTriangle Should Continue to Analyze Certain Environmental Impacts and Develop Further Mitigation Measures On the whole, the DEIS carefully and thoroughly documents the possible impacts to natural resources, streams and wetlands, water quality, and air quality within the project area. We are pleased with the consistent recommendation of best management practices to avoid and reduce certain environmental impacts. The below comments applaud some of the specific aspects of the DEIS's discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences, 61 Id. at 8-20. 62 Id. at 8-21-8-22. 63Id. at 8-21. 64Id. at 8-22-8-23. 11 170 while also noting areas in which the Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS") should be improved. A. Natural Resources Overall, we are content with how the DEIS addresses potential impacts to natural resources, including wildlife and broader ecosystem impacts. The DEIS recognizes that the indirect impacts—largely compact development in the affected area—"would be more beneficial to natural resources than the type of dispersed growth that typically occurs with auto-oriented development."65 We believe such acknowledgments and comparisons are important when considering a project such as this, where some minimal environmental harm may result in the construction and implementation phases, but where the long-term environmental effects are substantial. Even then, the natural resource impacts will largely be limited to already disturbed habitats.66 However, the DEIS provides an incomplete picture regarding endangered and threatened species. We are pleased that GoTriangle carefully analyzed the occurrence of federally listed species in the project area, and that the DEIS includes preliminary measures to be taken in the event the species are observed in the area. Nonetheless, the DEIS lists many North Carolina state-listed endangered and threatened species, but does not include any information about their abundance in the project area or how to mitigate possible harm to the species. We understand that studies and coordination with North Carolina agencies are ongoing, and we encourage careful evaluation of possible harm to these species and implementation of necessary mitigation measures. The FEIS should include a more thorough discussion regarding these state-listed species. B. Water Resources While the NEPA Preferred route will have impacts to water resources in the project area—particularly wetlands, streams, and floodplains—the impacts are relatively minor when considered in comparison with the sprawling, car-oriented development that would occur under a No Build scenario.67 Nonetheless, we note that the NEPA Preferred Alternative will impact approximately .558 acres of wetlands,68 and that the Little Creek project elements alternatives would actually impact .05 acres fewer than the NEPA Preferred Little Creek route (C2A).69 We have limited concerns about this as the acreage impact is so slight. Moreover, we understand that while the Little Creek alternatives may impact a smaller acreage of wetlands, these alternatives "would impact one or two more [discrete] wetlands."70 Nonetheless, GoTriangle 65 Id. at 4-92. 66 Id. at 4-138,4-142. 67 E.g. id. at 4-290,4-292. 68Id. at 4-156. 69Id. at 4-159. 70Id. at 4-159. 12 171 should continue to evaluate the possible wetlands impacts associated with the NEPA Preferred Alternative and identify specific mitigation measures to ensure the least impact possible to these special water resources. C. Air Quality The DEIS's cursory examination of air quality impacts does a disservice to the project by failing to document the significant positive effects the D-O LRT will have on air quality. While "[m]odeling analyses are only required for areas that are in nonattainment or maintenance for a particular pollutant" in terms of National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS")under the Clean Air Act, the FEIS should discuss more of the air quality impacts than are discussed in the DEIS.71 The DEIS identifies that Durham County is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide and then limits air quality discussion to this sole pollutant and area. Even if modeling analyses are not required, the FEIS should document and consider the possible air quality impacts that will result from this project. For example, the FEIS should note that by reducing the numbers of cars on the road, there will be a corresponding reduction in multiple harmful pollutants. Moreover, even if additional modeling analyses are not required, they certainly are not prohibited, and we would support GoTriangle conducting further modeling analyses to document the positive effects this system will have on air quality. D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions One of the prime environmental benefits of the D-O LRT is the potential for reductions in tailpipe emissions of GHGs. In December 2014, the Council of Environmental Quality("CEQ") issued a draft guidance on"Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change,"under NEPA.72 The draft guidance instructs agencies to consider impacts on GHGs when conducting a NEPA analysis. The DEIS failed to conduct such an analysis, citing a lack of a"national strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation," and asserting that"[i]t is technically unfeasible to accurately model how negligible increases or decreases of CO2 emissions at a project scale would add or subtract to the carbon emissions from around the world." 73 We disagree with this sentiment. As recognized by the CEQ's draft guidance, while "climate impacts are not attributable to any single action,"they are "exacerbated by a series of smaller decisions, including decisions made by the government" and should be analyzed as such.74 Here, the D-O LRT's impact would almost certainly have the positive environmental effect of reducing GHGs. Documenting such a positive effect is important for future transportation planning and to establish the precedent of conducting such evaluations. 71 The FEIS should also clarify that 40 C.F.R.93, subpart A,requires modeling analyses for only nonattainment or maintenance areas for a given pollutant. While reference is made in Appendix K23,the source of this requirement should be clarified within the text of the FEIS. 72 Revised Draft Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change, 79 Fed.Reg. 77801 (Dec.24,2014). 73 DEIS at 4-201. 74 Revised Draft Guidance, 79 Fed.Reg.at 77825. 13 172 IV. GoTriangle Should Continue to Collaborate with Low-Income and Minority Communities Who May be Impacted Although there is wide community support for enhanced public transit options in the D-O Corridor and for light rail in particular,75 the D-O LRT project has the potential to disproportionately burden certain low-income and minority communities in Durham. While the Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical area is economically robust, the DEIS notes that the census tracts within the D-O Corridor have a 19 percent lower median household income than the combined median household income in Durham and Orange counties on the whole.76 More than thirteen percent of households within the Corridor do not have an available vehicle, and 42.6 percent of households in the Corridor have only one vehicle.77 Moreover, Durham has a history of proposed transportation projects having a disproportionate impact on people of color and low-income communities.78 GoTriangle must be mindful of these disparities and the historical backdrop in continuing to proactively engage communities that will be affected by the D-O LRT project. We are pleased by GoTriangle's thoughtful efforts to date in informing and collaborating with affected communities. The DEIS identifies access to proposed stations is a primary concern voiced by low-income and racial minority communities in the area.79 The DEIS also highlights concerns about affordable housing, business displacements, and inequitable distribution of sales tax revenues from the area.80 While the DEIS identifies responses to each of these concerns, we hope GoTriangle continues to collaborate and develop additional means of mitigating these concerns, as required by Executive Order 12898.81 We are pleased that Durham County and the City of Durham have set goals of having "15 percent housing within a 1/2 mile of each station be affordable to people at or below 60 percent of the median area income."82 However, we encourage GoTriangle to work with local leaders to develop more hard-and-fast policies and mechanisms to keep housing affordable. Such measures should include methods to help current residents in the affected areas remain in their homes and not be priced-out of their residences. Additionally, the DEIS should be clearer and more consistent about the potential problem of 75 E.g. Jensen,supra note 26,at 2. 76 DEIS at 1-8. 77 Id. at 1-5. 78 See id. at 5-30;Removal of Los Primos Supermarket—Analyzing and Identfing Alternatives,FED.HIGHWAY ADMIN. (last updated Feb.4,2013), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmentaljustice/ej_and_nepa/case_studies/case04.cfm; Case Studies: East-West Expressway Environmental Impact Study, FED.HIGHWAY ADMIN. (last updated Aug.29,2011). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental justice/case_studies/case3.cfm. 79 DEIS at 5-18. 80 IJ at Table 5.3-1:El Community Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions/Response. 81 Exec.Order No. 12,898,59 Fed.Reg. 7629(Feb. 11, 1994). 82 DEIS at Table 5.3-1:EJ Community Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions/Response;id. at 5-31;see N.C.GEN.STAT. § 136-252(b)(3)(d) (requiring recipients of state public transportation grant money to develop strategies"to provide replacement housing for low-income residents displaced by transit development. . . for the purpose of increasing the s tock of affordable housing to at least fifteen percent(15%) [near the transit development] to be affordable to families with income less than sixty percent(60%)of area median income.") . 14 173 affordable housing; a few pages after identifying this problem, the DEIS includes "[a]ffordable housing near transit" as one of the offsetting beneficial impacts the project will have on low- income and minority populations.83 Affordable housing should be eliminated from this list of benefits in the FEIS, unless concrete and enforceable policies are instituted that guarantee access to affordable housing proximate to light rail stops. The DEIS observes that acquisitions and displacements required by the D-O LRT project might"be perceived as a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the east Durham community in particular."84 The DEIS lacks documentation or analysis of the businesses and community resources that may be displaced due to the project. This missing information creates an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the adverse effects such displacements and acquisitions will have on affected people of color and low- income communities. As such, we urge GoTriangle to devote detailed discussion in the FEIS to the precise businesses and resources to be displaced in the affected areas. Further, as much as possible, GoTriangle should select routes that will require as few business, community resource, and residential displacements as possible. Retaining community pillars is key for community cohesion. We are mindful that community members have expressed concerns that the current D-O LRT project does not reach East Durham, where low-income and minority populations are in dire need of better access to public transportation. Instead, light rail will reach these communities only during a possible later phase of light rail expansion. In the transportation mitigation section, the FEIS should address coordinating connecting bus service from East Durham communities to the nearest D-O LRT stop as well as provide realistic numbers on the ridership projections for D-O LRT from East Durham. Because community members have expressed that the D-O LRT will not serve the East Durham community due to the local nature of community travel, these additional actions would work toward establishing how East Durham residents would get to the D-O LRT, assessing the level of current East Durham community transportation need, and firmly determining how this project can actually provide transit to those lower-income, less mobile households. Indeed, since a prime part of the Purpose and Need for the project is providing public transit access to lower-income, less mobile households, connecting East Durham communities to this light rail project should be prioritized. Finally, we urge GoTriangle to study and include in the FEIS information about the estimated fares for light rail passengers. We note that the DEIS stated Go Triangle will work with public transportation staff to "engage the public and complete a Transit Service and Fare Equity Analysis"prior to initiating revenue service.85 If the light rail service is cost-prohibitive for low-income populations, the project will not satisfy its stated Purpose and Need, and may not yield as many positive benefits for target populations as forecast by the DEIS. 83 DEIS at 5-35. 84 Id. at 5-30. 85 Id. at 3-14. 15 174 As noted throughout the DEIS's section on impacts to low-income and minority populations, despite the possible negative impacts, many positive impacts will accrue to the affected communities. These include new employment prospects and greater mobility and connectivity with other communities through the greater access to reliable public transportation.86 We agree that in many ways, low income and people of color communities stand to benefit from the D-O LRT project, but we nonetheless encourage GoTriangle to continue to carefully analyze and avoid potential impacts to these communities. V. Conclusion We are thrilled to offer our support for the D-O LRT project and to submit these overwhelmingly positive comments regarding the project. As discussed above, the D-O LRT system represents an opportunity to improve the public transportation network in the region, while driving compact, prosperous growth and development in the face of future population growth in the D-O Corridor. In turn, the D-O LRT project corresponds to environmental, health, and community benefits. We urge GoTriangle to enhance its analysis and address our limited concerns regarding the project. We look forward to continuing to work with GoTriangle in advancing this exciting public transit investment. Sincerely, Kym Hunter Staff Attorney Ramona McGee Associate Attorney 86 Id. at 5-3-5-35. 16 175 KH/lv cc (via email): Stanley A Mitchell, FTA S. Kenneth Jolly, USACE John Sullivan, FHWA Chris Militscher, USEPA Pete Benjamin, USFWS Joey Hopkins,NCDOT Renee Gledhill-Earley,NC SHPO Jay Zimmerman,NCDENR -DWQ Felix Nwoko, DCHC MPO June Blotnick, CAC Laura Wenzel, MAHA Terry Lansdell, MAHA Max Felsher, Orange-Chatham Group of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club Olga Grlic, Orange-Chatham Group of the Sierra Club May Becker, Orange-Chatham Group of the Sierra Club Roger Diedrich,North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club 17 176 APPENDIX C.3 : Surveys Received 177 Name Kim Matthew Last Lyons Clark Which plan are you commentingon?(Both Both Where do you live? City of Durham City of Durham Which best describes you? l am employed in Durham or Orange County I am not employed but looking for work Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 'sue in 9W cpmpiuniiv? Are you'familiar wi a transit Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Agree Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? The transit plan understands the essential role Please explain why or why not. We need to bring to area together transit will continue to play in the sustainable, efficient,and equitable expansion of our community. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With trwlslt? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more I would like to learn more about using transit I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 4 I Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 4 I Mid-High 5 I High rvan uivvuurnub rtap�u �anm� 5 High 3I Med Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 5 I High Prct Hillsbcisorough Train Station 5 I High 2 I Mid-Low Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this plan? Through the power of their votes,citizens vest elected officials with the responsibility of serving the public interest. Transit is one of the essential Please explain why or why not. We need it to move durham a head foundations of a vibrant,mobile,diverse,and engaged community. If elected officials are interested in producing a community with these characteristics,they'll also be interested in important transit plans. Date Created 2017-04-01 14:59:04 2017-04-02 18:39:00 178 Name Della Doug Last Pollock Clark Which plan are you commenting on?(Both Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? City of Durham City of Durham Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 'sue in W'cpmfr1 0 Y} Are you familiar wi a transit Strongly Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Neutral Strongly Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes No in our community? The demographics of CH/Durham are rapidly Please explain why or why not. changing,with more demand for transit that is Need more and better transit! Like the light rail! speedy,convenient,and modern. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more I would like to learn more about using transit Other RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 4 I Mid-High 4 I Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 4 I Mid-High 4 I Mid-High rvan uivvuurnua rtap,u�,anm� :4 I Mid-High 2 I Mid-Low Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 5 High Pfolsct Hillsborough Train Station 1 I Low 31 Med Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? Because auto congestion is proving a daily hazard. Commuting between Durham and CH I Please explain why or why not. ', see a minimum of 1 congestion-related accident Durham needs a better public transit to match its daily and feel as if I am constantly at risk of the growing population! same. The roads are no longer tenable for the population. Date Created 2017-04-02 22:10:32 2017-04-03 07:33:39 179 Name Ellen Charlie Last Stutts Stanfield Which plan are you commenting on?(Durham County Transit Plan Both Where do you live? City of Durham Orange County Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am a student in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 'sue in 9IU.c9Pmpnuniiv? Are you familiar wi a transit Strongly Agree Strongly Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Strongly Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs"Other Yes in our community? I really hope that we get light rail. However, Please explain why or why not. unless its linked up Wake Co(RDU airport,RTP and Raleigh),its going to be of limited use. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 51 High 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 31 Med 31 Med rvan uivvuurnua rtap,u�,anm� :2 Mid-LOW 5I High Bu�ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 4 Mid-High 5 High Prciect Hillsborough Train Station 21 Mid-Low 21 Mid-Low Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? Our insistence on dealing with traffic congestion Please explain why or why not. with adding more lanes to 1-40 is short sighted. The plan is integral to our growing region and We're a decent-sized area-we need public transports thousands of people every day. transportation that's comparable to other cities. Date Created 2017-04-03 08:50:05 2017-04-03 09:19:47 180 Name Julie Fred Last Kowal Eggleston Which plan are you commenting on?(Durham County Transit Plan Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? City of Durham City of Durham I Which best describes you? am employed outside of Durham or Orange I am retired County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree iRsue in Fur 9mmunit re you Fur iar wi a transit Agree Strongly Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Disagree Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? This is a rapidly growing community which needs forward-looking,development-friendly transit Please explain why or why not. systems. Comparably sized growing communities like Salt Lake City have had very effective light rail systems with connecting bus lines for many years. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 41 Mid-High 31 Med Transit Facility Improvements 31 Med 31 Med rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� 3 Med 31 Med Bu}ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 5 High Proisct Hillsborough Train Station 11 Low 31 Med Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this plan? The chance to secure a billion dollar federal The proposed transit plan has strong potential to infrastructure investment in our future is too good Please explain why or why not. greatly improve transit options and quality of life in an opportunity for us to lose. The contribution to the Triangle. growth and development in the community will be positive for our two great universities and the people of our neighborhoods. Date Created 2017-04-03 09:55:43 2017-04-03 13:36:47 181 Name Alyson Will Last West Senner Which plan are you commenting on?(Orange County Transit Plan Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Carrboro City of Durham Which best describes you? I am a student in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 'sue in {U.9Jnfr10Y} Are you ami lar wi a transit Strongly Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Neutral Do you think this plan aaaresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? Please explain why or why not. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With trwlslt? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 31 Med Transit Facility Improvements 5 I High 31 Med rvan uivvuurnub rtap,u I IgUD�{ 5 High 1 I Low Bu}ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 5 I High Prclsct Hillsborough Train Station 5 I High 31 Med Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? Please explain why or why not. transit is essential for our growing region Critical to develop transit infrastructure to support ongoing population growth Date Created 2017-04-03 15:36:05 2017-04-03 16:13:10 182 Name Sarah Jessie Last Johnson Poteat Which plan are you commenting on?(Orange County Transit Plan Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Carrboro City of Durham Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree lAsue in p{U.c9Jnfrluni�Y} re you'ami lar wi a transit Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Agree Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? Please explain why or why not. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 2 I Mid-Low Transit Facility Improvements 2 I Mid-Low 5 I High rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� 2 Mid-LOW 2I Mid-Low Bu}ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 3 Med 5 I High Pf9isct Hillsborough Train Station 1 I Low 5 I High Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? The population in the triangle is growing and we need to increase our transit infrastructure and This congestion is seriously limiting the triangle's increase our options for types of public ability to grow sustainably. support this plan as transportation available and this plan does both. long as it pursues transportation equity by There is so much business and social connection Please explain why or why not. between wake,orange,and durham county and increasing service in traditionally underserved we need our transit system to accommodate and communities such as the Rogers Road-Eubanks encourage movement between areas.This plan neighborhoods. creates options that will be used for years and years to come.I am especially supportive of options such as a light rail. Date Created 2017-04-03 18:47:04 2017-04-05 21:43:03 183 Name Dan Beth Last Barker Clarke Which plan are you commenting on?(Both Orange County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Hillsborough Orange County Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Agree 'sue in gtir c9mInuniiv? re you familiar wi a transit Agree Agree systen Do you use transit often? Neutral Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? I moved here from Boston which has a wonderful transit system that I used daily for work commute, Please explain why or why not. and also for entertainment to travel to Boston from home so didn't have to stress about driving or parking.I look forward to more mass transit options in the area. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With traflslt? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 41 Mid-High 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 21 Mid-Low 31 Med rvan uivvuurnub rtap�u �anm� 3 Med 31 Med Bu�ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 41 Mid-High 51 High f9 VC Hillsborough Train Station 51 High 51 High Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? The economic development,company headquarters,and jobs attracted by efficient Live in Mebane and it has grown incredibly(as Please explain why or why not. public transportation will benefit Orange-Durham has Hillsborough)since I moved to the area for a long time. This is an excellent time to invent These are wonderful options for everyone in infrastructure to help our future. Date Created 2017-04-06 09:41:19 2017-04-06 12:17:03 184 Name Samuel Joyce Last Tenor Briggs Which plan are you commentingon?(Both Orange County Transit Plan Where do you live? Other Town of Hillsborough Which best describes you? will be moving there in the near future I am retired Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree 'sue i71 {U.9Jnp10Y} Are you am i lar wi a transit Strongly Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs"No No in our community? One day.If not already.Durham,Raleigh,and chapel hill will become one metro soon.So,the region will require train transit.Light Rail or Commuter rail.Raleigh nc's metro area is already This plan does nothing for Hillsborough part of Please explain why or why not. at one million and a half and growing very fast. Orange County.We should not have to pay for Attaching Durham to Raleigh would be by rail Chapel Hill and Durham convenience. transit would make since.Because very soon Hillsborough has nothing to do with it at all these 2 areas will connect at some point.Take care of it now,it would ease traffic a little.Notice I said a little. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more I would like to learn more about using transit I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 3 I Med 4 I Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 3 I Med 4 I Mid-High rvan uivvuurnub rtap,u I IgUD�{ ;3 Med 1 I Low Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 1 Low Prclsct Hillsborough Train Station 3 I Med 1 I Low Would you recommend that your Yes No elected officials aoorove this oleo? Again,not benefit to Hillsborough.Only for big Please explain why or why not. Because its time to act now than later money.Not Hillsborough.Maybe more bus stops, but that's it Date Created 2017-04-06 15:35:02 2017-04-07 00:21:25 185 Name Linda Kathleen Last Spallone Mcandrews Which plan are you commentingon?(Both Both Where do you live? City of Durham City of Durham Which best describes you? I am retired I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Agree Strongly Agree IRsue if)9w cp nfr1 0 Y} re you amp lar wl a transit Strongly Agree Strongly Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Disagree Disagree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs"No No in our community? The Poland to build lite rail is too expensiv and out dated for our community we would be smarted to develop flexible bus routes that serve more of the counties now.Not wait years and tears for anything to happen.We need to have buses It does not go to Raleigh,Rtp,the airport,any Please explain why or why not. going back and forth from large pick up place not malls or any where useful to me! It is slow! a billion dollar do nothing plan for lite rail. It will Expensive,disruptive and by the time it is ready, put us in debt for year beyond usabilty,take us there will be better and agile solutions! out of the forefront of new technologies and hinder our abilities to upgrade our bus routes as needed What would you like to be able to do with transit? Other Other RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 5 I High 5 I High rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� 5 High 5 I High ri �rt1 Burnam Orange Light Rail Transit 1 Low 1 Low Prciect Hillsborough Train Station 2 I Mid-Low 1 I Low Would you recommend that your No No elected officials aoorove this oleo? See comment above? Do not want this out dated! Please explain why or why not. Too expensive,too long to build,to slow Expensive and slow service? Does not go any where...just a land grab. Date Created 2017-04-09 18:29:53 2017-04-09 18:38:36 186 Name Nate Catherine Last Baker Miller Which plan are you commenting on?(Durham County Transit Plan Both Where do you live? City of Durham City of Durham Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am a student in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree lAsue in p{UifFaTiiluni�Y? re you'ami lar wi a transit Neutral Strongly Agree system, Do you use transit often? Disagree Strongly Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? We need a multimodal system.I don't want to image what the Triangle would look like in 20 As the Triangle region continues to grow and Please explain why or why not. years without a light rail system.If there is develop,it will need a modern transit system that anything we need and can support in this area,it serves its growing population and connects is better transit,including light rail. people to centers of opportunity. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 5 I High 4 I Mid-High rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� :5 High 2 I Mid-Low Bu�ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 5�High 5 High Project Hillsborough Train Station 3 I Med 2 I Mid-Low Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? I enthusiastically recommend that our elected There has been public input and expertise from officials approve all aspects of this transit plan.It Please explain why or why not. is a much-needed investment in infrastructure and transportation experts.I recommend approval. will be increasingly necessary in the years to come. Date Created 2017-04-10 17:16:56 2017-04-11 09:16:38 187 Name Katy Morandi Last Lang Hurst Which plan are you commenting on?(Orange County Transit Plan Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Carrboro City of Durham I Which best describes you? I am a student in Durham or Orange County am employed outside of Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree iRsue in Fur 9mmunit re you Fur iar wi a transit Strongly Agree Agree vstem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? It addresses the connectivity issue(not every Please explain why or why not. mode can serve every person-we need light rail, bus connections,paratransit,bike infrastructure, and sidewalks to connect all of us). What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 51 High 4 1 Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 4 1 Mid-High 4 1 Mid-High rvan uivvuurnua rtap,u�,a" ' 3I Med 2I Mid-Low Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 51 High PrOigCt Hillsborough Train Station 21 Mid-Low 31 Med Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this plan? I am a transit rider.I don't have a car.I think its important that the OCBOCC hears from transit users who benefit(and suffer)from the system we have now.Looking long-term,light rail is the option that makes the most sense for our community(and it has been studied and Expanding public transportation will benefit all determined that it is the best option).Orange and Please explain why or why not. residents of different socioeconomic statuses, Durham counties should work together on the while also reducing our environmental impact. funding structure for light rail.If they don't,we could lose out on state and federal funding for the project that would put us worse off.Any major changes to our transportation network will lose years,if not decades,and create further sprawl that puts the Triangle in a worse financial position. Date Created 2017-04-11 15:04:13 2017-04-11 16:21:42 188 Name Anne Ryan Last Ezell Johnson Which plan are you commenting on?(Both Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Hillsborough City of Durham I Which best describes you? Stay at home mom am employed outside of Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 'sue in {U.9Jnfr10Y} Are you familiar wi a transit Disagree Strongly Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Disagree Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes No in our community? Yes, I like how downtown Durham is very well The future of transit must include a very large shift connected on light rail. I don't know Chapel Hill to more rail travel.Cars and roads are simply Please explain why or why not. as well so I can't comnent on those connections. unsustainable,and for so many reasons.The Would love to see Hillsborough connected to most sustainable and effective transit is rail.I downtown Durham and Chapel Hill somehow with dream of a time when I can sell my car and take weekend and evening service. rail only. What would you like to be able to do With transit? I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 3 I Med 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 3 I Med 4 I Mid-High rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� 4 I Mid-High 2 I Mid-Low Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 4 I Mid-High 31 Med Pf9isct Hillsborough Train Station 5 I High 2 I Mid-Low Would you recommend that your Yes Yes,with additions elected officials aoorove this oleo? There are not enough rail options.As a modern With the new Waterstone development in city,one should be able to travel by rail from Hillsborough and Collins Ridge on the horizon,we Durham to the airport to Raleigh to Chapel Hill, Please explain why or why not. will need alternate ways to move about town(bus etc.Trains are the best option for so much of NC. service)and connect to other parts of our county There is simply not enough focus and money and neighboring town for work and entertainment. placed on rail in the plan.Much more train, please. Date Created 2017-04-11 21:28:46 2017-04-11 21:35:42 189 Name David Caroline Last Hardman Stoia Which plan are you commenting on?(Both Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Durham County City of Durham Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am not employed and I am not looking for work Do you believe transit is an important Disagree Strongly Agree iRsue in p{U.c9mmunit re you ami iar wi a transit Strongly Agree Disagree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs"No Yes in our community? The plan is too focused on light rail and will waste transit dollars on a high capital cost and I am new to the area and don't have a very strong maintenance behemoth that is unnecessary and will never be financially viable,due to the low understanding of the specific needs of the area Please explain why or why not. but having lived in larger cities for many years I population density of Orange and Durham think a very good public transportation system is County. This plan does not adequately consider essential for a well functioning city. the impact of ride sharing services and self-driving cars of the future. What would you like to be able to do with transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more Other RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 2 I Mid-Low 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 3 I Med 5 I High rvan uivvuurnua rtapu 31 Med 51 High Burhartri-Orange Light Rail Transit 1 1 Low 5 1 High Pf9i9C1 Hillsborough Train Station 1 I Low 3 I Med Would you recommend that your No Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? This comment was longer than able to be Having great public transportation is an important Please explain why or why not. displayed in this cell.Please see attached part of sustainable development. Good public document. transportation will help curb suburban sprawl and the pollution that comes with it. Date Created 2017-04-13 16:18:19 2017-04-14 08:54:58 190 Name Sydney Sue Last Miller Hunter Which plan are you commentingon?(Both Both Where do you live? City of Durham Town of Chapel Hill Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree lAsue if)pw cp nfr1 0 Y} re you ami lar wi a transit Strongly Agree Strongly Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Neutral Agree Do you think this plan adaresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? Yes-I live in Chapel Hill and commute to work in Please explain why or why not. Durham. I want to see this project built and use it before I retire. What would you like to be able to do with traflSlt? want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High 4 I Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 3 I Med 2 I Mid-Low rvan uivvuurnua rtap�u �anm� 4 Mid-High 31 Med Bu�ham-Orange Light Rail Transit 5�High 5 I High Project Hillsborough Train Station 4 I Mid-High 5 I High Would you recommend that your Yes Yes elected officials aoorove this elan, YES! I've supported this project for 10 years and I urge our elected officials to approve this plan as want to see it built. A small but very vocal a necessary step in the process of developing minority in Orange county opposes commuter rail, effective public" transportation for the Triangle and it's frustrating to see them attack this project. Please explain why or why not. Please don't let this project fail or allow Orange Region.Our world class region"deserves world county to be an outlier. Wake county,Durham class transportation.A bold vision for the Triangle county,Duke and UNC all support commuter rail. requires commitment now. The voters approved the transit tax and we can make this work. Date Created 2017-04-16 07:14:15 2017-04-16 16:53:00 191 Name Shauna D Last Farmer Thanks Which plan are you commenting on?(Orange County Transit Plan Orange County Transit Plan Where do you live? Town of Chapel Hill Town of Carrboro Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Agree 'sue in 9W cpm1nuniiv? re you familiar wl a transit Strongly Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Neutral Neutral Do you trunk title plan aaaresses both current and future transit needs Yes No in'our community? Please explain why or why not. No need for light rail What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With trwlSlt? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 41 Mid-High 51 High Transit Facility Improvements 51 High 31 Med rvan uivvuurnua rtap,u�,anm� 3 Med 41 Mid-High rn�rt1 Burnam Orange Light Rail Transit 5.High 11 Low Prclsct Hillsborough Train Station 31 Med 3 I Med Would you recommend that your Yes No elected officials aoorove this oleo? The current plan would help Durham/Chapel Hill grow responsibly by providing a multi-modal Please explain why or why not. No light rail transportation infrastructure that can adapt and accommodate future growth. Date Created 2017-04-16 21:40:52 2017-04-17 10:23:53 192 Name Carly Rhonda Last Hoffmann Lee Which plan are you commentingon?(Both Both Where do you live? Town of Chapel Hill City of Durham Which best describes you? I am a student in Durham or Orange County I am employed in Durham or Orange County Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Strongly Agree SVe in sre yo 9am p cpmpwr1uniiv? transit Strongly Agree Strongly Agree ystem' Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Neutral Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes Yes in our community? We need more,and better,public transit services in this growing area to improve daily life for Please explain why or why not. residents,and to alleviate the harmful environmental and other effects of our current over-reliance on private transportation. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily I want to be able to get to work or school easily With trwlslt? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) movies,night-life,etc.) I want my dependents(e.g.children,parents)to be able to access our community I want to be able to give up my car or walk/bike more I would like to learn more about using transit RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 5 I High Transit Facility Improvements 4 I Mid-High IYVILII-avutJ1 Dub Rapiu I IgUDJI 4�Mid-High Burnam-Orange Light Rail Transit 5�High Pf9i9C1 Hillsborough Train Station 3 I Med Would you recommend that your Yes elected officials aoorove this oleo? Please explain why or why not. ', Improving public transit is critical for smart growth in our region! Date Created 2017-04-18 09:44:17 193 Name Reese Keith Last McHenry Swisher Which plan are you commenting on?(Both Durham County Transit Plan Where do you live? Other City of Durham Which best describes you? I am employed in Durham or Orange County I am retired Do you believe transit is an important Strongly Agree Agree 'Sue 71W 9P�Inuni v? Are you familiar wl a transit Strongly Agree Agree ystem, Do you use transit often? Strongly Agree Agree Do you think this plan addresses both current and future transit needs Yes No in our community? Escalating co$t$versus a few riders...NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD THE INCREASED TAX WAS FOR...NO(or miniscule)STATE/ FEDERAL FUNDING...Serves very few residents of either county...It totally omits Northern Please explain why or why not. Durham County...It seems not to address reality of"driverless"conveyances powered by hydrogen or solar=FLEETS SERVING ALL OF DURHAM COUNTY.Embarrassed enough about our schools which are losing funding;increasing responsibilties and staffing. What would you like to be able to do I want to be able to get to work or school easily With transit? I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. I want to be able to run errands easily(e.g. grocery shopping,etc.) grocery shopping,etc.) I want to access entertainment(e.g.shopping, movies,night-life,etc.) RANK THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES Bus Service Expansion 3 I Med 4 I Mid-High Transit Facility Improvements 3 I Med 31 Med rvan uivvuurnub rtapu anm� 3 Med 1 I Low rn niii Buram Orange Light Rail Transit 5 High 1 Low Prolgct Hillsborough Train Station 3 I Med 1 I Low Would you recommend that your Yes No elected officials aoorove this oleo? please see above which also states: Escalating co$t$versus a few riders...NOT WHAT WE WERE TOLD THE INCREASED TAX WAS FOR ...NO(or miniscule)STATE/FEDERAL FUNDING...Serves very few residents of either Please explain why or why not. Because a light rail would be wonderful and county...It totally omits Northern Durham County functional for all. ...It seems not to address reality of"driverless" conveyances powered by hydrogen or solar= FLEETS SERVING ALL OF DURHAM COUNTY. Embarrassed enough about our schools which are losing funding;increasing responsibilties and staffing. Date Created 2017-04-18 13:07:31 2017-04-20 01:08:41 194 APPENDIX C.3a: Survey Attachments 195 DAVID HARDMAN COMMENT When I moved to Chapel Hill in 1983, I was enthralled by the Triangle J Council's vision of a light-rail system connecting the major population nodes of the Triangle. Unlike a fine wine, this proposal has spoiled with time, and now that Wake County has rejected light rail as a transit option it's time to stop this train in its tracks. Simply put, Durham and Chapel Hill lack the population density necessary to justify the capital and operating costs of light rail transit (LRT). The project as it is currently conceived is based on fundamentally unsound ridership projections, and if the Charlotte experience with LRT is any guide, will probably not result in any appreciable reduction in traffic congestion between Durham and Chapel Hill. Furthermore, the routing of the proposed light rail track is not aligned with the higher-density compact neighborhood developments in Orange and Chatham counties; including the Ephesus- Fordham, Glenn Lennox and Obey Creek communities. Lastly, there is no incentive to take light rail to reduce travel time between Durham and Chapel Hill, with an estimated LRT time of 42-44 minutes end to end, versus a projected automobile commuting time of 27 minutes in 2040. Academic studies reviewing the cost and feasibility of light rail projects across the U.S. indicate that most of these projects require an annual 70 percent taxpayer subsidy, as the ridership fare collection only supports a small percentage of the annual operating costs. The $1.6 billion capital cost associated with this project ($94 million/mile) is not a responsible use of scare resources for mass-transit development when equally effective and lower-cost alternatives exist. Present and future technologies such as Uber ride-sharing and autonomous smart-driving cars may render much of our current mass-transit systems obsolete, with the promise of cheap and convenient door-to-door service that will trump the inconvenience of walking to a transit stop, or driving to a parking lot and then waiting to catch a bus or train. A research working paper from the University of California-Berkeley, which analyzed urban light-rail mass transit, indicated that a population density of 30 people per gross acre, or roughly 19,000 people per square mile (ppsm), was necessary in order to support LRT. The Chapel Hill-Durham corridor has a population density less than 20 percent of that threshold, with a current density of approximately 3,000 ppsm, which is predicted to rise to 4,000 ppsm in 2035. The ridership projections for the Durham-Orange LRT stretch credulity, with estimated daily boardings of 23,000. This is in contrast to the Charlotte LRT system, with daily boardings of 16,000 —which has been static since inception in 2007, while the population has increased 17 percent, with no measurable decrease in traffic congestion — in an area with a population 70 percent larger than the Triangle! These ridership projections are further inflated with the working assumption that 40 percent of households in the Durham-Chapel Hill corridor will not own automobiles in 2040, which flies in the face of current ownership levels and assumes a tectonic shift in public behavior. The Robertson Scholars Express Bus between Duke University and UNC runs every 30 minutes between campuses for 16 hours each weekday, yet averages only five riders per bus on a 40 passenger bus. Data from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey of Commuting traffic flows indicates a mere 1,259 mass transit daily commuters cross between Durham and Orange County lines. Is it plausible that LRT would boost that demand by ten-fold as the ridership projections assume? Let's learn from Wake County and make smart and affordable choices for our community by rejecting LRT. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/chn- opinion/article44759529.html#storylink=cpy 196 APPENDIX C.4: Resolutions 197 A motion was made by Alderman Seils, seconded by Alderman Chaney to approve the resolution below. A RESOLUTION OFFERING COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN WHEREAS, the Orange County Transit Plan demonstrates the county's commitment to a public transit system through 2045; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Transit Plan identifies four dedicated revenue streams to fund the projects and services in the Plan: the half-cent sales tax, the vehicle rental tax, the three- dollar vehicle registration fee, and the seven-dollar vehicle registration fee; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, and on April 22, 2014, the Board of Aldermen adopted resolutions identifying capital projects to enhance access to transit. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen that the Board makes the following comments on the draft Orange County Transit Plan (dated March 31, 2017) and directs staff to convey this information to GoTriangle representatives, to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board through the Town's liaisons, and to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. 1) The Board of Aldermen supports transit improvements and is cognizant of citizen concerns relating to the increasing costs for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit project and the North- South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit project, as well as the potential need to reallocate funding for other transportation projects such as bike and pedestrian improvements, which may provide more direct benefit to Carrboro residents. Timely dissemination of updates relating to both the cost and scheduling of these projects will be critical to their success moving forward. Enhanced feeder bus services and access improvements, including direct access, that will enable Carrboro residents to utilize these transit projects to the same extent as their neighbors will likewise be essential. 2) Itemize in the Plan the following access improvements located in Carrboro, some of which were erroneously omitted from the draft Plan: a) sidewalk on South Greensboro Street; b) Morgan Creek Greenway; c) corridor study of Estes Drive; d) sidewalks and bike lanes on Estes Drive; e) sidewalk on West Main Street between Fidelity Street and Poplar Street; and f) HAWK signal on NC Highway 54. 3) Include a chart showing the Durham County fund balances, similar to the chart showing the Orange County fund balances. 4) Attach the appendices to the main document. 198 5) Given changes in the projected state and federal contributions to the Plan, be clearer about the current expected cost burden for Orange County. 6) Clearly identify strategies to address potential revenue shortfalls if dedicated sources provide lower revenues than projected. This the 4th day of April, 2017 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven-O'Donnell, Alderman Slade, Alderman Chaney, Alderman Seils, Mayor Lavelle, and Alderman Johnson This the 4th day of April, 2017 The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Alderman Gist, Alderman Haven-O'Donnell, Alderman Slade, Alderman Chaney, Alderman Seils, Mayor Lavelle and Alderman Johnson I, Catherine Dorando, Town Clerk for the Town of Carrboro,NC do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Carrboro Board of Aldermen. oroatmn`5.7, ry Wei451/ O RPQ , own Clerk 1911 *741 ClAr 199 APPENDIX D : Moody's Sales Tax Forecast 1011 0.0 0.0 MOODY'S ANALYTICS November 2016 IN 0 IIR III""`III°°°°III CAIRO III III IIN Revenue Outlook: Durham and Orange County Article 43 Tax Collections 000,1,,,0 ed by 1730°010100 WO»00 0 10103Aa°11 uuuonolO3 All aoouOL 0 000°0 00y11,1 30od la 3110If,3I'"1 3031).( usL 1 Co)I knoonsL A000so)C r;?L'I CfnknriAL +(I I n r'.:, r?lb +(I I n?1, r r'Qi'3 -f-Qi"I f`1?1, r"I In 1� loll iii% � � 'Imm111111111411111111111 poolOOlOOO11111111111111111111111111111111111O1O1O1O1O1O1O1O1O1O1O1OlOill'( ( illll'ilA i oolooloolovill Ilmmmdmil 11 Iv II 11 I 111,111111111111111111111 11111 opal l� ����� r�� 11 201 MOODY'S ANALYTICS Co � Is c �� S C IV'" C C s iii iiiiii� � iii iii This section provides information on a subset of solutions CLIENT SERVICES from Moody's Analytics.Visit moodysanalytics.com for a Representatives are available: 7AM to 7PM EST (12PM-12AM GMT), Mon-Fri. full listing of all solutions offered by the company. Email help@economy.com or contact us at a location below: U.S.&Canada +1.866.275.3266 or+1.610.235.5299 ECONOMIC FORECAST DATABASES EMEA (London) +44.20.7772.1646 (Prague) +420.224.222.929 Global Macro Forecast Database* Asia/Pacific +61.2.9270.8111 Global Metropolitan Areas Forecast Database U.S.Macro Forecast Database* WORLDWIDE OFFICES U.S.State Forecast Database* West Chester U.S.Metropolitan Areas Forecast Database* 121 N.Walnut St.,Suite 500,West Chester PA 19380 +1.610.235.5000 U.S.State&Metro Detailed Employment Forecast Database United Kingdom U.S.County Forecast Database U.S.County Detailed Employment Forecast Database One Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London E14 5FA +44.20.7772.5454 Case Shillero Home Price Indexes*(U.S.) Australia CreditForecast.com* (U.S.) Levet 10,1 O'Connell Street,Sydney,NSW,2000 Australia +61.2.9270.8111 Forecasts of RCA CPPITM Prague Housing Stock Forecast Database(U.S.) Washingtonova 17,110 00 Prague 1,Czech Republic +420.224.222.929 RealtyTrac Foreclosures(U.S.) ECONOMIC HISTORICAL DATABASES Global National&Subnational Database U.S.National&Regional Database American Bankers Association Delinquency Database(U.S.) Case-Shillero Home Price Indexes(U.S.) CoreLogic Home Price Indexes(U.S) CreditForecast.com(U.S.) LPS Home Price Indexes(U.S.) National Association of Realtors: Pending Home Sales(U.S.) ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE Monthly Supply of Homes(U.S.) Our two-day flagship event,providing comprehensive insight on all the components rr,,��rid rr7r;�s� rir�riast�,ur��r1 r�,r(renl��a<<,�rr,����,�h� r��ascrf,rir�r�st. that drive macro and regional economies. Philadelphia PA May 2017 ECONOMIC MODELS&WORKSTATIONS U.S.Macro&State Model U.S.Regional Workstation REGIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE Wor World Workstation A full day event,providing comprehensive insight on the components that drive Moody's CreditCycleTM regional economies. West Chester PA November 1,2016 ECONOMIC RESEARCH Visit www.economy.com/events for listings,details and registration. Economy.com(Global) Précis®Macro(U.S.) ECONOMIC BRIEFINGS Precise Metro(U.S.) Précis®State (U.S.) Half-and full-day events designed to provide comprehensive insight on the macro Regional Financial Review® and regional economies. REGIONAL ECONOMIC BRIEFINGS ECONOMIC ADVISORY SERVICES Half-day events designed to provide detailed insight into an individual area's current Client Presentations and expected economic conditions. Consumer Credit Analytics Credit Risk Management SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS Custom Scenarios Economists at Moody's Analytics are available for your engagement.Our team of Economic Development Analysis economists has extensive experience in making presentations on a variety of topics, Market Analysis including:macro outlook,consumer outlook,credit cycles,banking,housing/real estate, Product Line Forecasting stress testing,sovereign credit,and regional economies.Contact us for more information. Stress-Testing 202 REVENUE OUTLOOK Durham and Orange County Article 43 Tax Collections Revenue Outlook: Durham and Orange County Article 43 Tax Collections By DAN vA"I ttAAMOONt..VAAII II II AND F MOON' II IAII lI::lII he following revenue outlook Links Durham and Orange County Article 43 sales tax coLLections to measures of underlying economic growth in an effort to better understand and anticipate future funding levels.A healthy Labor market and strong income growth wiLL fuel robust tax coLLections throughout the forecast. Collections wiLL grow more strongly in Durham County because of stronger private-sector job and population gains. Orange County's Large government presence wiLL drive slower job creation and consequent coLLections. tcgli utof e ul quti lation growth will spur above-average gains Bay Area and Northeast draw firms to the North Carolina's economic growth has in higher-paying employment.Though much RTP(see Chart 4).For example,Cohera cooled considerably after a strong start to of this will continue to come in professional Medical is moving its headquarters to Ra- the year,though job gains still best the U.S. services and—despite recent struggles— Leigh from Pittsburgh and Arbiom is setting average and track those of the South.Ser- finance,an increasing share will come up a new research and development center vice-providing payrolls are expanding at a from tech. in Durham. healthy pace,although performance across The Research Triangle Park will remain Thanks to still-low interest rates and industries is uneven. Professional/business the backbone of North Carolina's high- healthy risk appetite,venture capital is being services and trade/transportation/utilities tech industry,an important growth engine put to work in North Carolina and helping are increasing at an above-average rate, throughout the forecast. In 2015 the state firms such as Bivarus and Windsor Circle leisure/hospitality payrolls are contracting, ranked in the top 10 for growth in high tech, expand.North Carolina firms received more and financial service payrolls have leveled churning out net new jobs faster than Mas- than$700 million in venture capital over the off(see Charts 1 and 2).Less than half of in- sachusetts and Colorado and only slightly last four quarters,up 40%from the prior dustries are contributing to job growth, but more slowly than California.The Durham four-quarter period and 10th highest in the a tighter job market is still leading to wage and Raleigh metro areas,which together nation.Startup incubators and accelerators gains(see Chart 3). house the RTP,accounted for nearly half of such as the Hamner Institutes for Health Longer term,a generally good invest- the state's tech job gains last year.A large Sciences and the Triangle Startup Factory ment climate and faster than average popu- pool of talent and lower costs than in the bode well for growth. Chart 1: Professional/Business Services Lead Chart 2: Banking and Tourism Hit the Brakes Professional/business services employment, %change yr ago North Carolina employment,the 6 475 222 470 A' 220 m o, 465 — �A r 4 \ a 1 460 218 455 — 216 � �m d ®„ 450 214 2 445 — �, ., 212 440 -- —Leisure/hospitality(L) 1 210 North Carolina U.S. —All other NC industries 435 � � Financial activities(R) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 430 1 I I 1 I 208 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 Sources:BLS,Moody'sAnalytics Sources:BLS,Moody'sAnalytics MC)ODY AMAIYIIC``.li / 1mmj-rM201h 1 203 REVENUE OUTLOOK Durham and Orange County Article 43 Tax Collections Chart 3: Tightening Labor Market Boosts Wages Chart 4: Durham Positioned for Tech Growth % 10 4 -6 -1 olo uoomRisk of job loss,North Carolina(R) 8 Hourly wage,change yr ago,North Carolina(L) p 6 l o,,I Hourly wage,change yr ago,U.S.(L) 3 2 � d� °111110 1 10 —I z �� 3 4 / ,` �f r°o 2 ' ? 12 .„„„„„„private sector hourly wage,diff btn �� 4 0 fl �� ����� I,, �� Durham and San Francisco metro tll m um�P16��°,p� 1 -14 areas,$(L) Iv �����4��� mmm uuuu -5 �����������mimuuV ����������� ������������������������������������ �� 01111,1,111111111111111 odd ullll�����i���������� Iuuuu Corporate income tax,diff btn North umuullll ��V IIV�� Carolina and California,ppts(R) -4 .�.,��uuli �����uuuuulluu�������� ��muullllullll��������� 1ru�1uuuuulluu������Y um��uuuluul�i 0 -16 -6 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Sources:BLS,ETA,Moody's Analytics Sources:BLS,Tax Foundation,Moody'sAnalytics North Carolina's banks,on the other more households are forming now that the as explanatory variables. Because of the hand,will expand at a measured pace as tightening job market is generating faster delay between initial sales and distributable improving household balance sheets and income growth.More people will be willing proceeds, both independent variables were accelerating wage growth drive stronger de- and able to buy homes,and with supplies found to have the strongest explanatory mand for consumer credit.Wells Fargo and tight and prices rising, builders will turn more power when lagged by one quarter. Bank of America,which together account for aggressive and the recent lull in construc- Orange County collections display an er- one-quarter of the state's finance and incur- tion employment will prove short-lived (see ratic seasonal pattern,with a tremendous ance jobs,will benefit from stronger demand Chart 5). amount of volatility that is not always corre- for home loans in the coming years despite In total, North Carolina economic growth Fated with underlying measures of economic rising interest rates. will accelerate in the near term thanks to growth.This is likely due to the large tax- This increased demand for housing thanks more spending by consumers and businesses, exempt presence in the county,which can to strong demographics and even stronger which will benefit from bigger wage gains create distortions between what is occurring income gains ahead will also manifest it- and declining costs,respectively. Longer in the economy and what ultimately comes self in faster homebuilding.Construction is term,a diverse industrial structure, low in the door in the form of revenues.Durham poised to take off and take the baton from costs,and educated workforce will attract County collections,by contrast,were found manufacturing as the engine of growth in a wide range of capital and help the state to have a much more stable and consistent goods-producing industries.Supply and to outperform the national average and seasonal pattern. demand fundamentals are much improved its neighbors. Historical collections growth rates for compared with this time last year,sug- Article 39 and Article 43 collections were gesting a bigger boost from housing in Sales tax f r'ecast compared for both counties,and found to the quarters ahead. Population growth is Methodology.With only three full years be extremely similar despite the inclusion steadily ahead of the national average,and of data,Article 43 collections were impos- of food and medical purchases in one series sible to forecast and not the other.After the determination Chart 5: Housing Market Has Room to Grow directly,and the of an appropriate forecast for Article 39 Durham County,the more established collections,the results were then fitted to 7 Article 39 collec- historical Article 43 values to provide the 6 tions history was county-level forecasts.A Monte Carlo simu- used as a proxy. Fation was then used to create optimistic and 5 to Separate regres- pessimistic scenarios based on probabilities lions were per- encompassing 85%of potential outcomes ,m formed for each (see Charts 6 and 7). 3 / county utilizing Forecast.Sales tax collections will grow count level at a health pace in both Durham and Or- I2 uuuuuHousing completions Y- Y P Net household creation personal dispos- ange counties.Although the short history 1 able income and available for Article 43 collections demon- 10 15 20F 25F 30F 35F metro area hour- strates considerable volatility,strong under- Sources:Census Bureau,Moody'sAnalytics ing completions lying economic drivers will yield a consistent mC)CCf";Y ,ANAIYIIC'i / Lol ryi'RI 11.(,)20 II(, 2 204 REVENUE OUTLOOK Durham and Orange County Article 43 Tax Collections Chart 6: Durham County Scenarios Chart 7: Orange County Scenarios Article 43 collections,fiscal yr, mil Article 43 collections,fiscal yr, mil 30 8 ow Low Baseline High Baseline -High g 25 6 20 /"/ 5 ;: 4 15 - „,/,'''' 3 11,1 1111 II 10 1 5 I 1 I 1 I 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 20F 25F 30F 35F 40F 45F 15 20F 25F 30F 35F 40F 45F Sources:GoTriangle,Moody's Analytics Sources:GoTriangle,Moody's Analytics upward trend.Orange County Article 43 collections will turn around this year.The also improve in Durham County, but a rela- collections underperformed through much past year's weak comparative base will drive tively strong performance in fiscal 2016 will of fiscal 2016, but the economy's underlying especially strong gains for Orange County in deliver slower,steadier gains in fiscal 2017. strength and tight labor market ensure that the coming year. Near-term collections will Longer term, however, Durham will be the stronger of the two.Over the coming decade Durham County tax collections will Table 1: Durham County Growth Forecast settle into an average of 4.1%year-to-year Article 43 distributable proceeds, %change yrago growth,while Orange County will lag slightly at around 3.5%(see Tables 1 and 2). Drivers.Sales tax collections will be sup- Low Baseline High ported by a number of factors,with growth FY2017 5.0 6.2 6.8 underpinned by a strong labor market.Dis- FY2018 5.0 6.2 6.8 posable personal income has consistently proved to be a reliable driver of consumer FY2019 6.1 7.3 7.9 spending. Prospects are quite bright in both FY2020-FY2029 2.8 4.1 4.7 counties,with disposable personal income FY2030-FY2039 3.1 4.3 4.9 expected to rise at well above the national pace(see Chart 8). Durham benefits from FY2040-FY2046 3.5 4.7 5.4 a number of dynamic industries,and the Research Triangle Park will propel high-wage Sources:GoTriangle,Moody's Analytics job growth.Wages will also pick up across industries,as the county's tightening labor Table 2: Orange County Growth Forecast market leads businesses to compete for workers.As consumers see their take-home Article 43 distributable proceeds, %change yr ago pay rise,they will increase spending on retail, recreation and housing. Low Baseline High Income gains will be slightly slower in FY2017 8.7 9.4 10.1 Orange County.The county will also benefit FY2018 3.9 C 5.3 from falling unemployment and rising wages, but the county's large public sector,an- FY2019 5.0 5.7 6.4 chored by the University of North Carolina at FY2020-FY2029 2.8 3.5 4.2 Chapel Hill,will weigh on top-line job growth FY2030-FY2039 3.0 3.7 4.4 (see Chart 9).The public sector tends to ex- pand more slowly in good times, but also will FY2040-FY2046 3.4 4.1 4.8 experience smaller declines during economic Sources:GoTriangle,Moody's Analytics downturns. However,the tax exempt status of the university and accompanying medical Iw14)0.CwY wAl) L.YIIC'i / Lolly''RI 1C.(,)20IC, 3 205 REVENUE OUTLOOK )) Durham and Orange COUOtv/\rti[[e 43 Tax Collections Chart 8: Rising Incomes Will Fuel Spending Chart 9: Low Industrial Diversity Risk to Growth Disposable personal income, % Public sector share in total payrolls, %,2015 8 60 —Orange Durham —U.S. 30 -- 5 20 -- --- --- 4 10 -- --- --- --- --- 3 0 2 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Orange Person Chatham North Durham 15 20F 25F 30F County County County Carolina County Sources.yex.m"w''sx"°/yti= Sources.BLS,m"wv's*"°/yti= center Lessens the overaR pooL for coRec- nomic impact of buiLding.New housing con- Strong popuLation gains,particuLarLy in tions,increasing seasonaL variations,and struction requires significant expenditures on Durham County,are fueLing robust demand. creating a more voLatiLe revenue series, durable goods.This includes building materi- The improving Labor market wiLL aLso boost In addition to consumer activity,construc- aEs and the significant spending that goes into househoLd formation in the near term,further dnn plays an outsize role in determining sales furnishing a newly built house.HnmehuiN- supporting home saLes.Its more dynamic tax collections.The model utilizes housing ing has picked up significantLy over the past demographic profile will also help Durham compLetions to account for the positive eco- year,but there is further room for growth. County outperform throughout the forecast. w000vsAwAI Y I IC s / cnm/nommzn Ia 4 206 t ut tit . dy's m ic)c.)n sAI"`Attic elp,; capital IPIa rkelei a ld Credit I"IC+IW Plarlage ler It aIrOir ,CMCMIf..)I"'IarrivVO ldvVfdt' redaria Id tO aI evolvir ig rrr,] 1 etpl7c e with confidence_ With its team of economists, the coIypmy offers unique tools f7llct best practices s to measuring f.7llct rirr, I f7 ing risk through expertise 7llc.1 experience in credit f7lr ly is, economic research, f7llci financr l risk aIaI Iage PICT i t. By otterir ig lC'adi ig-edge software arid advisory services, as well as the proprietary credit eCMea ch produced ed by Moody's Investors Service, Moody's Analytics integrates llc1 customizes its offerings to f7ciciress specific. Concise and timely economic research by Moody's Analytics supports firms and policymakers in strategic planning, product and sales forecasting, credit risk and sensitivity management, and investment research. Our economic research publications provide in-depth analysis of the global economy, including the U.S. and all of its state and metropolitan areas, all European countries and their subnational areas,Asia, and the Americas.We track and forecast economic growth and cover specialized topics such as labor markets, housing, consumer spending and credit, output and income, mortgage activity,demographics, central bank behavior, and prices.We also provide real-time monitoring of macroeconomic indicators and analysis on timely topics such as monetary policy and sovereign risk. Our clients include multinational corporations, governments at all levels, central banks,financial regulators, retailers, mutual funds, financial institutions, utilities, residential and commercial real estate firms, insurance companies, and professional investors. Moody's Analytics added the economic forecasting firm Economy.com to its portfolio in 2005.This unit is based in West Chester PA,a suburb of Philadelphia,with offices in London, Prague and Sydney. More information is available at „econoo~ : u . Moody's Analytics is a subsidiary of Moody's Corporation (NYSE: MCO). Further information is available at oo 's II m�.t i Moody's is an essential component of the global capital markets, providing credit ratings, research,tools and analysis that contribute to transparent and integrated financial markets. Moody's Corporation (NYSE: MCO) is the parent company of Moody's Investors Service,which provides credit ratings and research covering debt instruments and securities, and Moody's Anaiytics,which encompasses the growing array of Moody's nonratings businesses, including risk management software for financial institutions, quantitative credit analysis tools, economic research and data services, data and analytical tools for the structured finance market, and training and other professional services.The corporation,which reported revenue of$3.5 billion in 2015, employs approximately 10,400 people worldwide and maintains a presence in 36 countries. ©2016,Moody's Analytics, Moody's,and all other names, logos,and icons identifying Moody's Analytics and/or its products and services are trademarks of Moody's Analytics, Inc.or its affiliates.Third-party trademarks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners.All rights reserved.ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED,TRANSFERRED,DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.All information contained herein is obtained by Moody's from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable.Because of the possibility of human and mechanical error as well as other factors,however,all information contained herein is provided"AS IS"without warranty of any kind. Under no circumstances shall Moody's have any liability to any person or entity for(a)any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by,resulting from,or relating to,any error(negligent or otherwise)or other circumstance or contingency within or outside the control of Moody's or any of its directors,officers,employees or agents in connection with the procurement,collection, compilation,analysis,interpretation,communication,publication or delivery of any such information,or(b)any direct,indirect,special,consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever(including without limitation,lost profits),even if Moody's is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages,resulting from the use of or inability to use,any such information.The financial reporting,analysis,projections,observations,and other information contained herein are,and must be construed solely as,statements of opinion and not statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell,or hold any securities. NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,AS TO THE ACCURACY,TIMELINESS,COMPLETENESS,MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER. Each opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein,and each such user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation prior to investing. 1111 I® L IIII 1r li'l 01 1111F1 II o illI V I I l u u il I V 111111 111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 III 1111111 11 l Iu 1111111111 H1111111 luul r� IIIII� u�II I"�'ry��pp W r' IOI6I WW W W W W WW a Ana ea .II^� 0 III.:.II !U;W!U:".11 l !U MOODY'S ANALYTICS ATTACHMENT E 208 11010141, ,00.14 gel\ k 9n - le kkaoo Nui,00 (onneclIng all pomtc of the, Tridnyle April 25, 2017 The Honorable Mark Dorosin Chair of Orange County Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Commissioner Dorosin, I understand that the Orange County Commissioners have requested to meet with GoTriangle and the DCHC MPO in order to renegotiate the terms related to allocation of bus revenues in the Interlocal Implementation Agreement for Orange County Bus s a d Rail Investment Plan, executed on terms of the Interlocal Implementation Agreement. We suggest that the three p arties to the agreement, GoTriangle, Orange County, and DCHC MPO invite Chapel Hill Transit Partners to participate in the negotiations. Further, we suggest that we meet initially prior to June 30, 2017 and aim to complete the negotiations otiations in before November 2017, advance of development of the draft t FY2019 annual i work plan contemplated in the 2017 Orange County Transit Plan. We appreciate the effort that you, Commissioner Jacobs, and Orange County staff have put into development of Orange County Transit Plan plan and the Cost- Share Agreement for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit We look forward to our continued work together with the Boar d of Commissioners and the staff as we implement the Plan. Sincerely, -1/17444444"- Jeff Mann General Manager cc: Orange County Commissioners Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Travis Myren, Orange County Assistant Manager Theo Letman, Orange County Director of Transportation Felix Nwoko, DCHC MPO Executive Director 11111111111111111111 111111111 10111111111111111111111 Roger Stancil, Chapel Hill Town Manager Brian 010 Litchfield, Chapel Hill Transit Director VVVVvvvvvvv 01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110101111110,01111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I /000"111, 000000000......1 1111(, www 0L 0 10,00 0,, 0.00000, 0.0000 I