The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda - 01-21-20 12-8 - Information Item - Memorandum-Greater Triangle Commuter Rail (GTCR) Update 1 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 131 W. Margaret Lane (919) 245-2575 Suite 201 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181 www.orangecountync.gov NORTH CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director CC: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager DATE: January 16, 2020 SUBJECT: Greater Triangle Commuter Rail (GTCR) Update Attached for your information is an update to the GTCR study that preliminarily evaluated the Mebane to Selma rail corridor for commuter service. Last year, the Board of Commissioners amended the Orange County Transit Plan to include $75,000 to partner with Durham, Wake, and Johnston counties to update an alternatives analysis for the Greater Triangle Commuter Rail project. This study represents a preliminary evaluation of using the existing rail corridor used by Amtrak and freight for commuter service. The total cost of related studies on the rail corridor and major investment study (MIS) to date is approximately $1.7 million. The study evaluates initial • Ridership • Cost of improvements (i.e. additional track, stations, and bridges) • Operating costs • Federal Funding Scoring There have been over 15 meetings with project management partners including four counties, GoTriangle, MPOs, and NC Railroad. Results of the study are now being shared with governing boards of all partners. The results of the study indicate that a connection between Durham and Wake Counties may score well enough to qualify for federal funding while connections that include Orange County would not score well enough. The attached PowerPoint illustrates the likely scores. (See the table on Page 21 of this document). Enclosures: Attachment 1 — GTCR Preliminary Results PowerPoint TIF 0 R w A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Commuter Rail Update January • • a 3 Greater Triangle Commuter Rail Study Update of Alternatives Analysis and Further Study Draft/Preliminary Findings Snapshot 4 Note The Greater Triangle Commuter Rail project needs additional study, coordination, and public engagement prior to project design and implementation. In the coming months, elected officials will consider whether to proceed with this additional study. GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Commuter Rail Background 5 The Commuter Rail Transit project, as originally included ina�,- ' st riea� the Wake and Durham county -�- m '° 1 � transit plans, would run 37 miles ' a f�. 1 .f from Garner to downtown r Nanh R7P. Raleigh, N.C. State, Cary, roC P Morrisville and the Research Triangle Park continuing to 70 nsmie h 1 downtown Durham. } esr Cary fD0wn'mwV ram Wosr 64 ati Ca^Y3 <Sny I e fsfglh Llhion The current plan calls for: ; �Evaluating up to eight trips in d01 h Ra (I` ' �° each direction during peak hours SMr with up to two trips each way 1y5 �-- �`°r °E2Mgr f 10 during midday and evening hours, for a total of twenty GC FORWARD weekday round trips. A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 6 WhyIs This StudyBeingConducted ? • Give elected officials the data needed to decide whether to take the project to the next phase of development • Examine scenarios adding Johnston County/Selma and Orange County/Mebane • Refresh and update ridership estimates, infrastructure assumptions, and cost estimates that were included in prior high- level planning studies • Identify additional activities necessary before initiating project design and implementation GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 7 Who is ConductingStudy?This Project Management Partners: • Wake County • Durham County • Johnston County • Orange County • Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization • Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization • Research Triangle Foundation • North Carolina Railroad Company • GoTriangle GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Altentatives Ana Develop Conceptsw Perform Preliminary Operations Analysis w Obtain Local Funding Commitment Planning Screen and Identity Alternatives for Further Study Test and Refine Alternatives Obtain Concept Concurrence and initial Agreements Preliminary Adopt Preferredl(/'`�\I Engineering Alternative\ Initiate Informal NEPA Scoping ^� Perform Ad iinaf Operatons Analysis DVe ign DesoConceptual Design Obtain NEPA Class \../ of Action Initiate Formal NEPA Scoping Complete Preliminary Design Obtain Preliminary 0 Final Agreemerrts Design Complete NEPA O Advance Designe � '0 Finalize Local Agreements o Begin Property Acquisition \ O • Prepareructio ro Construction Procurement Secure Federal 1 Funding 0 Construction Complete\e Property Acquisition Construct Infrastructure Test Systems o Commission Systems Operate Pre- Revenue Service 0- Altentatives Analysis Develop Conceptsw Perform Preliminary Operations Analysis w Obtain Local Funding Commitment Planning Screen and Identify Alternatives for Further Study Test and Refine Alternatives Obtain to Concurrencence and nitiai Agreements Prel in Adopt Preferred Engineerin Alternative Initiate Informal NEPA Scoping ^� Perform Ad iinaf Operatons Analysis Dve evelop Conceptual Design Obtain NEPA ctass ion \../ of Action Initiate Formal NEPA Scoping Complete \✓ Preliminary Design Obtain Preliminary �.../ 44 Agreemetrts 00 0 Final �� 1 Design CompleteNEPA1 1..../// O�► A C Advance Design 00 • Finalize Local ' Agreementso .10 Begin Property Acquisition Prepare for O• Construction Procurement Secure Federal Funding 0 Construction 1 • Complete\� Property Acquisition Construct Infrastructure Test Systems o Commission Systems Operate Pre- Revenue Service 0- Pre- Sue planning Perform Alternatives Analysis Develop Concepts Perform Preliminary Operations Analysis Obtain Local Funding Commitment Planning Screen and Identify 0 Alternatives for O00 Further Study ?AE Test and Refine Alternatives Obtain Concept A Concurrence and0 O Vj— Initial Agreements �� C Adopt Preferred Alternative 0 r'o� .•J 0 Preliminary Engineering Existing Rail Corridor Freight Rail - Heavy Rail • Freight operation constitutes the movement of goods and P. cargo in freight rolling stock (e.g., boxcars, flatcars), which = .. I are typically hauled by diesel-powered locomotives. --- ---- • The North Carolina Railroad Company (NCRR) owns the r 317-mile corridor and Class I freight rail provider Norfolk Southern operates and maintains the railroad through a long-term lease with NCRR --------- Intercity Rail - Heavy Rail, Shared Track 's. • Intercity transit mode services covering longer distances titM than commuter or regional trains • The main provider of intercity passenger rail service in the U.S. is Amtrak • Four intercity passenger service routes run on the North Carolina Railroad including the Carolinian and the Piedmont which are sponsored by NCDOT The North Carolina Railroad is built for the service it currently offers Added capacity, including commuter rail, would require additional infrastructure, including added tracks 4 GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 12 Finding: All Scenarios Necessitate Another Track • Existing/Planned Traffic • 27 freight and intercity passenger trains per day • Scenario 1 : Three round trips in the peak periods • +14 commuter trains per day (7 round trips) • Scenario 2 : Five round trips in the peak periods • +24 commuter trains per day ( 12 round trips) • Scenario 3 : Eight round trips in the peak periods • +40 commuter trains per day (20 round trips) GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 13 Busiest Stations in Raleigh and Durham 00 ( 00 Note: circle sizes are relative to the number of boardings at stations within each jurisdiction Ja GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 14 Busiest Stations in Wake and Durham Counties Durham 0 Note: circle sizes are relative to the number of boardings at stations within each county. Vic:: RWARD IN IN TRANSIT 15 This is a PreliminaryFeasibilityStudy • Further detailed railroad capacity modeling would be needed to confirm infrastructure requirements • Cost estimates require further definition o Cost estimates are planning-level o No engineering has been performed yet as part of this study o Cost estimates would be refined once preliminary engineering work and railroad capacity modeling is completed • Ridership estimates would require further refinement GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 16 Evaluated Eight Scenarios End Points Round Range of Cap. O&M Cost Range of Trips • • 119$] Ridership Durham-Garner 8-2-8-2 $1.413 — $1.813 $29M 7.51K — 10K Durham-Garner 5-1-5-1 $1.413 — $1.813 $20M 5K — 7.5K Durham-Garner 3-1-3 $1.413 — $1.713 $13M 4.51K — 6K Mebane-Selma 8-2-8-2 $2.513 — $3.213 $57M 8K — 11.5K Mebane-Selma 5-1-5-1 $2.513 — $3.213 $40M 6K — 9K Mebane-Selma 3-1-3 $2.3B — $3.113 $26M 5K — 7.5K Hillsb.-Clayton 8-2-8-2 $1.813 — $2.413 $44M (+$15M) 8K — 11.5K Durham-Clayton 8-2-8-2 $1.613 — $2.113 $37M (+$8M) 7.5K — 10K ■ Current Wake Transit Plan assumes $1.33B capital cost for Durham-Garner 8-2-8-2 • • • - • itu re D. • Ridership: verageurrentearzonearorecast GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT 17 Funding Capacity Needs federal funding to be affordable Orange: Incremental cost to include Hillsborough and/ or Mebane is large relative to est. ridership Johnston: Would require significant additional new revenue Durham and Wake: Affordability will depend on: o Cost share o Prioritization versus other investments o Ability to control costs 18 Project Must Meet Set Criteria for Federal Funding The Federal Transit Administration publishes guidelines for project evaluation and rating as a part of the Federal New Starts program To be eligible for federal funding, projects must score a Medium overall rating across a range of pre-determined categories assessing financial factors, ridership and travel demand projections, and corridor characteristics (e.g. population and employment) 4111 GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT dt Mobility Improvements (16.66%) y Environmental Benefits I (16.66%) Congestion Relief (1&r36%) 1 1 Project Justification' Cost-Effectiveness I (50% of Overall Rating) (16.66%) i .. t be �Economic Development , -Medium or better Ovefail Rating Land use I Overall Project Rating (16.66%) Current Condition (25%) � Local Financial � Commitment of Funds Commitment, (25%) (50%of Overall Rating) � Reliability/Capacity (60%) FORWARDGO COMMUNITY • . 20 Driven by �Six Project Justification Factors Criterion Description Based on Cost Estimates and Ridership Modeling Calculated Based on Average of Current Year (2018) and Horizon Year (2040) Models Mobility Total annual trips on the project, with trips of riders from zero-car Improvements households doubled Environmental Monetized benefit of change in vehicle miles traveled, divided by Benefits annualized cost (capital and O&M) Congestion Relief New weekday trips on the project Cost Effectiveness Total annual project trips divided by annualized cost (capital and O&M) Criteria Based on Corridor Characteristics Economic Qualitative score based on city and county- adopted plans and policies, Development their performance, the potential of the project to impact development patterns and affordable housing plans and policies. Quantitative and qualitative score based on existing station area Land Use population density, jobs, affordable housing, central business district parking ratio and cost, and built environment characteristics 21 Lower Service and Higher Cost Scenarios Do Not Score Well Mebane-Selma 8-2-8-2 - • • Medium - • • Mebane-Selma 5-1-5-1 - • • Weak Medium - • • Mebane-Selma 3-1-3 - • Uo VIMWeak Medium - • • Durham-Garner 8-2-8-2 Me d ium Medium - • • Durham-Garner 5-1-5-1 Weak Medium Weak Medium - • • Durham-Garner 3-1-3 Weak Medium Weak Medium - • • Hillsb.-Clayton 8-2-8-2 Weak Medium Medium - • • Durham-Clayton 8-2-8-2 Medium Medium - • • Note: Scenarios rated as "Weak Medium" are projected to score at the low end of the Medium range, meaning that if any single component score is reduced, the overall score would fall below the eligibility requirements To be = ' funding,must GO FORWARD rating A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT • - Medium 22 Peer Comparison • Prior Major Investment Study identified peer systems for comparison of key metrics: o System Capital Cost o Capital Cost Per Mile o Average Weekday Trips o Average Trip Length o Capital Cost Per Passenger Mile Traveled o Operating Cost Per Passenger Mile Traveled note: not all data were available for each peer system GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT System Capital Cost (2020$) 23 $3,000,000,000 $2,500,000,000 $2,000,000,000 $1,500,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $500,000,000 $0 °� �aQ O��a O �Ne GO FORWARD System Capital cost in 2020$ A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: 2019 CRT MIS Report Capital Cost (2020$)/Mile 24 $45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 j ink I a $0 ON ��ay a`\Q� C,-A �� rya ��a �'� ram � a� C.°I, GO FORWARD System Capital Cost in 2020$ divided by length of system. A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: 2019 CRT MIS Report Average Weekday Trips (2018) 25 20,000 18,127 17,815 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,170 6,405 6,502 7,341 6,000 4,000 ol EA 2,805 2,901 3,198 2,000 214 470 , 0 d=w 1 'N .��'N `�� ` ao� NO �"V �;L r� OLD �� NO Ne, e op- �o Coo t10, �a�\� �'`�o �� c`��' � �aJ e�\� 1+1 �a a� GO FORWARD Average Weekday Ridership for 2018. A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: NTD 2018 and GoTriangle FY2018 Bus Performance Report. Average Trip Length (miles) 26 35 31 30 25 °esss 26 — 20 �� 16 17 18 19 JA 15 15 12 13 10 5 0 tea`` °tea` � a °��. '`�`a� `�`�� a`��a ee,+0 h ° P ` k �a 441 �a a� GC FORWARD Average Unlinked Trip length. A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: NTD 2018 and GoTriangle FY2019 Bus Operations Report. Capital Cost (2020$) / Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (2018) 27 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $17 $10 $0 06 oQCIO . GC FORWARD Average System Capital Cost in 2020$ divided by total annual passenger miles traveled A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: NTD 2018 and 2019 CRT MIS Report. Operating Cost (2019$) / Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (2018) 28 $3.50 ., 3.01 $3.00 $2.50 $1.95 $2.00 $1.69 $1.50 6 $07 $ $1.00 $0.77 $0.57 $0.50 $0.00 a� 4 I I I � "L6L ° o .A Lr 4, � `� �� o ; y s ;y06 Oa �A� Oar a��`S yea �a C�° �� e��° a`�` �� P �a GC FORWARD Average System Operating Cost in 2019$ divided by total annual passenger miles traveled A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Source: NTD 2018, and GoTriangle FY19 Bus Operations Report 29 Remaining Study Effort • Refine ridership and travel demand modeling • Additional funding capacity analysis for Durham and Wake • Discuss initial risk assessment with GoTriangle Board 30 Potential Next Phase of Study "Early Project Development Activities" Rail Traffic Controller ( RTC) model Preliminary engineering to evaluate critical risks only (e.g. Downtown Durham grade crossings) Additional ridership modeling Public engagement, integrated with local plan updates Agreements with funding partners, municipalities, and railroads GO FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT Pre- planning Perform Alternatives Analysis Develop Concepts i Perform Preliminary Operations Analysis Obtain Local 00� Funding Commitment O� 6` Planning Screen and Identify C Alternatives for Further Study Test and Refine Alternatives Obtain Concept Concurrence and O initial Agreements �O v Adopt Preferred �0 Alternative �G2� �L �i �Z�07� ` \ � �rrsnrccrnrFj Initiate(Informal/ NEPA Scoping Perform Additional Operations Analysis Develop Conceptual Design Obtain NEPA Class of Action 1 Initiate Formal NEPA Scoping Complete O Preliminary Design l Obtain Preliminary Agreements �,k Final Design Complete NEPA 0 Advance Design Finalize Local Agreements Begin Property Acquisition 0 Prepare for Construction l Procurement Secure Federal �f► Funding OOS Construction Complete Property Acquisition Construct Infrastructure t*O Test Systems Commission Systems C� J► Operate Pre- 0 0 � Revenue Service G�lot Revenue Q �� Service 33 Next Steps • Present updated results and metrics • Present risk assessment - GoTriangle board workshop on Jan . 22 • Primer on risk for transit capital projects • Walk-through of initial risk assessment findings • Consider pursuing early project development activities necessary prior to initiating project design and implementation • Consider adopting memorandum of understanding among project management partners for early project development activities • Roles, responsibilities, and goals of the project management partners, municipalities, and other stakeholders if moving forward Go FORWARD A COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN TRANSIT