HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-19-2001-5bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 19, 2001
Action Agen~
Item No.
SUBJECT: Resolution of Support for the Regional Transportation Strategy
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Drafk Resolution Supporting the Regional Craig Benedict 2592
Transportation Strategy Karen Lincoln 2594.
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
2. Letter from Mayor Waldorf to the Chair along with Two Hillsborough 732-8181
Attachments -Mayor Waldorf's Memo to Chapel Chapel Hill 968,4501
Hill Town Council and a Regional Transportation Durham 688-7331
Strategy Brochure Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider a resolution endorsing the Regional Transportation Strategy repork for
the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina.
BACKGROUND: Mayors of Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh and Cary, recognizing that travel
patterns in the Triangle are regional and transportation issues must be addressed at a regional
level, funded a study to:
* State the problem(s)
• Compile existing, publicly adopted plans;
• Identify current and future deficiencies and mobility needs in regionally-significant corridors; and
• Determine funding shorfalls, and identify and asssess viable funding options.
The report quantifies transportation investments in addition to those programmed in fiscally
constrained plans. Proposed additional transportation investments increase capacity for all modes
of travel; however, proposed additional investments emphasize greater increases in:
surface streets;
• managed lanes;
• transit; and
• pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
The report identifies new State funding sources and suggests other possible revenues that could
be generated for the Triangle Region (car rental tax, property tax, sales tax, hotel occupancy tax,
transfer tax, higher impact fees). The report also suggests increased private participation should
be encouraged through innovative and equitable policies.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with endorsing the report.
RECOMMENDATION(S): As the Board decides.
2
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR
THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Regional Transportation Strategy was developed from a study
undertaken in conjunction with transportation officials from the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Capitol Area
Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), the Town of Chapel Hill,
the Town of Cary, the City of Durham and the City of Raleigh as well as representatives
from other organizations; and
WHEREAS, Orange County is a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan, Planning Organization, from which the Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC) has resolved to support the findings of the Triangle Regional Transportation
Study as presented to the TAC on March 14, 2001; and
11VHEREAS, the Strategy emphasizes access and mobility through a balanced,
integrated, multi-modal transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the Strategy outlines the long-term, multi-modal transportation needs of the
region, quantifies those needs, and identifies several .potential sources of revenue;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners that Orange County endorses the Regional Transportation Strategy for
the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina.
This the 19th day of June, 2001.
Stephen H. Halkiotis, Chair
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Attest:
Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
306 NORTH CoLiJM13IA STREET
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27S 16
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
May 23, 2001
Dr. Steve Halkiotis, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
Post Office Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Mayor Michael Nelson
Town of Carrboro
301 West Main Street
Carrbora, NC 27510
Deaz Steve and Mike:
p~~c
i~Ul
(919) 968-2714
FAX 919-967-8406
As we discussed on the phone, I am requesting that you place the Regional Transportation Strategy on
your boards' agendas for endorsement. You will recall that Mayor Lang made a presentation at the
April Assembly of Governments meeting. I hope that the Carrboro aldermen and the county
commissioners will endorse this study as a good statement of our regional transportation challenges
and an important step towazd a multi-modal solution.
I arrl enclosing a memo that I wrote to our Council. The memo explains in some detail what the
Strategy is and what it is not, and lists the efforts that we four mayors aze currently engaged in to get
endorsements of elected boards and other groups across the region. Enclosed also is the resolution that
the Chapel Hill Town Council unanimously. adopted on May 21.
I know your agendas aze packed, but hope you can fit this item in prior to summer break. Please let me
know if you think I need to come to the meetings.
I am taking the liberty of copying this material to Alice Gordon and Alex Zaffron. As representatives
to the MPO, they have both followed this work carefully and I hope might be willing to make motions
to endorse.
Thanks very much. Please call me if you have questions.
Sji~ncerely,
J~ ~~C] ~ ~ L~'1 Gt Y
'Ro`semary
cc: Commissioner Alice Gordan
Alderman Alex Zaffron.
4
AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
T0: Town Council Members
FROM: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Strategy for the Triangle Region of North Carolina
DATE: May 21, 2001
As requested by the Council on May 7, my request for endorsement of the Regional
Transportation Strategy returns to our May 21 agenda to receive public comment and any
discussion the Council desires. I ask the Council to adopt the .attached resolution, which I have
revised to address concerns expressed to me. '
I offer the following information about the purpose, background and content of this report.
Back ound and Pu ose
After some time of service on the DCHC MPO, the transportation planning group for Durham
and Orange counties, I came to some realizations that seemed important to me:
1. Transportation planning in the Triangle region is not as well coordinated as it should
be.
2. Our transportation needs far outstrip our resources. New and additional sources of
revenue need to be identified and secured.
3. A stronger multi-modal emphasis is needed, region wide.
4. Air quality problems call for an approach that is somewhat different from what we
have pursued in the past. .
5. The public perhaps believes that our transportation problems will be addressed in a
timely and responsible fashion. Well, this is not happening. It will not happen
without some dramatic changes in what we do, the pace at which we move ahead, and
resources available.
6. The NC General Assembly needs to be more responsive to urban area transportation
needs, particular non-road needs. A serious effort at presenting the problem seemed
in order.
In the late fall of 1999 and early winter of 2000, Mayors Tennyson, Lang, Coble and I met
several times to discuss what we might do to stimulate an improvement of this situation. We
eventually agreed that a region wide analysis of the problem and' statement of need would be
a useful tool, both for purposes of public education and illustrating transportation needs to
the General Assembly.
2
5
We buckled down to the task in August 2000. With professional planning representatives
from DCHC, CAMPO, TTA, DOT, TJCOG and our hired consultants, we met every 2-3
weeks until Februazy, when the document was completed.
Content
Here aze a few observations about what this report, Regional Transportation Strategy, is and
what it isn't. It is:
1. A statement ofthe problem.
2. A compilation of existing, publicly adopted plans -the long range plans and T1P's from
CAMPO and DCHC; TTA regional transit plans; RTP transportation plan; the I-40 HOV
study; the 15-501 study; an others.
3. A plan that asks, where do existing "fiscally constrained" plans fail to meet the need?
4. A plan that quantifies the cost of what we need but do not have funding for. The
estimates include infrastructure, operations and maintenance.
5. A strong argument for a more multi-modal approach. For example, if you look at page 4,
you will see that we suggest that dramatic increases in funding are needed for managed
lanes, transit and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
6. A proposal that private sector funding contributions be explored and increased.
The Regional Transportation Strategy is not:
1. A blueprint, a directive, a TIP or anything that anyone can count on to happen. Again, it
was created to stimulate good action.
2. A proposal for any particular revenue source. It estimates what the Transportation
Finance Study Commission's proposals would have raised, had they been adopted ($50-
60 million for the Triangle). Those proposals will. not be adopted in this session of the
General Assembly. It also estimates what .several revenue sources (e.g. sales tax, real
estate transfer tax, S cents on the property tax) would raise in the Triangle if they were
implemented. The .document before us makes no recommendation whatsoever about
what revenue source is most appropriate.
3. Comprehensive on all subjects. For example, improved land use decisions over the next
quarter century could probably reduce transportation costs considerably. Those improved
decisions, and any rules or bodies that could compel them, cannot be counted on. Adding
land use, though it is obviously critical to transportation planning, was a dimension we
reluctantly let go because it is too complex and controversial and we are seeking some
regional consensus on transportation needs.
4: Comprehensive on non-infrastructure strategies, such as transportation demand
management, parking fees and restrictions, and intelligent transportation systems. We
discussed ail these and view them, as an essential part of an effective overall strategy, but
quite frankly, couldn't include everything.
A comment was made on May 7 about the surface street recommendation. 1 appreciate the
opportunity to explain that in more detail. As we all. know, building new collectors and
arterials and widening existing ones is not popular in Chapel Hill. However, these kinds of
3 6
roads are welcomed and exist on the plans of other communities. Wake County, for instance,
has subregional plans that cite 'new arterials/surface streets as desirable, if funding is
available. According to Mayor Lang, Cary will soon decide to spend many, many millions
over the next decade to build and improve arterial roads. Durham also is interested in new
arterials and collectors, though to a lesser degree than Wake, and Durham does not have
Cary's resources. This plan's figures reflect no new money and no new alignments for
arterials and collectors in Orange County.
To sum up, a decision to build arterials and collectors is obviously a decision made by local
government. This plan reflects and respects the particular and differing positions of the local
governments within our region.
Current Activities
The mayors' group continues to meet at least once a month to plan speaking engagements,
confer on the status of transportation discussions in the General Assembly, and strategize
about haw we can get the public interested, informed and active on this topic. To date we
have presented to and received the endorsement of the following official bodies:
DCHC MOP (March 14)
CAMPO (March Z 1)
Wake County Board of Commissioners (April 2)
Raleigh City Council (April 17)
Cary Town Council (Apri126)
As you recall, Mayor Lang made a presentation to the Orange County Assembly of
Governments on April 19. T'rn in the process of seeking local endorsements here at home,
Presentations already made to non-elected groups include:
Triangle Legislative Delegation (Apri12D)
Wake Legislative Delegation (May 7)
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (March 1 S)
Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce (May 9)
Triangle Community Coalition (May 9)
Women in Transportation Seminar (May 15)
We also have the following presentations scheduled:
Durham City Council (May 17)
Durham County Board of Commissioners (not sure of date, sometime in May)
NC legislators in Washington, DC (May 23)
Jammin' in the Park (celebration of RTP's travel demand management program, June 1)
NC Board of Transportation (June 6)
4 ~
We are seeking opportunities to present the report to the State and/or Triangle Sierra--Clubs,
League of Women Voters and other citizen groups. In fact, we have compiled a list of
governmental groups, think tanks, conservation and environmental groups, and civic clubs. I
am open to any suggestions the Council might have for interested audiences, and would
appreciate any help you can offer in arranging things. We are also beginning to explore
media opportunities.
As I mentioned in my May 7 memo, I think this analysis will prove to -be very useful if and
when. our region falls under EPA air quality sanctions. A legitimate, region wide analysis of
problems and needs will help our region to work with. EPA more expeditiously to prioritize
improvements. Under sanctions, as I understand it, non-roadway options would receive high
priority.
Thank you for reading and considering this report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report on Regional Transportation Strategy For the Research Triangle Region of North
Carolina (p. 6). .
5
S
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY
FOR THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA (2001-05-Z1/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Mayors of Chapel Hill, Cary, Durham and Raleigh have met and developed a
Regional Transportation Strategy for the Research Triangle,Region ofNorth Carolina; and,
WHEREAS, the Strategy outlines the. long-term, multi-modal transportation needs of the region,
quantifies those needs, and identifies several potential sources of revenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Strategy's proposal for surface streets includes proposed new surface streets for
Wake and Durham counties but none for Orange~County; and,
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council places higher priority on transit, managed lanes and
bicycle and pedestrian improvements than on roadway improvements;
WHEREAS, the Council has received public comment on the Strategy at business meetings on
May 7 and May 21;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the
Council hereby endorses the Regional Transportation Strategy for the Research Triangle Region
of North Carolina.
This the 21st of May, 2001.
~+iary
YG4g7~<T--
1
..~.1~~~r'+t
.~:
REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGY
For the Research
ATTACHMENT 1
~.,
Triangle Region o f North Carolina
y
.,:
I•.,~
a. ~~
~~{ ~
r~ _
..
~" A
~7
-~~_
~`
_ ~~
tom.
- ~ ..~
-^ ~3
~ ~ ~..
[~: _ ",~5
_„ ~
9
REGIONAL
~'RANSPORTATION
STRATEGY
For the Research
Triangle Region. o f North Coralina
'O~TN C,
10T y
(~~~ ~' V
.~-.
'Gas"~er~ :~,.(
l~
•t~
Mayor
Glen D. Lang
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512-8005
919-469-4011
ire
(~ ~ ~\
.m
~~ a~
~,,, ~,~.
'y CA1ti
Mayor
Rosemary I. Waldorf
Town of Chapel Will
306 N Columbia 5t
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2743
919-968-2714
o~~pF OU~v
~ n.
d •~ ~ D
4ya ~ !4
a~'Ply ~ ~ od~o°
dnd
Mayor
Nicholas J.Tennyson
City of purham
I O I City' Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701-3328
919-560-4333'
Mayor
Pauly. Coble
City of Raleigh
PO Box 590
Raleigh. NC 27b02-0590
10
We have a duty. As mayors, we serve on the federally required Metropolitan Planning
Organizations in our region. Thus we are keenly aware of many needed transportation
improvements that are deferred, or not considered, because we cannot program roads, bike~~•a}•s
or transit projects if they have no funding. We have a duty to share this information, and its
implications, with our fellow citizens.
This report shares our disturbing insight into the depth of the transportation challenges «•e
face. Thanks to the fundraising efforts of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce, major
support from Cisco Systems, Glaxo5mithKline, I$lbi, Nortel Networks, Research Triangle
Foundation and many other donors (a complete list appears on page 8}, we commissioned this
comprehensive~look at regional transportation needs. This report rests on publicly adopted
plans and the professional judgment of out region's transportation planners. ,
These pages present a stark message. With current funding, we can program almost $8 billion
in improvements by 2025. Even with that large investment, we can expect longer peak
congestion periods, longer and less predict:~ble trar•el times, and worsening air quality. Our __.
stud}• identifies another $10 billion in unmet needs, if we desire an acceptable level of mobiliit_
over the next 25 years. It suggests a "multi-modal" approach, including highway, transit,
bikeway and pedestrian improvements.
Who is responsible? We all are. Federal government is clearly responsible For supporting roads
that Garry interstate commerce and travel, and for paying half of the major transit investments
the Triangle needs. To sustain the Research Triangle Park, Ne~rth Carcylina's premier economic
engine and a generator of substantial public revenue, state government must increase
transportation funding. Our local economies, through local government, must provide additional,
focused investment by our communities to ensure livability. Finally, we suggest an expanded
role for the private sector as an investor in transportation systems.
What is at stake? Air quality, and the health of cur citizens. Mohiliry, the freedom to get from
place to place in a reasonable rime. The regional economic prosperity that has enahled continuing
job opportunities and good public education. And our quality of life, the sum of all these
things. This is no easy challenge. No one gets a "pass". The four of us ask this of our fellow
Triangle residents: Pause to understand the scope of this problcnt, and work with your eluted
officials to fashion the serious responses necessary. We Ai.l. have that duty.
We thank }•ou for reading this report. We look forward to working with citizens, the Governor,
members of the N.C. General Assembly, our fellow local elected officials, NCDOT, and Triangle
business leaders to fund and build a safe and GFficient transportation s}•strm for our region.
11
THE CHALLEPJGE...
ustained e~onamic success has fueled substantial gro~~•th and prosperity in
the Research Triangle Region. Good mobility is one of the factors that has
helped make this region so attractive. But success creates new challenges.
Between 1995 and 2035, population is expected to increase by more than
110"4. Based.on existing transportation plans, vehicle-miles of travel (V.bIT) ~ ~
will grow more than 140°~, while highway capaciry will expand by only 50°,~0. ~ Acceptable -
The two figures below graphically illustrate both new highway facilities (such
as the Western Wake Expressway, the Knightdale Bypass, and the Northern Moderaxe
Durham Parkway) and dramatic growth in traffic volumes (represented by ~ Severe
bandwidths) froth 1-995 to 2035.
The adopted Long-Range Transportation Plans for the Capital area and
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro tiletropolitan Planning prganizations identify
highway and transit projects through the year 2U?5. ~nal~-sis of these plans
and ocher studies confirms several key observations:
• Increased capaciry is needed for all modes of travel.
Congestion oci freeways and other major routes will still exist during peak
periods..
• There are practical limits to the «-idening of free~vavs.
• Surface street networks must be enhanced.
• Transit operating on its own right-of-wa_v pan provide needed ~.ipa~it}-
and competitive travel times.
• Policies to reduce travel demand (including different land use patterns)
are needed.
,air quality will Ue threatened.
Fzctzcre Vision
In order to maintain our economic
Competitiveness while preserving o~
environment, we must shift our emp
from moving cars to moving people
We must:
• Minimize travel time and imp
reliability
• Maximize efficiency and Ares
infrastructure
• Reduce automobile travel d~
peak periods
• Enhance surface street capac
and connectivity
• Provide safe, convenient opti
to highway travel
• Invest in long-term capacity
• Decrease tailpipe emissions
• Provide a framework for less a
dependent land use
L7/
LONG-RANGE STRATEGIESr"
__.r our population doubling, the way our region develops must change if we are
to make the most eff~ctiye use of our rc)ad, transit, pedestrian, and
other infrastucture systems. ~~~hile changes in land use are a critical part
of meeting this challenge, they cannot entirely eliminate the need for new
transportation facilities. The following additional transportation
improvements have been identified as part of the,Regional Strategy. These
projects reflect a balanced strateg}~ for achieving a future characterized br-
~on~•enient mobilit}• choices, continued economic competitiveness, and
enhanced quality-of-life.
~2
FR!*EWAYS
Relatively minor frer~yay- impr~yements are needed, 4virh no ~erdening bey"olld. y '
the maximum numher of lanes identified in adopted Long Range Transportation
Plans. Widening projects eliminate bottlenecks on I-40, I-4~, L1S l~-~01, and r: s
n
US 14?. US 1 is upgraded to a freetiva}• north of I-~4U, and U5 L~; is extended lo
o
s~so -
south to I-S40 (Triangle Parkr~vav). ,Also included is ramp metering, and Intelligent - ssoo ~ ... '
Transportation System (ITS) projects providing incident detection, traveler .E :ZSo
information, and alternative routing. Curren[ Plans Additional Needs
SURFACE STREETS
Creating an efficient, interconnected street network helps keep short-distance
local trips off fr~ewa}•s by providing a rariety ok, alternative routes. This c sae°o
network also supplies critical freeway access, and offers opportunities to ~ szano
improve the speed and reliabilir}• of bus service. Finall}•, by incorporating _ sle°a ,,~;~ ~~~~
•
ttinuous bicycle and sidewalk features, travel by non-motorized mot{es is ~ .~
-shoo
~,romoted. Projects include intersection improyetnents, cotnputerized signal - se°o
x so
s}-stems, new and widened roads, ;u1d pedesrrian/blc)•cle enhanCelllents. Current Plans Additional Needs
MANAGEQ LANES
High Uccupancy Vehicle (HOB') lanes, car carpool lanes, arc the most familiar
e~anlple of this type facility. They can offer taster, more reliable trip times, and - sliso
have greater person-carre~ing capacity than regul;ir lanes. pluses can also use o slo°o
these lanes, forming the backbone of a regional rapid transit systenl. HOV lanes -- s~s° ~;:,-...,
-
support Travel Demand ~tanagernent (TD~I) efforts, and ccln he combined with ss°°
- s~so o_....
vari:ihle tolls For siligle-occupant vehicles (SOV1. Forn--eight miles of ilrutaged ~ S0 CurrenC Planf Additional Needs
lanes are proposed on I-4U and I-S~}O.
PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE FACILITIES
5af~, convenient sidewalks and trails offer alternatives that ~:ut hl'I~+ I'CdUt:e
;turclmc~hile traffic on congested streets. `lore impclrr:tnrly
tltrsr fa~iliries arc ~ ss°o
,
CtiSClltlal t0 an effCC[l\'~ transit 5y5teln, pro~•iding accesti .1C ttlthtr eIl(I Ol' i.t CraRSlt sao°
° szo°
trip. [n addition to building nearly i0O miles of "missing; links" and new, nff- :z°°
,tart facilities, pedestrian arld hi~ycle treatments are also included in new r S10° see
rc~a(i~~~a}' projects.
TRANSIT
l3crth regional and local transit services are expanded. Either rail or bus strviur:
cl}~rr:tring on a dedicared guideway can ensure taster, more, reliable tra~~el times,
'•mg ~~~ith generous long-term capacity. Such investment can also support
ernative land ust choices :ind policies designed ro reduce auto dependrnry.
Rail service to RDL- airport and Garner/Clayton is included, alcm~ with rapid
bus/husw:iy corridors along I-~0, I-~-IU, and US ; U. Other corridors ~yith Icm~~cr-
term pc.lrential are identified.
53,6°0
sa,oo°
SZ,4°°
sl,eo° ~ •'
'~ ~:r ,
s I,xo°
56°°
SO Current Plans Additional Needs
'~,
.... 1~ .
INVESTMENT BY MODE
'+•
'I(/
s urban regions grow and mature, the distribution of transportation investments
shifts. In rrcent years, the bulk of chr Triangle Region's transportation
spending has been for construction and expansion of its highway infrastructure,
with much of that dedicated to freeways. In the future, a larger portion of
funding must be dedicated to maintaining this infrastructure, and to completing
the local surface street net~ti•ark. Increasing urbanization also makes transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle in~•estments both more necessary and more cost-
effective. The Triangle Region's current transportation plans reflect this
shift of investments by mode, as do the plans of other growing, economically
competitive inetropalitan regions. The transportation strategy proposed for
the Research Triangle Region maintains this course?, emphasizing access :;nd
mobility through a balanced, integrated, multi-modal transportation system.
`" $4
o $3
$~
.~ $ ~
m $0
TOTAL INVESTMENT
The package of capital improvecnents and transportation servicrs drscrihrd
abcwe represents a fatal additional investment of approximately ~ 1 U. l billion.
This figure includes operating and maintenance costs far all modes. Hullo
fundrd and implemented, the adopted Long-Rana~e Transpnrtarian Plans
plus the Regional Strategy combine to fatal a S 17.ii billion investment in
transportation infrastructure, operations, and maintenance by the year ?0? j.
On a per capita basis this level of investment is comparable with rho needs
identified by other large, rapidly growing metropolitan arras. I~urthrrmnrr,
flu actual implementation horizon may extend beyond ?S years. liven
sc~, such a massive program will dearly require tough choices among nre~ls
:lnd priorities. _
-~zd on a "pay-as-you-go" program spread evenly over ?5 ~-ears, the
transportation needs identified in the Regional Strategy ~vc~uld reyuir~
additional annual revenues totaling approximately X404 million.
13
Freeways Surface Managed Transi[ Pedes[rian/
5[reets Lanes Bicyele
FU~IDlNG SQURCES
he projects and programs ir. the Triangle Region's adopted Long-Range
Transportation Plans totaling X7.7 billion are being funded through three basic
sources:
1. Federal and state funds cover $S %.
2. Local revenues represent 12°0.
3. Private sector contributions make up the remaining 3°10.
r~.lthough funding proportions and mechanisms may change, a successful
transportation improvement program will require coordination and innovation
to balance costs and benefits. Each sector must take responsibility for addressing
its needs in a regional context; while maintaining the autonomy to do so in the
manner most appropriate for its situation.
NEW STATE FUNDING ~
The NC Legislature's Transportation
Finance Committee has recently proposed ~
f 1 h• ce ~ X80
for
a pacitage o c zanges to en an
~ ~60 Tota! forTriangf~ Rrgion = 550-60 nri!lrotr/year
traTlSpOrtatl0n re50urG25. The Flllance
Committee's recommendations include ~ $4Q
efficiency improvements and statewide
funding mechanisms (local impacts of ~ $20 _
'rich are depicted in the chart to the
oht). Increases to vehicle registration, ~ ~~ ~c~~ ~tio~o SaG~e~ ~~,~ ~ ,~
driver's license, and other fees, combined ~`'a ~g'S``' ice"~° o~"gr ~
with a ?-cent Euel tax increase and
revisions to the Highway Use Tar, can
be expected to raise another DSO - $60 million each year for Triangle transportation.
needs. Nearly half o£ this funding would go towards road maintenance, with
the remainder dedicated to highway construction and transit.
OTHER FUNDING
SOURCES
• Matching federal funds could cover
up to 50% of the $4 billion capital
cast for proposed regional transit
and managed lane projects.
• 5nlne recommendations of the
Transportation Finance Committee
(Fuel tax, vehicle registration fee,
etc.) could also be implemented
locally, if authorized and desired.
L
b
0
E
.itl F,~urrs
14
n
nrr.ucrs.
Sa• G~aY• S C•e;y. 11 C'e"~ r1O~'c'1 le `e~~8~acc \~ C'~SP
fie" props 5a~ Occ ? t''~`SCA"~ F .vtfx.rrwt,,,.r..,,n..t„~...,~~.,~tm..~.,.
• Other possible revenue sources include payroll, parking, and mileage-based
taxes, as well as tolls.
~$~
$60
~aa
$20
~q
• Typical magnitudes of common funding mechanisms are summarized for
the Triangle Region in the chart to the right.
Sample Revenues forTriangle Region
PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING
..greased private sector participation can also contribute to meeting some of our
transportation needs. impact fees are employed to varying degrees in the Triangle.
Some other regions allow overlay or special assessment districts to collect
additional revenues For transportation improvements that directly benefit the
district. Private sector participation must be encouraged through innovative
and equitable policies that recognize our shared dependence on a sate and
efficient transportation system, a.strong regional economy, and a healthy
environment.
Fuel Tax
License Fees
Vehicle Registrrtion Fees
Sales & Use7ax
Rental Car Tax - -
" Property Taxes
Local
TrafTc Impact Fees
Interswtes & MajorArterials
Transit Capital & operations
t~
Highway Maintenance
Arterials & Major collectors
Local Transit
SidewalkslBikeways
Local Streets
15
Research Tria>•tgle Park
will continue to play a critical role
shaping the growth of both the regi
and the State. The Park's econor
importance, Combined with its spec
status, requires a unique regional
approach for effective transparxati
planning and implementation. N.
individual local jurisdiction is able
address the transportation needs
RTP; a coordinated, innovative effc
by all stakeholders is needed.A spe,
RTP Service District tax has bees
used to build multipurpose trail
bus shelters, and other projects. 7
current 2-cent assessment raises
$360,000 annually. The "Other
Possible Funding Sources" Chart
includes a bar representing near)
$2 million that could be generate
by the maximum allowable levy c
$0. I 0 per $ 100. Research Triang
Foundation has also contributed
major transpor-lotion projecu in
RTP, such as a proposed $4 millic
towards the widening of Davis Dri~
Revenue Mechanism Funding Source Expenditure Type
MEETINGTHE CHALLENGE
As the Triangle Region grows, a larger proportion of transportation funding
ma~• need ro come from local and private secror sources. This trend is found
throughout growing urban areas, as they strive ro remain competitive in the fare
of esrensive demands and constraints on federal and state funding. G1~reased
Ic~cal and private participation can provide the t7exibility to accelerate needed
improvements and better reflect local, regional, and statewide priorities. The
nature, magnitude, and application of such funds should be local decisions, and
nm• additional local and private sector resources must augment, rather than
replace, state and federal contributions. Ideally, stare and federal resources
should be concentrated on projects of regional, statewide, and national significance,
while local and private contributions should go towards needs relevant to the
•ces of these funds. The quality of our future transportation system depends
,.ay on our willingness and abilin• to obtain funding for needed impro~•ernents
at all le+•zls, while preserving an equitable balance among those who p:~~~ and
these «ho benefit.
Park e!mplayers have begun a roc
dinated SmartCommute pragran
encauragjng ridesharing, transit u.
telecommuting, flexible work hou
and other measures to lessen
demand for travel by automobile
Other approaches being consider
far reducing traffic congestion inclu
increasing residential developmer
near the Park.
RT'S B~~K~RflLlND ~ i6
ne Regional Transportation Strategy is the result of a cooperative effort among
the The Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce; the Mayors of Raleigh, Carr,
Chapel Hi!!, and Durham; and staff of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro anti
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organizations (DCHC and CA:~1P0). The
following organizartons also provided funding or other resources:
• ABB Por('er T ~• D Co. of NC
• Alltel Conran:ra2icatioars
• r1r'errtis GrvpScience
• Carohara Po:ver ~ Light Co.
• Central Carolia:cr Barr a Tr:~st Co.
• Ceatturc2 Bartk., lazt.
• CrsCO Sl'str.'n1s
• D:rke i'otver C~nrpaary .
• Envirotek, Iazc.
• First Citi~ens $ank
• GlaxoSnzithKlirre, Inc.
• GoodMark Foods, inc.
• Harris Teeter Super Markets
• Ha;.ert and Satvver, PC
• Harnter Ia:drrstrtes, Inc.
• IBM Carp.
• Invensys Power S}'steaa~s
• Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
• Longistics
• Nortel Networks
• O'Brien/Atkins Associates .
• Pergo, laic.
• Public Service Coanpany of NC
• Research Triangle Foundation
• Sir .~X/alter Chevrolet Co.
• Square D Co.
• Stairtc'c Corp.
• The Anus B~rra:• Ltd.
• The Greater Ralci,~h Chanrher
of Coaarn:erc'e
• Thc~ Herald-Srrr:
• Tvll Brothers
• Tri~rnglc Tr~raait Authority
• Tricrargle United ~~~ay
• United Parcel Sert'ice
- Waste Inclrrstries, fate.
• York Propertie~c, Iarc.
• Tl~e News tr Observer
Publishing Co.
The Regional Transportation Strategy was initiated in August of ?000. A series
of monthly steering committee meetings and several work sessions (with staff
from DCHC, CA~'~1P0, NCDOT, RTF, TJCOG and TTA) culminated in a
regTOnal briefing on November 15, ?000. This briefing identified the magnitude
of the region's unmet transportation needs, and summarized costs and potential
~~inding sources. Subsequently, four innovative "decision lab" sessions were
nducted with a diverse group of community leaders. These sessions obtained
Feedback concerning priorities, funding mechanisms, equiry• issues, and
implementation strategies.
The Regional Transportation Strategy recognizes and builds on work performed
as part of the following recent or ongoing efforts:
• Capital Area Metropolitan Planning
Or,~~aaricatiori Lortg Raarge Plarr
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
<Vlctropolitaaz Plcra:acing Orgaarizc2tioar
Lvaz~ Rarrgc Pl~~rr
• Dr~rtt 300 NC TIP
• I--10 HOV/Congestion A~1~2n~zgeanent
Studti'
• TT.~ Regional Trc:irsit Plaats
• US 1~-.ill A~hr%or la2vc'staau'art Strrd~•
• I--FO ii'idc'aring (NC 1-I % tc~ 1-S.i) PE
5trrdy
• Wake Expressway Str:dies
• NCDOTITS Dcply}•anertt Pl~2n
• Regional Transportation Alli~urce
Action Plan
• RTP Transportation lanpror'eureirt
P1a11
The findings of the Regional Transportation Strate~*y should be incorporated
into the pending updates of the CA;v1P0 and DCHC Long-Range Transportation
Plans. These updates will be able ro more fully evaluate details Of the p.rOpnseJ
strcitegy, including yuantifi~ation of individual project and systemwide benefits.
Additional information on refaced plans, programs, and funding can be obtained
by contacting the follcnving agencies:
• RTl' SaruzrtCOnraarzrte Pro~,rr~2aar
• Drrrhaarz TU/V1 Pl~ur crud rlctir~ar
Stratc ~T}'
• T/CUG Regional Principles Prod
• NC Bluc' Ribbon Canrn:ission v
Sanart Gr(~u'th
• NC Le~~isl~rtrrre's' Traruportatioa
Fiaa~»rc•c' Cnaa:nrittc•e
RL'COaaraarG'alClirtrOn~
• Cati~1P0 (www.raleigh-nc.org/~ampo) • Town of Cary • TTA (www.ridetta.org)
NCDOT (www:dot.srate.nc.us) (www.townofcarv.org) ~ ~ • Office of Stare [iudget Planning
~in• of Durham • City of Raleigh ~ ~ Ytanagemenr (os~pm.state.r
(www.ci.durham•nc.us) (www.raleigh-nc.org) • D1=NR l~ivisiOn of Air Quality
• Tawn of Chapel Hill • Triangle J Council of GO~•ernmer7ts (day.starc.nc.us)
(ww«•.ci.chap~l-hill.n~.usl (w•wtiv,tjcog.dst.nc.usl