Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 11-01-2022; 5-c - 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update – Public Hearing
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 1, 2022 Action Agenda Item No. 5-c SUBJECT: 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update — Public Hearing DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Draft 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Update (Excluding Appendix) Supervisor, 919-245-2579 2. Revised Financial Summary Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, 919- 245-2308 Nish Trivedi, Transportation Services Director, 919-245-2007 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing, receive the Policy Steering Committee, Staff Working Group, and Orange Unified Transportation Board recommendations, close the public hearing, and consider taking action on the 2022 Orange County Transit Plan (OCTP) Update. BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Orange County Board of Commissioners along with the Durham- Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and GoTriangle adopted the first Orange County Transit Plan. This Plan was funded using a newly-adopted Article 43 Half- Cent Sales Tax, and it included investments in new and expanded bus service and new capital infrastructure projects such as the Chapel Hill North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project, the Hillsborough Train Station, and the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (DO LRT) Project. The Plan was updated in 2017 to meet federal requirements associated with the DO LRT Project. In March 2019, the DO LRT Project was discontinued. This project was central to the Transit Plan as the Plan's primary investment, representing a critical partnership between Durham and Orange counties, and serving as the transit infrastructure around which other transit services and growth strategies were planned. In response to the discontinuation of the DO LRT project, Orange County staff began the process of creating a draft framework to create a new Orange County Transit Plan that prioritizes investments, funds service improvements, and improves the resiliency of the public transit network. At its November 17, 2019 meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the planning framework for updating the Orange County Transit Plan. The framework included a Policy Steering Committee (PSC) composed of two (2) Commissioners serving as Co-Chairs, and one representative each from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane to lead the process. The County and/or municipal appointees are intended to represent the interests of GoTriangle and DCHC MPO. The PSC is supported by a staff team led by County staff and including staff representatives from the aforementioned municipal jurisdictions, as well as DCHC MPO, Triangle J Council of 2 Governments (TJCOG), the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO), and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). In January 2020, Orange County Planning staff began work with Renaissance Planning, Inc., the consulting firm chosen to update the Orange County Transit Plan. Over the past two years, Planning staff and the consulting team have established key project deliverables and the timetable for their delivery, defined the scope of the consulting work, established a project website (www.octransit2020.com), created the public participation and outreach plans, and conducted regular meetings with the PSC, transit service providers, and key stakeholders with updates on the plan's progress. Both the PSC and the staff team provided direction and guidance to the consulting firm whose tasks included analyzing data, facilitating public input processes, soliciting feedback from specific stakeholders, and drafting the Transit Plan. The new Plan is intended to outline transit investment priorities through 2040. Following is a list of key process milestones carried out by the Renaissance, PSC, transit service providers and staff teams: • Bi-monthly staff meetings with progress updates for the PSC during the 2020 calendar year (May 2020) • Completed the Transit Choices Brochure (TCB), a visual document that illustrates the concepts and continuums of transit planning, and the Regional Connections Opportunity (RCO) Report, a technical assessment of key issues and opportunities for effective transit service (July 2020) • Held the first Transit Summit over the Zoom platform and documented key themes from the summit discussions and first public survey (October 2020) • Developed draft versions of conceptual scenarios and graphics with an accompanying memo (January 2021) • Held recurring monthly PSC meetings over Zoom with updates for first half of 2021 (January 2021 — June 2021) • Received final versions of conceptual scenarios and graphics with an accompanying memo (May 2021) • Held an in-person Transit Summit for PSC members to discuss core values and visions for the fiscally-constrained plan and learned of aspirational future projects (July 2021) • Received draft recommended network and plan as well as draft conceptual vision map for transit service provider feedback and scheduling of future PSC meetings (October 2021) • Held PSC Work Session #1 to look at the final recommended network and conceptual vision map with goal of beginning round 2 of public outreach (January 2022) • Created public outreach opportunities with a second round of surveying (over 1,000 surveys were collected) and two focus groups (held on February 8th and February 16th) that included local stakeholders (February 2022) • Held PSC Work Session #2 to look at the feedback received from public outreach and assess the draft network, which resulted in a request to provide check-in presentations to the local elected boards (March 2022) • OUTBoard received a presentation on the draft Transit Plan Update (April 2022) • Orange County BOCC received a presentation from its consultant on the draft Transit Plan Update (April 2022). The projects and service improvements included in the draft received by the BOCC last April are the same as those included in the final Draft plan for current consideration by the BOCC along with a recommendation to add funding to the Chapel Hill North-South Bus Rapid Transit Project to facilitate the project's application for eighty percent (80%) federal funding. 3 • Held PSC Work Session #3 to present a final draft of the plan updated with feedback from the transit service providers, the local elected boards and the PSC (May 2022) • Consultant delivered final report (including appendices) to Orange County Planning Staff in preparation for fall 2022 adoption timeline (August 2022) The complete 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update, including Appendix, as well as the 2017 Orange County Transit Plan, can be downloaded via the following link: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21099/2022-Orange-County-Transit- Plan-Update?bidld= Policy Steering Committee (PSC) Recommendation: At its May 20, 2022 meeting, the PSC recommended the draft 2020 Orange County Transit Plan Update for consideration by the adopting parties, beginning with Orange County, and as outlined below. The PSC also met on October 14, 2022 to consider and provide a recommendation specific to Chapel Hill Transit's request to add additional funding for the North-South Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT) project. The PSC recommended using a portion of accumulated End of Year Fund Balance to add $15M, over 20-years, beginning in FY 2027 and to reflect the additional funding in the Transit Plan Update. Attachment 2 is a revised financial summary that incorporates the additional funding through FY 2040. Orange County Transit Plan Staff Working Group (SWG) Recommendation: At its October 19, 2022 meeting, the SWG unanimously recommended adoption of the draft 2022 Transit Plan Update by all parties and to include the additional funding for N-S BRT, consistent with the recommendation provided by the PSC. OUTBoard Recommendation: At its October 19, 2022 meeting, the OUTBoard unanimously recommended BOCC adoption of the draft 2022 Transit Plan Update to include the additional funding for N-S BRT, consistent with the recommendation provided by the PSC. Adoption Process and Next Steps: Orange County: • PSC recommendations (5/20/22 & 10/14/22, Complete) • SWG recommendation (10/19/22, Complete) • OUTBoard Recommendation (10/19/22, Complete) • BOCC Public Hearing and possible action (11/1/22) • BOCC agenda item, if needed for action (11/15/22) DCHC MPO: • Technical Committee recommendation to release draft for public comment (9/28/22) (Complete) • Board consideration to release draft for public comment (10/12/22) (Complete) • Technical Committee recommendation (11/16/22) • Board adoption consideration (12/14/22) GoTriangle: • Planning and Land Use Committee recommendation (TBD) • Board adoption consideration (TBD) 4 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for the consultant used to facilitate the development of the draft Plan were earmarked in Orange County's FY 2022-23 annual budget, not to exceed $359,060. Expenditures have been reimbursed from the Article 43 Transit Tax revenue. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to this item: • GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND-USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. • GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact is applicable to this item: • CLEAN OR AVOIDED TRANSPORTATION Implement programs that monitor and improve local and regional air quality by: 1) promoting public transportation options; 2) decreasing dependence on single-occupancy vehicles, and 3) otherwise minimizing the need for travel. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive the proposed 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update as detailed above and in the attachments; 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept the Policy Steering Committee and OUTBoard recommendations and public comment(s); 3. Close the public hearing; 4. Deliberate as desired; and 5. Consider taking action on the 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update (Attachment 1) to include the financial changes (Attachment 2) needed to fund N-S BRT and, if approved, authorize the Chair to sign page "ii" of the Plan. Attachment 1 I -t C0rW1UBL1CTApNSIT 919-245.20 e ti 4 i A DRAFT DATED JULY 25, 2022 2022 orange county transitplanp u date A 20-year strategy for investing Orange County's transit tax revenues. ORANGE r- DURHAM�CHAPEL HILL�CARR-0i ��I (I@l�r D C H CIIII°�uWII�II IUVI co' COUNTY NOKI'IICAROLINA 11TI oLIrAR.—R111o.-1-1— Triangle 6 The 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update was by the Orange County Board of Commissioners by a vote of on 2022. ATTEST: ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Board of County Commissioners The 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update was by the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board by a vote of on ATTEST: DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Board The 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update was by the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority d/b/a GoTriangle by a vote of on ATTEST: RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY D/B/A GOTRIANGLE BY: BY: TITLE: TITLE: Chairperson, Board of Trustees 7 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA The 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Update represents two years of review, study, outreach,consultation,and deliberation aimed at charting the best path forward for Orange County's transit future. It is the second update—the first was in 2017—since the plan was adopted in 2012.As the plan's Policy Steering Committee,we are pleased to present itto the Orange County community. The Plan Update allocates Orange County's transit tax district revenues over the next 20 years. It includes already programmed projects and investments described in previous versions of the plan as well as new projects to be funded with the revenue remaining after accounting for existing commitments. Our work on the update underscored the reality that current funding streams, primarily the half-cent sales tax approved by voters in 2012, are simply inadequate to meet the critical transit needs of Orange County as a major employment hub. Accordingly, the update includes a vision for improving regional transit connections and enhancing transit service Salty Greene options beyond what current funding can support. These Next Generation projects will Orange County require further study and substantial additional funding. We hope the vision set forth in Board of County Commissioners these pages—with refinements over the coming years—will provide a clear basis for future appeals for funding and inspire collaborative regional planning, particularly with Durham, Chatham, and Alamance counties. Equity leads the values guiding the Plan Update. Past choices made by elected officials and public transportation agencies have deepened social inequity and racial injustice—in Orange County as throughout the United States. The investment commitments in this update acknowledge and address existing imbalances, and we expect future transit investments to go further to right historical wrongs. Environmental sustainability is another essential value.The time we spend in ourgas-powered automobiles is stealing a healthy climate future from our children. We must do our part to reduce carbon emissions by building a transportation infrastructure robust enough to provide viable alternatives to the car.This work includes building out bike path networks and safe sidewalks and other infrastructure to support nonmotorized transportation. Other goals and values rounding out the Plan Update include supporting economic prosperity, promoting greater quality of life through facilitating travel in the region, easing access to our region's wealth of colleges and universities, and ensuring transit service for as many residents as reasonably possible. Key to achieving these goals is the need to consistently and explicitly link transit planning to land use planning. The Plan Update recommends that all Orange County jurisdictions incorporate the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index as a planning tool.The H+T® Index treats the cost of transportation—like the cost of housing itself—as a critical element of the cost of living, and in this way, it refines our understanding of affordable housing. Planning that favors the proximity of housing to transit, moreover, offers a collateral benefit. Coordinated transit and land use planning enhances the county's ability to recruit world-class employers,with the promise of high-quality employment opportunities. The transit system outlined and envisioned an these pages can be imagined, in the words of the nonprofit Climate and Community Project, as "a strategic lever in the quest for climate, economic, and racial justice." We invite you to join us in advancing Orange County's work toward this better future. On behalf of the Orange County Transit Plan Update Policy Steering Committee, Sally Greene, Chair 8 GOVERNING BOARDS ORANGE COUNTY GOTRIANGLE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN BOARD OF COUNTY BOARD OF PLANNING ORGANIZATION COMMISSIONERS TRUSTEES (DCHC MPO) BOARD Renee Price,,66jir Sig Hutchinson, Ch,,'' Jam .ice- air BW_n Vi it Jenn W vBur�dr�r• CHAPEL�C�L B�Karen H w ce- e F [ te] Am �* Vi Jamez tta ed e* [Alter ate) Sally Ani" RJaviera Co "nd (Alternate) Jear�Ho it n NTS' Will Allen III Pam H mmin er Lisa Mathis terna e) Ann al 4'rl4sCAR0LINA GOr y I y ME C1PC7LITQNPIQNNINGaRGQNh 7{)N (fir it fJ Wendy Jacobs Danny Nowell Alternate) Earl McKee Mi o Valerie Jordan Renee Price (Alternate) Valerie Jordan Michael Parker* Charlie Reece [Alternate] Elaine O'Neal Damon Seils Adam Searing (Alternate) Michael Parker* Leonardo Williams John Sullivan [Non-Voting Member) Jennifer Robinson Stelfanie Williams PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITIES LIVING, WORKING, AND SPENDING TIME IN ORANGE COUNTY. ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL& GOTRIANGLE ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC Sally Greene* CHAPEL HILL TRANSIT Katherine Eggleston TRANSPORTATION Amy Fowler* Michael Parker* Meg Scully Nishith Trivedi Mark Dorosin* Brian Litchfield Jennifer Green Theo Letman Craig Benedict[retired] Nick Pittman Jay Heikes Allyson Coltrane Tom Altieri Bergen Watterson Sandra Freeman TeLeishia Holloway Thomas Ten Eyck Tina Love TOWN OF CARRBORO CITY OF MEBANE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH Travis Myren Barbara Foushee* Patty Philipps* Jenn Weaver Brandy Beeker Patricia McGuire Montrena Hadley* Margaret Hauth Tina Moon Cy Stober Mark Bell* UNC-CH DCHC DURHAM COUNTY TRIANGLE-J COG Cho'ssem Anderson Aaron Cain Ellen Beckman John Hodges-Copple Cheryl Stout RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL Kristen Young PARK(RTP) TRANSPORTATION Travis Crayton ALLIANCE Joe Milazzo II *Members of Orange County Transit Plon Update Policy Steering Committee(PSC) CONSULTANTTEAM � , V, Irma McClaurin WALKER - J Cr)j T"Tin\TT,� + ASSOCIATES RENAISSANCE Bilingual Communications,Inc. PLANNINGuom�m Tra,rAafbn.intorpratation.Vlaea Valca-over-CUr,urcAconsultation Proiect Manager Project Manager Caroline Dwyer,AICP Scudder Wogg 9 contents, i 1� •�. 77r _ 00 summary. -9-7 • - - introduction. • 02 o-ranae county, p. 23 --Mow 06 vision. p--6-7 07 im • lementation. • EQ transit equity. transit • equity etu 4(t s not imply sameness . ilt on proportionality u Aquit and based on need — the transportation needs of some Etter t n groups are more significant than others , even if they are not the majority of those using i ? transportation This section provides an overview of the concept of "transit equity," its origins in the Civil Rights Movement, and the commitments needed to ensure ALL citizens benefit from investments in public transportation. ronsit equity and transitjustice may be recent s additions to the transportation lexicon but . they are not new concepts to marginalized or socially vulnerable groups. For residents identifying in COLORED as Black,African American,or People of Color,transit '- FWAITINGROOM equity and transitjustice hold even deeper meaning because they are inextricably linked to the history PRIVATE. •. .PROPERTY NG Nfi of the American Civil Rights Movement when the public battles forcing the end of legal segregation ' were waged on two primary fronts - lunch counters rf and transit vehicles. ' Most Americans are familiar with Rosa Parks' I ` strategically publicized refusal to relinquish her seat to a white rider on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955. But Parks" story is just one element of a 45 sustained, organized campaign to end segregation At the bus station in Durham,"1940 by Jock Delano.Library of Congress on public transportation and in other public and private settings. In fact, the first organized transit boycott in the South occurred over two years before about the author. Parks"protest, in Baton Rouge. Content ••th the "Equity Connections" and this The legal basis for racial segregation was initially chapter were adapted from a reportauthored • Orange County codified when Homer Plessy was charged with by - past president of boarding a "whites only" railroad car, violating New University,an award-winning - • - • an activist anthropologist Orleans" "Separate Car Act" of 1890. Plessy fought who has committed her life and -r to helping o - his case all the way to the US Supreme Court who the world. She holds the PhD and MA in Anthropologyand the ruled that segregation based on race was not Masters of - English, both from the University unconstitutional if each race was provided facilities of Massachusetts ng - Principal that were ""separate but equal" (Plessy v. FergusonSolutions • • _ specializeshelping 1896). The "separate but equal doctrine" upheld others • immediate , • sustainable emerging , nd and enforced legal discrimination and segregation urgent offers support expert long into the 20th century, until it was overturned in witness, leadership consultant and guru, speaker/facilitator, 1956 (Gayle v. Browder) as a direct result of Parks' writer/editor, executive coach, researcher/evaluator, and diversity direct action and the subsequent Montgomery Bus Boycott.. _• EQ transit equity. 11 The concept of "riding with dignity" remained a major organizing element of the Civil Rights Movement and major movement leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr. scenario. "made the case that transit systems did not do enough to help poor people access opportunities for gainful, meaningful employment, leading him to conclude that Imagine " bus in which all the seats urban transit systems were 'a genuine civil rights issue;"an insight that has taken are spaced equally apart—equality on new relevance in recent years. exists. Or ..- There is the me leg room distance between For these reasons and more, equity is woven throughout the "o rows of seats and each EQUITYOrange County Transit Plan Update as a unifying theme.The Plan is spaced equally apart from _ 1110INVIM110 Update prioritizes projects that improve equitable outcomes and other. actively works to mitigate historical inequities related to transit equality _ ness. But and transportation. The Plan Update also seeks to cultivate what about the initial determination " • • a shared language for discussing issues of equity and builds f what is _ _ g room or BUS STcapacity by describing less obvious connections between transit �_ _ _ • ' en seats? If planning and equity.The blue "Equity Connection"signs identify ual" �" the opportunity to learn more about transit equity. ' decision '' ' person • and weighs only 1 "While some aspects of transit inequality have improved-Blacks and other pounds, person how omfortable is such _ non-whites are no longer relegated to the back of the bus-in other respects seating for a et there are still significant barriers to the formation of transit policies and tall and weighs 250 pounds? The practices that will affirm that...transit is a fundamental public good that we myth of equality - people needs,have exactly same all benefit from regardless of age, race, or class." _ - Dr. Irma McClaurin the same access, and the same chances for equal outcome. somewhere • • the way, one Equality - Equality and Equity: What's the person or group . - . decision difference? in theirown favor(privileging Two words are used in the policy and planning arenas that are often confused or impactsit everyone. benefits used interchangeably - equality and equity. These words are not the some and - decision ' does not care should be taken when using either.Equality is simply the state of being"equal" equallybenefitothers who were (in number, value, rank, etc.) and most people equate equality with "fairness" not involved in the •" • and "sameness" The (often unfounded) idea that people can be treated exactly process. Hist• •• many the some and experience similar outcomes is often what drives debates about voices have been - out of - • whether equity is needed. transportation planning resulting unequalin highly processes an• The Concept of Equality decision makin• Sameness in the form of equality is considered fundamental to the democratic principles of the United States as embedded in the second paragraph of the United States' Declaration of Independence.An implied, innate state of sameness among "We hold these truths to all people has been made an arguing point by those who prescribe to a more be self-evident, that all individualistic worldview. Attempts to address inequality may be countered with arguments about the "fairness"of our efforts. men are Created equal, But equality is only achieved when every unique need is addressed and people that they are endowed with differing needs are included in the decision-making process, not as cosigners by their Creator with but as co-creators, resulting in the equal outcomes, despite different starting certain unalienable points. A slightly different way of thinking about this is that true equality can only be achieved with genuine equity. Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty The Concept of Equity Equity is one of those words that seems to trigger emotions from some who believe and the pursuit of that somehow their rights are being infringed upon. Many people prefer to see Happiness." EQ trans equity. "fairness" in the form of "sameness:' Anyone who gets something different is suspect. What most people fail assessing equitable transit to take into account is that under the guise of"fairness" • • and "equal,"some groups enjoy greater privilege. . .- Many people do not know the history of transit inequality -• Often the institutionsgenerated inequalities that can be traced back to 1892, when Homer Plessy are the same institutionscharged with the task of self- refused to sit in the segregated car assigned to Blacks. reporting success. If a metaphor --•-• to Plessy's case was a landmark in challenging the asking the foxwho raided the hen house to assess the but equal" doctrine as practiced not only in hen house's -'- southern states but in northern states as well. When the Supreme Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, upheld cycleBreaking the power requires " different • o" segregation in public accommodations, they provided It will take huge investments of resources (financial,_ the legal justification and framework for segregation. human, time, tc.)to begin to undo harm that has unfolded _ decades. after _•_ of the Whites typically enjoyed the privilege of interpreting Civil Rights Act, and despite •. restrictionsagainst "equal"and in every area of social life (education, health, discrimination •- of Americansocial employment), Blacks received substandard equipment exists and persists, . up in transportationalongside and . . .- and inadequate resources, all deemed legal by virtue of housing - • employment. the U.S. States Supreme Court. Equitybe measured exclusively through Many of the gaps and disparities Blacks grapple with dashboards " - ' indicator radical today in education, health, and employment, have improvement in the lives there o _ vucounty's most lnerable _ roots in this landmark decision. America has always residents. However, promoted "equality"in its social language, but the reality adverseused to guide more thoughtful consideration of potential impacts: is that we are still grappling with 150 years of legalized Race inequality and unequal treatment afterthe dissolution of Sexual Orientation (LG: - the slavery and 57 years after the passage of the 1964 Minoritized status Civil Rights Act that was meant to end segregation in Formerly Incarcerated public accommodations. Health disparities Unemployed The principle of equity is not about sameness. It is Homelessness Poverty-level built on proportionality and based on need — the g transportation needs of some groups are more significant Physical• than others, even if they are not the majority of those Living in minority neighborhoods disrupted using transportation. "Equity refers to proportional highways representation (by race, class, gender, etc.)...to achieve Gender (women have highest .- - of being , equity, policies and procedures may result in an unequal the poverty level) distribution . - distribution of resources. For example, need-based Immigrant financial aid reserves money specifically for low-income Undocumented immigrant students.Although unequal,this is considered equitable ' speaker because it is necessary to provide access to higher Rural communities education for low-income students:' Environmental • •" rities The reality is that we are still grappling years of legalized inequality and unequal treatment after the dissolution of • 57 years after ur � w - tap L a T E WOMEN'S ITICAL C NCIL PLAYED , A CRITICAL ROLE N THE 1955 , MONTGOMERY " BUS BOYCOTT BY COORDINATING RIDES FOR BOYCOTTING TRANSIT RIDERS. Photo taken in 1956 by Dan Weiner,copyright John Br roc . • EQ transit equity. In other words, to achieve equality, there must be an imbalance. Acknowledging historical and existing transit People and communities with the greatest need must be provided inequality shines a light on aspects of transit with relatively more resources, to allow them to catch up. Equity planning and policy that have been in the shadows embraces this imbalance by acknowledging that a disproportionate for far too long, causing harm to particular groups allocation of resources is a necessary condition for change. and communities. A Brief History of Transit Inequality Moving Towards Transit Equity Like transit inequity, transit inequality derives from policy and Transit equity is a solutions-driven model of change. planning decisions that have adversely impacted "vulnerable" and Few people would disagree with this statement. "'marginalized" communities. Until the 1990s, people identifying However, it is not the historical reality for many as Black or African American, were the largest minority population vulnerable populations. Access to transit has not group,comprising 12%of the national population.This group has also been "fair;" "equal;" or '"equitable"" for marginalized been the most disparately impacted in every area of social wellbeing and the vulnerable individuals and communities in (health,education,employment),including transit.These disparities America. Accessible, affordable transportation is were starkly evident in the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on a critical resource. Shifting this historic dynamic minority populations as compared to the white population. National requires focusing less on cost as a measure of surveys indicate that Black residents, who make up an average system success and placing greater emphasis on of around 13% in most communities, represented over 50% of access and a more equitable distribution of the COVID-19 cases and nearly 58% of COVID-related deaths. In North benefits of transit investments. Carolina, Black residents represent only 22% of the population and 38% of the COVID-19 deaths (2020).As Black residents also tend to While many residents in Orange County rely depend more on public transportation than whites, their access to primarily upon automobiles as their primary means health care and employment opportunities has also been adversely of transport, there are still many residents who impacted by the pandemic. depend upon public transportation for access to employment, health care, shopping, and more. The Marginalized groups have also disproportionately suffered adverse Orange County Transit Plan Update attempts to impacts generated by transportation policies and planning favoring identify the needs of vulnerable groups in Orange majority-white communities. This preferential treatment of County, acknowledge that needs have historically white communities has historically tied transportation access to not been addressed, and identify equitable transit opportunities to economic and political power. One notable example solutions moving people and place closerto the goal is the construction of highways through thriving Black communities of transit equality. under the guise of urban renewal. In many cases, highway corridors routes were selected based on the cost of land; areas selected were typically the cheapest or locations where political resistance was weakest. In practice, this meant that urban highways cut through low income and minority communities more often than not. The legacy of these projects is still felt today. Neighborhoods remain disinvested and disconnected from the rest of the community, contributing to transportation access and mobility challenges in marginalized communities that most need quality transit service. G p Just before his assassination on April 4,1968,Dr. Martin Luther King, -. Jr. astutely summarized the important role transportation plays in /i3 Dia' hindering the social mobility of Black Americans: i �JJ►�` "Urban transit systems in most American cities... have become a genuine civil rights issue — and a valid one — because the layout of rapid-transit systems determines the accessibility of jobs to the Black community. If transportation systems in American cities The Montgomery bus boycott was organized by local could be laid out so as to provide an opportunity for poor people to ministers,including Martin Luther King,Jr. ultimately get meaningful employment, then they could begin to move into the helping end segregation on public transit.Image Credit: mainstream of American life." PBS ORANGE COUNTY NORTH ' ! execut 'i've summary. .�t"t�M�7'�i1�'�`�'EYA ? ( (.���`, -�•�.\ �" '�r (� � '$'J� - .�1,�! �u+.T,g i �'a6 '!1t A ��,� ` I{. cy �� -i y •'*p+� atfi �4 {{4afk � 3�s�r, \fib r� \ l ` _ �� ( � i ►x I 4 Lt + y Mlj � �,i���. �• 'Ar. i � � � ,0'. (�� i 1'r". y� �A .. L-I '� s,�1• w '� 'ei i• IN. ,�,`��I,M�I.,'.,' -.''A' J a 107 1 q u ick•take �.� Start here to learn more about the " Orange County Transit Plan Update's purpose and organization. SECTION c r+ c 3 3 1< 00 executive summary. WELCOME TO THE ORANGE COUNTYTRANSIT PLAN UPDATE! WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU ON BOARD. i The Executive Summary provides you with an overview of the Orange County Transit Plan Update including a description of the plan's purpose and motivating values, a timeline of the planning process, a "map" of the plan's contents to help you find the information you need, and a summary of new investments in the County's transit system including Orange County's vision for the next generation of transit investments. i - - - START HERE WHAT IS THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE? The Orange County Transit Plan Update allocates Orange County's Transit Tax District revenues overthe next 20 years based on the community's needs, values, and priorities. It includes already programmed projects and investments described in previous plans (Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (20121, Orange County Transit Plan (20171, and projects included in the County's annual transit work plans) and new projects to be funded with the revenue remaining after accounting for existing projects. The Orange County Transit Plan Update also ensures the benefits of public transportation investments support community members who are the most reliant on transit service and that public transportation investments support land use and development in Orange County that is resilient, sustainable, and attainable for all. 00 executive summary. 17 () WHAT IS THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT TAX? In 2012, voters in Orange County approved a half-cent sales tax (Article 43) to fund transit service and transit infrastructure improvements. Funding for transit is also collected through a vehicle rental tax and vehicle registration fees. In 2022, Orange County generated $8,954,000 through these funding sources. The revenues support transit services provided by Orange County Public Transportation, Chapel Hill Transit, and GoTriangle. Revenues also help pay for infrastructure improvements related to transit in Orange County communities and support administrative and planning services. 0 WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO PLAN FOR TRANSIT? Transit is more than just a way to get from one point to another. It connects people to employment opportunities, improves environmental outcomes by reducing the number of cars on the road, supports active transportation (walking, biking, rolling), and gives people the freedom to go where they want, when they want. Transit planning helps balance the needs of all transit riders and allocates available funding to meet these needs. Transit planning also guides important decisions in Orange County related to accommodating new growth and development and ensuring transportation options are available. These decisions directly and indirectly impact where people live, work, learn, shop, and play and the opportunities, services, and resources that are available. () HOW WAS THE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE DEVELOPED? The Orange County Transit Plan Update was developed between 2020 and 2022 and included reviewing existing transit,transportation, and land use plans, conducting public outreach and engagement, identifying and assessing transit projects, and creating an implementation plan, budget, and schedule for new transit projects. 1 00 executive summary. PLAN TIMELINE Analysis & Conceptual Pfoposed FlFinol TronO Network ' Transit Draft Transit Plon Development Scenarios 'A Plan u— ,P7 Adoption Analysis& . • lic 17 Network PSC Development e�� Spring 2020 Summer 2020 Fall 2020 Winter 2021 Summer 2021 Fall 2021 Spring 2022 Fall 2022 PLAN PARTNERS The Plan Update was led by Orange County staff and a consultant team was hired to develop the plan. A Policy Steering Committee (PSC) of local elected officials was convened to guide the plan's policy direction. Municipalities (Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Mebane), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, transit service providers (Chapel Hill Transit, Orange County Public Transportation, and GoTriangle), and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) were also closely involved in the plan's development. �S501?0 G R \\\II ORANGE ` COUNTY 1.7 �rJ V,4THE UNIVERSITY NORTH CAROLINA fI CAR Ty CARP of NORTH CAROLINA iv at CHAPEL HILL DURHAM CHAPEL CARRHCRC ri OrangleCounty D C H C IJ�J'JI GO!* PUBLIC TRANSIT METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION � Triangle 00 executive summary. PROJECT SELECTION HOW WERE TRANSIT PROJECTS IDENTIFIED? Transit projects were selected based on needs, priorities, and the recommendations of the public, local government staff, transit service providers, community stakeholders, and the Policy Steering Committee. The following were considered: • Transit service provider's priority projects • Public need _ • Community values (equity, environmental sustainability, economic prosperity, affordable and attainable quality of life, and transportation and access for all) Regional connectivity Long-term transit vision. L > () WHAT VALUES GUIDED THE SELECTION OF PROJECTS? The Orange County Transit Plan Update is guided by by five core community values. EQUITY AFFORDABLE &ATTAINABLE QUALITY s Prioritize the transit needs of under- OF LIFE served or transit-dependent residents; Prioritize transit service connections includes historically disinvested to affordable housing, recreation, and communities of color, lower-income arts and cultural opportunities. neighborhoods, seniors, and rural communities. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY TRANSPORTATION &ACCESS FOR Prioritize accessible and convenient ALL transit service in areas with existing or Prioritize transit service that increases planned higher density development. transit access for the most people to the most places. ECONOMIC PROSPERITY $ Prioritize increasing access to jobs and opportunities. 00 executive 20 wary. OPROJECTS The Orange County Transit Plan Update recommends five transit service improvement projects and two capital investment projects to enhance transit connections, access, and reliability. ProposedOrange County, North Carolina - - \ J Midday Frequency ® Transfer Center f r 15 min - Jurisdictional Boundary 20 min *Note:All Peak-only routes except ODX I /� I - r 25-35 min go to/from downtown Chapel Hill. 36-b0 min 0 2.5 mi 5 mi +� Peak only Orange County Public Transportation Mobility- on-Demand Service Expansion(2 phases);serves _ locations in Orange County that lack access to fixed route transit service / 3 J -` US 15-501 Improvements oTriangle 400/405(Phase 11 Consolidate into one route pattern(discontinue service to Old 1 Chapel Hill Road/University Drive).Schedule effective 15-minute service midday,and - i ,�. improved Sunday and evening service. ✓ T _ - US 15-501 Improvements(GoTriongle -_ 400(Phase 2)Shift route to Fordham 70 t, cb Boulevard and provide all day service ` o to Jones Ferry Road Park and Ride. — a � • � 1i1 US 15-501/Fordham . Boulevard at Ephesus m®� `y-- � Church Road �� Crossing and Shelter Improvements \ Chapel Hill Transit NS: _ Improve morning peak frequency to every Chapel Hill Transit HS:Add PJ 6 minutes.Provide weekend service with 1 bus(70 - -= Saturday service until min frequency)[8 AM-6:30 PMJ -�1 r- 11 PM and Sunday s - ;. service until 9 PM n Chapel Hill Transit CW:Improve Fordham/Manning weekday midday service to 30 ` Queue Jump and minutes _ { Shoulder Running Improvements gym " . j -Chapel Hill o N UNC i us i r US 15-501 Improvements(Chapel Hill Transit J) r� Improve morning peakfrequencyto everylO minutes and offer 15 minute service until noon.Provide - US 15-501 Improvements(Chapel Hill Transit D) Saturday service until 11 PM and Sunday service until 9 PM — o Extend service to Patterson Place and provide L Saturday service until 9 PM. 00 executive summary.O21 TRANSIT VISION The Orange County Transit Plan Update also illustrates a long-term vision for"Next Generation"transit service and investments in Orange County. LEGEND Chapel Hill/ RTP Bus Rapid Transit(BRT) t Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) . . . Express Bus Corridors (2040) North-South Bus Rapid Transit(N-S BRT) Express Bus Corridors (2050) — — — Durham/ Chapel Hill Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — Express Bus to Mebane — — - - - - -- ------------------- - - -- rDURHAM COUNTY �I 85 40 40 540 ORANGE COUNTY a9 ar � I I MEBANE _ -- � HLLL�SBOROUGH� 4 IID I j ��w�IDOWNTDWN, " v 14] 98 Cerraway Villege r 19 �I is South Square '� 'J0 NC Central University a a� 9°1 Potte�onplgce DOWNTOWN 'Ili .�. s4 White Cross CHAPEL HILL lllu 11 s4 ss CARRBORO Meeliowmont _ i sl ��Soeihern Villege P Hill A 601 EYfli�} I j CHATHAM COUNTY e I � � 540" 9°1 I Jsl I I I I C etham Pork Areo Pittsboro 00 executive summary. OROUTE MAP A guide to finding your way around the Orange County Transit Plon Update. EQ/ Transit 00/ Executive Equity Summary .0— O You are here! 01/ Introduction 03/ Transit 02/ Orange OCounty -911 INFO Stop here for EXPRESS deeper dives 04/ Funding O O Qinto transit topics! BUS OSTOP OEQUITY XTION Stop here for deeper dives 05/ Projects O into equity topics! BUS STOP06/ Vision �� �Q99 Stations EQ/Transit Equity: Learn more about transit equity's origins in transit network, and transit system performance. the Civil Rights Movement and what's needed today to ensure ALL citizens benefit from investments in public transportation. 04/Funding: Collection and allocation of transit funding, including the assumptions used to estimate expenses, costs, and revenues. 00/Executive Summary:An overview of the Orange County Transit Plan Update's purpose and organization. 05/Projects: Specifics for each project proposed in the Orange County Transit Plan Update. 01/Introduction: The Orange County Transit Plan Update allocates the county transit tax revenues over the next 20 years. 06/Vision:The next generation of transit investments envisioned in Orange County. 02/Orange County: Key characteristics of the people and places in Orange County and their influence on transit investments, and 07/Implementation: Next steps for implementing proposed service. projects. 03/Transit: Orange County's transit service providers, the existing AP/Appendix: Supplemental information and resources. -NOW- ORANGE NORTHCOUNTY i n trod u i on . i h�v3 �4S�f, � _ �• moi'"�� ` � 1' \� •' {� t t I /' — .crux ', ` r r . r BUS STOP -�'.��.:fit+ %%�" �. - •s- l r y quick•take 1 7 ^` The Orange County Transit Plan Update allocates the county transit tax revenues over the next 20 years. 4 177--l'. gg 111JV Aw WC-wo e"m Fi ' SECTION 0 0. C r+ 0 01 introduction. it nsit plan transit - plan A document and financial strategy s Orange describing public transportation investments that reflect the community's needs , values , and IC :)n o n e? priorities . This section describes the "nuts and bolts" of the planning process including the reasons Orange County plans for public transportation and the benefits of planning today for tomorrow's needs. t its most basic level, the Orange County potential transit riders) and allocating available funding to meet Transit Plan Update describes a strategy these various needs. This is not a simple task and there are not for using funding collected through the '"right" or "wrong" ways to do it. These decisions are informed by county's transit tax over the next 20 years. But, the community's values and "trade-offs" must be considered and if we look closer, the Orange County Transit Plan weighed based on needs, goals, and resources. Update also tells a story about people and places - how the county became what it is today and Guided by five core values, the Orange County Transit Plan Update where the county is headed in the future. describes how the county will invest in improvements to the types (modes), locations (routes], and schedules (frequency and span] of The Transit Plan Update guides important transit services offered in Orange County. decisions in Orange County related to how we will use developed and undeveloped land, where _ we can or should accommodate new growth andvalues. development, and what types of transportation Equity: Prioritize the transit needs under-served options will be available to us. These decisions _ _ _ includes directly and indirectly impact where we live, 'r tra ' pendent ' historically work, learn, shop, and play and the opportunities, • '• • • • ' lower-income services,and resources available to us.Therefore, neighborhoods, - • and rural communities. this plan is also concerned with equity, ensuring that 1] the benefits of public transportation Environmental Sustainability: Prioritize accessible investments support community members who are the most reliant on transit service; and 2] ' convenientithexisting public transportation investments support land or planned • density development use and development that is resilient,sustainable, and affordable. Economic Prosperity: increasing access Why Plan for Transit? to jobs and opportunities. Transit is more than just a way for riders to get Affordable Attainable of Life: from one point to another. Transit connects people to employment opportunities, improvesconnections ' affordablehousing, environmental outcomes by reducing the number recreation, - • arts - • cultural opportunities. of cars on the road,supports active transportation (walking, biking, rolling], and gives people the Transportation and Access for All: Prioritize transit freedom to go where they want, when they want. for the most Qservice that increases transit access Transit planning requires understanding and balancing the needs of all transit riders (even people to the mostplaces. 01 introduction. 2 Investing in Transit In 2012, residents of Orange County approved a half-cent sales tax equity or equality? to fund transit service and infrastructure improvements.Additional EQUITY funding is generated for transit through a vehicle rental tax and CONNECTION vehicle registration fees. Transit revenues and expenses are ' understand ' discussed in more detail in the"Funding"section of this plan. achieved through thoughtful $3 Vehicle • • planning, • - nt Registration Rental to consider differences FeeCar BUS STOP between equality and transit $7 Vehicle equity. While they are similar, Registrationconcepts Feenterchangeable. Equalitymeans •_ • exactly the same - most people associate •-, . or • on tihe other hand, acknowledges prejudices have l-• to social and structural others.imbalances and situations where some groups 112 cent Transit Sales Tax benefit (or experience adverse impacts) more than • imbalances requires lLnequal distribution of benefits or mitigation of adverse •. Debates about the concept of equity often stem from belief Revenue Sources Supporting Transit in Orange County yields similar outcomes. But this perspective- North Carolina's General Statutes require the County to create a fails to acknowledge • - l treatment in financial plan describing how transit tax revenues will be spent. the '' we're notstarting ' ut Transit tax revenues must be used to provide new or improved at the same place - • some of our - • •• service - they cannot be used to pay for transit service that is must struggle just to get to the starting already being provided by the county. The first of these plans, the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, was adopted in This means that without a deliberate 2012.The Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), on equity - condition of GoTriangle, and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan equality. Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) also executed an Interlocal Implementation Agreement (ILA) in 2012, describing a process for the implementation and oversight of the Orange County Bus and The Orange • ••- " Rail Investment Plan. The ILA established a Staff Working Group attempts to move us closerto rectifying (SWG) including representatives from Orange County, GoTriangle, disparities in access t• services, goods, and DCHC MPO.The SWG reviews transit planning implementation and opportunities. Proposed projects were progress and supports updates to the Plan in response to changing measured, assessed, • prioritized community needs and priorities or to make changes to projects or determine who would benefit and where the implementation plan and schedule.The plan was last updated _ experienced, _ _ _ ensuring in 2017 as the Orange County Transit Plan. benefits � • • � • - more equitable distribution of the benefits of Both the 2012 and 2017 Plans centered around the Durham-Orange transit investment. Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) project, with a significant portion of funding being allocated to its planning and implementation.When the D-O LRT project was discontinued in March of 2019, it was necessary to update to the county's transit plan. 01 introduction. This document (Orange County Transit Plan Update) is the policy steering committee. product of the plan update process.The update process provided a valuable opportunity to ensure planned transit projects and investments reflect community values and meet community POLICY STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS needs and goals. Within this plan update we introduce seven new transit projects supplementing the projects in the 2012 and Member Name Title/Organization 2017 plans, and enhancing the transit service and infrastructure Sally Greene(Chair) Orange County Board of currently provided by Orange County. County Commissioners Amy Fowler(replaced Orange County Board of Service Providers Mark Marcoplos) Couloll=ommissioners Transit services in Orange County are primarily provided by Michael Parker Chapel Hill Town Council three agencies; each participates in the development and Barbara Foushee Carrboro Town Council implementation of the county's transit plans. Mark Bell Hillsborough Town Commission Montrena Hadley Mebane City Council OrangeCounty (replaced Patty Phillips) PUBLIC TRANSIT Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) is a county A Policy • Committee agency providing fixed route and demand response community helped guide planning • • transportation services to all residents of unincorporated Orange The Committee's •- •-. County,the Town of Hillsborough, Efland, and a portion of the City elected officials • Orange • • of Mebane with destinations within and beyond Orange County's _ towns . • es County's borders. OCPT also provides circulator service within Hillsborough borders including Chapel Hill, (in cooperation with the Town of Hillsborough), midday service Mebane. _ connecting Chapel Hill to Hillsborough, and connections to Cedar Hillsborough, • •' Meetings Grove in northern Orange County. were held regularly to discuss priorities, • engagement, Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) is a multi- • .n's strategic direction, . to review p jurisdictional agency formed by a work products and proposed projects. The partnership . - partnership of the Town of Chapel Hill, consultingteam • Orange County Town of Carrboro, and the University facilitated a four-hour strategic planning of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (UNC- retreat _ rs n July 24, 2021 CH). CHT provides fare-free regular and •r PSC • • express routes and demand response in Hillsborough to reach consensuson service in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and UNC- core communityconfirm CH campus areas.CHT also provides regional express bus service goals, - • to discuss conceptual to Hillsborough in cooperation with GoTriangle. scenarios. and the project team attended the retreat in person and GoTriangle is a regional transit agency _ retreat was live-streamed on Zoom to providing regional commuter express and accommodate nts while demand response service connecting GO additional •� •� prevent Wake, Durham, and Orange counties. maintaining room ' •' limits to transmissionof • primary outcome Triangleservice addition to these three primary transit - - identification of TI" f service providers, Piedmont Authority • - - -• to identify and assess for Regional Transit(PART) also provides projects t. include in the Transit Plan longer distance service between Greensboro, NC, and UNC-CH Update. Hospitals with several stops in Alamance County. 01 introduction. 27 • Updating the Plan The Orange County Transit Plan Update was developed between 2020 and 2022 and included tasks such as reviewing existing transit, transportation, and land use plans; conducting two phases of public outreach and engagement; developing and assessing conceptual transit scenarios and proposed projects; and creating an implementation plan, budget, and schedule for new transit projects. Analysis & . • ... 7 . Network Transit Draft • • • Development Scenarios Network Plan A III Analysis & ?7'blic 1�7, Fr'PSIC , . Network PSIC PSC Development ' Spring 2020 Summer 2020 Fall 2020 Winter 2021 Summer 2021 Fall 2021 Spring 2022 Fall 2022 Project Timeline Plan Review The planning process also considered existing transit plans to better understand unmet transit needs and land use plans to ensure transit investments are aligned with county and municipal visions for growth and development. A full list of plans reviewed for this project is available in the appendix. Key resource documents include: • Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (2008) • Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (2012) • Orange County Transit Plan Update (2017) • Chapel Hill Short Range Transit Plan (2020) • Orange County Public Transportation Short Range Transit Plan (2018) • GoTriangle Short Range Transit Plan (2018) • FY2O-29 State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) (2020) • DCHC 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) (draft, 20221 • Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan (2012) Local government and transit agency staff actively participated in identifying unmet transit needs, balancing transit needs with available resources, and vetting proposals for transit improvements. Key partners included: • Orange County Public Transportation • Orange County • Town of Chapel Hill • GoTriangle • Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) • Town of Carrboro • Town of Hillsborough • City of Mebane • University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 20 •: • outreach & engagement. The Orange County Transit Plan Updates centers community outreach and engagement, ensuring the plan reflects community values and meets the community's transit needs. Drawing on best practices and experience, the planning team designed an approach providing residents and other stakeholders with the information and tools needed to fully engage in the planning and decision-making process and offering ample and accessible opportunities to participate in the planning process. Two critical elements of this approach are redundancy (many ways to participate) and accessibility (engagement makes sense given the community's needs and resources). The project's outreach and engagement were conducted in two phases. Phase 1 introduced important transit planning concepts and established a shared understanding of the transit planning process, purpose, and key players. The goal of Phase 1 was to identify community transit priorities and establish a broad vision for new transit investments. Phase 2 drilled down into proposed projects and investment options ensuring they reflected community priorities and the feedback gathered in Phase 1. approaches. project website Launched and maintained throughout the process; served as a centralized location for information, questions, and feedback 00 virtual transit summit Introduced the Plan Update process and the transit system and set expectations on project scopes and budgets; sought early input on transit goals; helped identify community priorities; shared information about existing transit services that may not be widely known; included simultaneous Spanish interpretation. surveys Gathered preliminary information on transit wants and needs; respondents asked to share ridership habits, including types of transit they use, trip purposes, and any reasons for not taking transit; survey was available online and in print form and was offered in both English and Spanish; the second survey sought to gather input on the set of proposed projects and identify any unmet needs or additional thoughts. 00 virtual focus groups Invited community leaders and representatives to provide feedback on the proposed investment strategies and projects. pop ups In-person engagement at bus stops and park and ride lots to promote the second transit survey and gather additional feedback. • •• 21 engagement phase 1 . TOOLS/ project website, survey, transit Transit riders •- •'• summit. transit services— both in A project website was established to share and store frequency and in hours of operation. project information. Launched early in the planning process, the website was a central location for important information , resources, and materials. A survey (available online or in print, in both Spanish and English) gathered information on community transit needs and priorities by asking questions about travel patterns, travel modes, trip purposes, reasons the respondent chooses not to use transit (if applicable), and what could change to make transit a more attractive option. Transit service providers and planning partners helped promote the first survey and over 200 responses were received. In October 2020, a virtual Transit Summit was held attracting over 50 participants. The summit provided an overview of the planning process, introduced Orange County's transit system and providers, and set expectations in terms of the amount of funding available to support new transit investments. Participants were also asked about their transit goals and priorities, and this information was integrated into the planning process. The Transit Summit was promoted in both English and Spanish and featured simultaneous Spanish/English interpretation to help mitigate language barriers. A summary of feedback from Phase 1 is available in the appendix. PHASE 2/ what . . we /ea�7? tic Support was confirmed engagement phase 2. proposed improvements and TOOLS/ focus groups, survey, pop-ups. vision,transit Two virtual focus groups gathered stakeholder 6� feedback on proposed projects and a conceptual transit vision. rporoject team, transit service providers, and the PSC collaborated on an invitation list of targeting participants representing community interests, organizations, and agencies. Groups were capped at 15 participants to allow for a productive virtual environment for open discussion. The Phase 2 survey sought feedback on proposed projects and the conceptual transit vision by asking respondents to provide feedback on unmet transit needs or other transit-related concerns. The survey was available online and in print, in both English and Spanish. Transit providers, county and municipal staff, and community organizations heavily promoted the survey on behalf of the planning team.Additionally, project staff conducted pop-up events at bus stops across Orange County, sharing plan information and promoting the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed projects and the conceptual transit vision. Additionally, posters and postcards were distributed advertising the survey. These intensive advertising efforts paid off- over 1,000 responses were received. A final phase of outreach gathered feedback on the plan, proposed projects, and conceptual transit vision during public comment for the plan's adoption. 01 introduction. Plan Governance The Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan was approved in 2012 by Orange County, DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle. Along with this plan, Orange County, GoTriangle, and DCHC MPO entered into an Interlocal Implementation Agreement (ILA] to provide for effective implementation and oversight of the transit plan on October 24, 2012.The ILA establishes a Staff Working Group (SWG) including representatives from Orange County, GoTriangle, and DCHC MPO.The SWG supports the annual project selection process and budget approval; reviews progress of plan implementation; and prepares updates to the Plan at least every four years, or due to identified changes to costs or revenues that are significant enough to require a plan update.The Orange County Transit Plan (2017) was the first plan update. In 2017,the parties to the ILA plus Durham County also approved an update to the ILA's Cost-Sharing Agreement governing the division of responsibility for costs associated with the D-0 LRT project, a key element of the 2012 and 2017 plans.The 2017 Cost-Sharing Agreement supersedes the original 2012 agreement. In 2021,these parties commenced a governance plan update process to review and possibly amend the governance structure for transit planning and implementation. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PARTIES I I • R 1NGE ■ Staff Working Group (SWG) Voting Members ORANGE COUNTY NORTH "' • or nge ounty. quick•take - - Home to nearly 150,000 residents, ' � Orange County is the westernmost �1 anchor of the Research Triangle. O SECTION 0 C 15 02 orange county. at �Ue s spatial • ana 1 Ys1 s Methods of organizing and s ments in assessing data and information to identify patterns and trends oe based on geographic location. This section summarizes key characteristics of the people and places in Orange County and describes their influence on transit decisions, investments, and service. 0 range County is centrally located in North Carolina's biotechnology.The establishment of Research Triangle Park Piedmont, part of the Research Triangle Region. Four (RTP) in 1959 solidified the county's place in the new global municipalities are located wholly or partially within the economy. Information and knowledge-based sectors are county-the Towns of Chapel Hill,Carrboro,and Hillsborough strongly supported byseveral research universities,a nearby and the City of Mebane. A small part of Chapel Hill extends international airport, the high quality of life, communities, into Durham County. Orange County's population is largely and an entrepreneurial spirit. concentrated within the urbanized areas of the towns and there are several rural communities like Eflond and Cedar Grove, among others. People Nearly 149,000 residents were living in Orange County at the time of the 2020 Decennial US Census, an increase of History approximately 15,000 residents since 2010. Median age Orange County was originally inhabited by the Eno, remains relatively low (35.1)though the share of population Occaneechi, and Haw tribes of Native Americans. Later aged over 65 has increased (9.4% in 2010, 14.1% in 2020). colonizers included the English, German, Scotch-Irish, and The share of residents under the age of 18 has remained Welsh.The county played a pivotal role in the lead up to the stable over the last decade (20.0% in 2010 compared to American Revolution duetothe Regulator Movement- North 19.5% in 2020) [US Census, 2020 ACS 5-year estimates]. Carolina residents who instigated armed rebellion against corrupt colonial officials. In 1789, the flagship campus of Trends indicate shifts in the racial distribution ofthe county's the University of North Carolina system was established in residents.The share of residents identifying as white (74.4% Chapel Hill. in 2010 and 66.6% in 2020) and residents identifying as Black or African American (11.2% in 2010 and 10.7% in Like many areas in the American south, the county's 20201 have both decreased. Asian residents (6.7% in 2010 development was rooted in agriculture (tobacco, cotton] and 8.5% in 2020) and residents identifying as Hispanic or and influenced bythe railroad's arrival in the mid-1800s.The Latino of any race (8.2% in 2010 and 10.6% in 2020) have railroad's connections to national and international markets both increased. andthe manufacturing advances ofthe Industrial Revolution combined to form the foundation of the Piedmont's textile Residents of Orange County tend to be highly educated. industry.The region's strong grip on textiles manufacturing Over 26% of residents hold a bachelor's degree and the continued into the mid to late 20th century buff hen began a rate of master's degree attainment is near 34.8% - both precipitous drop off, likely due to competition from overseas representing increases over the last decade for residents producers. aged 25 and older. Unemployment remains low (4.2% in 2010 and 2.5% in 2020). A strong agricultural tradition still exists in Orange County, though the county's economy has evolved and diversified to Median household income (2020) is around $7,000 higher embrace new industrial sectors such as life sciences and than the national average but over 38% of households in Orange County report earning $100,000 or more, annually. 02 orange county. 3 PLANNING CONTEXT: Triangle region I'' naiurax 7� -- — - Cos ell r�-rs�n GT1F1 Ile �" W ren♦ <. n E o a m U m .s p >U A C V(� C C Q a [37 o`-a Caswell �E'P�i,i f�IDmQr7Ce Ort �rdnGf - I Warren e.c ©�c Franklin Hostf ax y a Nos\, 4191.c M'elJone D Bur Ing 'n fia� I#illshoroug`n 0 cT a N Cr Q ° ur.ham ��--Wake forest Nasl'iville' sa Caboo rr r hopel•Hill Alumc Chath Cary ;Raleig`h �4 Apter, a ex boro itis y Garner v C o ` s Holly- pringsClayton , . 421 7- son 501 x"2 9 Fuquay.-Varma - Yna. \� I Chothom Moore r m sol � a 401 a`C 4'r1 �sr F5 o r I 0 5 10 20 Miles N LEGEND Orange County Carrboro ChapelHill Hillsborough - Mebane DCHC MPO Boundary Triangle(TRM area) • 02 orange county. Housing • Residential density is generally concentrated in Chapel EXPRESS The and Transportation Hill, Carrboro, Durham, and areas along the FordhamAffordability Index (H+T Index) was Housing Boulevard/ Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard (US 15/501) created corridor.Areas of higher density(over 10,000 residents • • ' � Neighborhood _ � •• ••• per square mile) include Duke University and theTechnology " ' provide University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Higher density BUS STOP more comprehensive viewof • of ' areas typically feature multi-family housing and a and housing affordability. Traditional more traditional development pattern with smaller lots metrics of affordability only c• •- and higher street network connectivity. There are also housing costs - • determine • • to •- "affordable" several - • •-• - several pockets of higher residential density outside of when monthlyor • •.•- payments accountfor • downtown Chapel Hill on Fordham Boulevard/Durham- more than 30% of household income. Chapel Hill Boulevard (US 15/501) and along the Martin metric is that it does n•t account for •• • costs Luther King, Jr. Boulevard corridor. Hillsborough also in the calculationof monthlyexpenses features a more traditional grid of streets but residential lots are larger and density tends to be much lower thanIndex acknowledges • accounts forthe Chapel Hill or Carrboro. betweenrelationship • • costs and transportation Outside of downtown Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and costs. For example, in the Triangle Region, housing costs Hillsborough, development patterns shift to post-war are typically h • •-nse •. n centers. These suburban development featuring larger lot sizes, strict tend • be the _ locations that enjoy • _ ater access separation of uses, and disconnected, looping street to jobs and better transit service, meaning transportation patterns. These areas are significantly more difficult costs ' to serve by transit - higher-density, well-connected neighborhoods are much better suited for transit In contrast, ' • costs tend to •- lower in locations service . further from •• but •• are generally further away and - - • ,• - Residents Residential density drops significantly otthe boundaries in these locations are generally m• - dependent on of incorporated communities like Chapel Hill and private vehicles and spend more time traveling to and Carrboro and most of Orange County is rural and very from workday. low-density(less than 1,000 residents per square mile). The H+T Index includes both housing AND transportation While the cost of living in North Carolina remains lower costsy. _ combined than the national average, over half of all renters _ more household income, in the state report spending more than 30% of their situation can be considered affordable. gross monthly income on housing each month. This figure only incorporates housing costs and likely CNT underestimates the amount a household spends each mixe • reports month as it neglects to incorporate transportation services' ' • • •• costs (see box H+T Index). transit ' amenities" lower transportation costs, contributing to a higher level of affordability. Orange County has a relatively high median home value ($346,200] as compared to Chatham County 54; west of US 15-501 near Chapel Hill; and east of Hillsborough in ($333,100) or then Durham County ($246,000) (ACS Orange County. Notably, these areas with more affordable housing 2020 5-year estimates). Median value is a rough are more difficult to serve with useful transit service. indicator of the relative affordability of the housing stock in each county.Durham County likely has a higher ,obs share of affordable and potentially affordable homes. The county's largest employers are UNC Chapel Hill,UNC Health Care, Most housing falling into an the "affordable" range and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. The county's largest private (based on Area Median Income) is between 1-40 and US employer is Eurosport(Sports Endeavors, Inc.),a distributor of sports 15-501(between Chapel Hill and Durham);south of NC- equipment and apparel.Like the region,most residents are employed 02 orange county. 3 PLANNING CONTEXT: Regional Job Centers i �I I NORTH DURHAM/ ti STADIUM DUKE EAST/ ! - CENTRA L DUKE'WEST/' HOSPITALS DOS NTOWN I D�RHAM EASTGATE% SOUTH PATTERSON PLACE SQUARE CHAPEL HILL/ C4RRBORO _f RTPtNORTH SOUTHPOINT UNC NC-557 JI_ TW ALEXANDER f' BRIER GREE �.. RTP SOUTH AIR�PORTBLVD/ PERIMETER PARK 0 2 5 5.5 1 R Miles Jobs centers Jobs by Type in Jobs Centers UNC Jobs per acre Saithpoint South Square 5.0 or fewer RTP South RTP North 5.001 - 10.00 North Durhan-dStadium ........ ...... ........... ..... .......... .......... ....... 10.01 - 15.00 NC-55N Alexander ___ Eastgate/Pattei son Place 15.01 - 20.00 Duke West/Hospdals Duke Bast/Central 20.01 or more Dow ntow n Durham Q D C H C MPO Chapel Hill/Carrboro Brier Creek Airport Blvd/Perimeter Par Orange County k - 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25.000 30,000 Jobs Industrial m Retail m office E Service j 02 orang ecounty. in the educational services, and health care and social assistance sector (39.1%, 2018); followed by professional, INFO transit & land scientific,and management; and administrative and waste EXPRESS management services (12.9%, 2018). Integrating land use planning • transit planning contributes to Most of the county's jobs are in and around downtown growth . directing growth, Chapel Hill, UNC-CH campus, and along the US 15-501 • development t• locations corridor. There are also pockets of job density in shopping BUS STOP currently, or _ planned • provide centers like Meadowmont and the Mebane outlets. high-quality transit service and by Employment generators outside of downtown districts setting policy that promotes higher and campuses are typically "big box" retailers. Usually density development in transit served This surrounded by large parking lots,these locations are more difficult to serve by transit because in most cases, there "location-efficient" • synergies • is a long walk between on-street bus stops and the front helps goals ' "th ' use ' transportation entrance. In some cases, buses make a time-consuming including: deviation into these shopping centers to allow a shorter Walkability Transit-oriented walk, slowing service on these routes. Multimodal safety development Regionally,jobs are concentrated near higher education and IncreasedTraffic calming Decreased cost of ridership research facilities, particularly around the Duke Hospital campus, the UNC Chapel Hill campus, and Research More '' Accessibility ' goods Triangle Park(RTP).The largest regional jobs centers (Duke environmentallyfriendly ' services Hospital, UNC, and RTP) are characterized by office and patterns of growth - ' ility service (primarily health care)jobs. Decreased roadway Predictable growth and Smaller jobs centers often offer a higher proportion of congestion development retail jobs and may be key destinations for commuters with limited mobility options apart from transit. In Orange Most residents travel to work alone in a car, truck, or van. County, Eastgate, Patterson Place, downtown Chapel Hill, Some workers carpool but the share of carpooling workers has and downtown Carrboro have notable shares of retail jobs. decreased between 2010 and 2018(11.3%and 7.1%,respectively). Southpoint, South Square, and Brier Creek are retail-heavy Notably,there have been no changes over the last decade in the jobs centers located outside the county. share of workers using public transportation to reach work (7.1% in both 2010 and 2018). Travel Patterns There has been a small increase in the number of employees In Orange and Durham Counties, home-to-work commuter who walkto work(5.0%and 6.1% in 2010 and 2018, respectively) flows are characterized by strong pulls towards several key but no change in the share of residents cycling to work (1.8%). job centers including: There has been a more significant increase in the share of • North Durham to Duke/Downtown Durham employees working from home(6.3%and 9.1%in 2010 and 2018, • East Durham to Duke/Downtown Durham respectively), a figure that is likely to increase further given • Southpoint to Duke/Downtown Durham; continued technological innovations and the COVID-19 pandemic • Chapel Hill to Duke/Downtown Durham and quarantine. Mean travel time to work has increased by nearly • Carrboro to Chapel Hill one minute since 2010 (21.8 as compared to 22.9 minutes in • Hillsborough to Durham. 2018). Regional commuter flows are dominated by travel between Wake County and Research Triangle Park; between Wake Transit Need County and Duke/Downtown Durham; and between Wake A robust travel market (i.e., potential for high ridership) does not County and Chapel Hill.Relatively lighterflows exist between always reflect the greatest transit need. In fact, many residents Chatham County and Chapel Hill; Alamance County and who live in rural and geographically distant areas are often those Chapel Hill; Alamance and Duke/Downtown Durham; and who need transit the most but who are often the most difficult Alamance and Hillsborough. transit customers to serve.There is also a need to avoid placing • . . .- 29 the region. A rapidly growing and deeply interconnected region like the Research Triangle benefits from investing in high quality public transit service. Local and regional transit service provides options for a range of transit riders including commuters, students, workers, travelers, and more. Transit relieves congestion and reduces travel times on the region's major transportation corridors, making connections between the places riders call home and the region's major employment hubs. Fare-free service provided by Chapel Hill reduces the need for parking on and near UNC Chapel Hill's campus, supporting higher and better uses of limited land resources.And, thanks to membership in the Burlington-Graham MPO, there are also connections in the County to western destinations via Piedmont Authority for Regional Transit (PART), a service that is expanding. Regional demographic and economic trends impact the transportation system and transit services telling us who lives in our region, where they live, where they need to travel, and the choices they make about how they meet travel needs. Tracking patterns and trends guides the important decisions we make about transit investments. • Some of the largest increases in growth are occurring in the region's more rural and suburban areas including southeast Durham County and northwest Chatham County • Urban areas are also experiencing growth, but at a relatively slower rate • Two industry sectors make up nearly 40% of the region's jobs: "educational services" and "health care and social assistance" • 10% of jobs are in "professional, scientific, and technical services" • Jobs tend to be concentrated near higher education and research facilities • Average annual salaries in these industries range from around $58,000 to $96,000 • 25% of the region's jobs are in sectors that don't enjoy the same high salaries including "retail trade;" "accommodation and food services;" "administrative support;" "waste management;" "transportation and warehousing;" and "arts, entertainment, and recreation" Residents employed in these industries are more likely to be housing and transportation cost-burdened • There has been significant growth in the region's share of older residents since 2012 (age 65 and over) who tend to concentrate in the far northern and southern parts of the region • Households earning more than $125,000 annually increased regionally and tend to be located in the region's northern and southwestern areas but there is a significant cluster in and around Chapel Hill's urban core • There has been a regional decrease in households earning less than $25,000 (the lowest reported income bracket), but extremely low-income households are increasing on the region's fringes, particularly in northern and eastern Durham County • The region's minority populations are increasingly moving outside of urban centers including significant growth in African American and Hispanic populations in Orange County north of Chapel Hill and 1-85 and 1-40 and to the north and east of Hillsborough. 1 02 orangecounty. undue transportation burdens on minority population groups. Income, vehicle availability, and age are indicators that help equit & orang UITYe identify transit need. CONNECTION• counry. It is difficult to provide useful transit to residents in distant, Orange • • - harder-to-reach areas as the additional distance means thatthe to thriving communities cost per ride is much higher. There are several geographically- that enjoy the benefits isolated, high-poverty neighborhoods in Orange County which BUS STOP proximity to major are harder to serve with cost-effective transit (i.e., rural areas univ_rsities and _ of the research outside the town boundaries of Hillsborough, Mebane, Chapel preeminentworldbiotech Hill, Carrboro, and Durham). Providing residents with meaningful industry hubs. However, Orange County transit options requires supportive land use and housing policies also "has the largest income inequality for a that allow lower income residents to live closer to high-quality county with _ residents _ transit service. the state"despite being one of the healthiest People in households without vehicles are not necessarily counties in NorthCarolina. "transit-dependent" but are more likely to use transit because they do not have a car in their driveway, always ready to go. Children living in poverty are a useful Few people in and around Orange County live without a car, so indicator of -• - residents overall densities of zero- car-households is low. The highest represent 64% of Orange County's levels are found within and immediately around downtown population, . ', of white children Chapel Hill, where non-car options (transit, bike share and bike below the poverty •. and Black/ infrastructure, etc.) are most abundant. Beyond this area, there African American residents . •, are a few pockets where zero-car household densities are higher, and 11% of the Orange County population primarily rural areas between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill. respectively, , •, of Hispanicchildren As a demographic group, seniors (65+) are less likely to own and 24% of Black children are living in poverty. cars than the general population.The highest concentrations of seniors are on the outer edges of urban areas like Chapel Hill, prospects for the lives of Durham, and Mebane. Some areas with a higher density of older childrenthese positive. Research residents are home to retirement communities. indicates that children born into poverty Seniors'transit needs and preferences tend to be different from have a substantiallyhigher lik "' of those of younger riders. For example, seniors tend to be more remaining impoverished throughout sensitive to walking distance, because of limits on their physical lives. Orange County's of ability, or concerns for their personal safety but they are also Health states that •"• of • born into less sensitive to long waits for transit, typically because they poverty will remain in poverty unless there is use transit for other reasons than commuting to/from work. signin the system." ificant change Likewise, seniors are generally also less likely to be discouraged by slow or indirect routes. Because of these factors, transit Hispanic and Black - .- service designed to meet the needs of seniors tends not to meet likely to be impacted . transit inequality. the needs of riders who are employed, in school, or caring for Transportation decisionsoftenmosbenefit kids in school who find long waits to be intolerable. • _ whitety population Information about ethnicity or race does not alone tell us how who are heavily invested in driving. More likely someone is to use transit but we must avoid projects data are needed to fully understand resulting in disproportionate burdens and ensure the equitable resourceshow past transit planning has facilitated increased distribution of benefits. Rural parts of Orange County tend to access to transit have a higher percentage of white residents with fewer Black barriers further disadvantage ' st and Hispanic residents. Urbanized areas are more diverse and vulnerableandsolutions ' ' to neighborhoods have a more even mix of Black, Hispanic, Asian, rectify inequities. and white residents. II F • ( __ ___ __ u f' uick�tak he Research Triangle is a highly interconnected region requiring coordinated transit funding, planning, and service. SECTION F+ F+ 03 40 transit. at ow IU si Orange transit - network The bus , rail , and other types C of public transportation routes k. available in a region or area . This section provides an overview of transit service providers, the existing transit network, and transit system performance. ublic transit service supports basic mobility for GoDurham: provides no service in Orange County but individuals who do not have access to a private does offer some connections with GoTriangle routes vehicle or other means of transportation. Publictransit near the county line service also supports overall transportation goals such as Piedmont Authority for Regional Transit (PART): reduced congestion and reduced travel time and can help provides service in the Greensboro, Winston-Salem, meet environmental goals including reduced emissions, and High Point Piedmont Triad, operates a bus that improved air quality, and a decreased reliance on fossil runs during rush hour and sparsely during midday fuels. These benefits impact both riders and non-riders connecting Chapel Hill and Mebane to Greensboro,with making public transit a true public good. For these reasons a timed connection a few times a day to GoTriangle alone,public transit investments are a foundational element service in Mebane. of great communities. Transit System Performance Network Overview Several key indicators help us understand how well the Orange County has several transit providers including: current transit system is functioning. These include • Orange County Public Transit (OCPT): a department of frequency of service, productivity of service, network Orange County, operates three circulator routes coverage (the number of people currently near transit • Chapel Hill Transit (CHT): a shared enterprise of the service) and transit network accessibility. Town of Chapel Hill,Town of Carrboro, and the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill; serves most of the town Frequency of Chapel Hill and runs a weekday rush hour service The amount of time between transit vehicles on the some between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough (route 420) route. Frequencies of 15 minutes or less generate the • GoTriangle: operates regional bus and shuttle service, greatest benefits for riders and service providers. Frequency paratransit services, ride matching and vanpools; should be considered relative to trip length[i.e.,itmokes less provides commuter resources and an emergency ride sense to wait a long time to travel a short distance]. home program for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area including Apex, Cary, Chapel Hill, Durham, Garner, Several transit routes in Orange County operate only Hillsborough, Knightdale, RDU International Airport, during rush hours; other routes run more frequently during Raleigh, the Research Triangle Park, Wendell, Wake rush hour, including some very frequent routes including Forest, and Zebulon CHT routes U, RU, S and FCX. Few CHT routes run into the Connecting services: evening,and those that do have lower frequencies and often • GoTriangle: operates routes connecting Chapel Hill with stop service at 9 PM. Fewer routes run on weekends,though Durham and provides regional transit services between more service is now available on weekends following CHT's Wake, Durham, Orange, and Alamance Counties; August 2020 network update. OCPT serves a very large, Orange-Durham Express route provides hourly peak mostly low-density area across much of the county making only service between Durham Station and Mebane City it difficult to provide service at useful frequencies. Service Hall is primarily coverage-oriented, providing basic access for 03 transit. 41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- • .- County, North Carolina Existing Network (August 2020) Midday Frequency 407 Transfer Center 15 min - Jurisdictional Boundary 11!_1= 20 min *Note:All Peak-only routes except ODX 25-35 mitt go to/from downtown Chapel Hill. 36-60 min 0 2.5 mi 5 mi ' Peak only t - r R.-4A pe tea M m p d 8 M! pal H'llPw R—OO%I. &Rare IAM/PIA t - • Mebane ...--..__."..... ^–i e4I�` Rh.lo,1 1,ago,aos 0OX ' rn 201 _ a.av��b.v�. , na Can rvmM Golkge • y Q I • I+ • OCPT Provides on-demand service for �•a,m �' , Ne 4,ten medical and social service trips.For G m more information,see , ' www.orangecountgnc.gov/1316/ Demand-Response-Services �e ED ®?;a R—400 win Na Ola Ch.pel Hill .R rversrq Dwe d ng AM � • AM and PM prak !y 1� Existing Transit Routes Chapel HillDOWNTOWN 1 03 42 transit. shopping, services, and social trips. GoTriangle offers some PmAWtoTwoff at MUdwy_YVedkLay late and weekend service providing people in and near y*hEdPemer&W ofUe siff area 6 riiimrberra downtown Chapel Hill with regional access. MRA®DO oft ,wbI4100 6111 Productivity MM i The number of riders compared to cost of service, measured # w� AIIIIII W in boardings per service hour,- useful for assessing ridership goals. The highest productivity service in Orange County is CHT's U route and its reverse route, the RU. Both operate at �� � � high frequencies and directly serve the core of downtown Chapel Hill and UNC. Most CHT routes have relatively high productivity; nearly all routes report 20 boardings per hour -4mnQWW0+* or more. Factors contributing to CHT's high productivity include service focused on the densest,most active parts of M +'+E M Orange County and fare-free service attracting more riders. ",� 4i�.�■ r,.i.,i����.�.,,4 Most GoTriangle routes achieve 10-20 boardings per hour. Both of GoTriangle's all-day services (Routes 400 and 800] Accessibility achieve 16 boardings per hour. Three GoTriangle peak-only routes (420, CRX, ODX) achieve productivity levels below The number of destinations (jobs, services, and community 13 boardings per hour and all three of OCPT's fixed route assets]residents can reach using transitservice. services average 10 boardings or less per hour.The Orange- Transit access in Orange County is highest in Chapel Hill and Alamance Connector[OAC] has the lowest productivity with Carrboro, reflecting the concentration of jobs and more robust less than one [0.9) boarding per hour. But, because OCPT transit connectivity in these areas. Higher accessibility extends routes are coverage-oriented and provide service to less along NO 54 to the Durham County line,from downtown Chapel populated areas, productivity is not necessarily the best Hill along US 15-501 in both directions towards the Blue Hill measure of their value to the community. District and Southern Village, and northward along NO 86. Coverage More modest transit access is observed along the US 70/1-85 The number of people living within a half-mile of a transit corridor, reflecting a lower density of destinations and overall stop with service during the midday period. The Orange lower levels of transit service. Most of the county's rural areas County Transit Plan Update assessed coverage based on lack access to jobs via fixed route transit, though many are proximity to gny transit service and proximity to frequent within the demand response service areas of regional transit transit service(20 minutes or less between vehicles). providers. Over 50% of Orange County's jobs are located within a Transit Trip-Making Potential half-mile of a transit stop with frequent service at midday. A person's likelihood of using transit when it's available Orange County residents living within a half-mile of a transit depends on several factors like daily travel needs, place of stop served by frequent transit service (20 minutes or less residence, vehicle availability, and more. We can assess the between vehicles at midday) include: general likelihood of a person using transit to meet a travel • 42%of all Orange County residents need("transit trip making potential")by considering the amount • 48%of Orange County residents identifying as a minority of trip producers (like households), trip attractors (ex., jobs), • 38%of Orange County residents who are living in poverty and the time it takes to travel between all possible producer- [200% of the federal poverty line] attractor pairs using transit. We can also weight the analysis While this indicates that a meaningful portion of Orange to prioritize pairs that have more units at the origin (ex., a pair County's population can access frequent transit service, connecting many households to onejobs center). 43%of impoverished residents still live more than a half-mile awayfrom a transit stop providing frequent, midday service. For trips beginning in Orange County, the highest trip-making This disparity is due to relatively higher levels of poverty in potential is connections to regional employment centers: the county's rural areas where it is more expensive to serve central Chapel Hill/Carrboro, (including UNC campus and residents because buses must travel longer distances hospitals) and the Duke Hospitals area in Durham.There is only between customers. one high-potential connection in Orange County north of 1-40 03 transit. 43 [downtown Durham/Duke to Hillsborough. INFO emerging Fortrips ending in Orange County,there are strong bi-directional EXPRESS technologies. connections between Chapel Hill and Duke University/Hospitals and connections between Chapel Hill and residential areas New technologiesand concepts in southern Durham County. Overall, transit trip-making are emerging addressing opportunities in Orange County are strongest in more urbanized transportation needsand shifting areas like Chapel Hill and Carrboro, particularly to and from BUS STOP _ • _ of agency. downtown areas to developments like Southern Village,the Blue primary concept • must Hill District, and Carraway/Weaver Dairy Road. be approached from end to end and may include a range of services, public and Transit Competitiveness private. For example, , trip could include walking, Transit competitiveness compares trip-making opportunities for using , scooter, and , bus ride. transit versus traveling by automobile. For example, imagine a household that can reach a major office district in 15 minutes by •• • • • _ car and in 30 minutes by transit.The some household can also modes I • _ • and,makingit easier • • . reach a shopping center in 15 minutes by car and 45 minutes • pay for • • •h technology by transit. For this household,transit is a more attractive option when traveling to the office district than to the shopping center. Mobility on Demand (MoD): services and Carrboro and Chapel Hill's most transit-competitive areas technologies like car s • ride sharing, ride provides transit access to around one-third of the jobs that sourcing, bike sharing, ' •' ckless bike can be reached by car. This is considered a reasonable level of sharing, and even connected and autonomous connectivity tojobs,suggesting a relatively high share of transit vehicles commuters. A more moderate area of transit competitiveness exists along NC-86 between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Transit Technology: •• payment - • Elsewhere,transit competitiveness is notably lower, suggesting cross-platform far- payment options (ex. usin• transit is likely only used infrequently or primary used by • - mobile .•• to pay for • - mobility households with low rates of vehicle ownership [no cars or one also includes real-time information car per household]. Areas to the west of Orange County such bus locationand arrivals as Burlington, Graham, Alamance County, and other Piedmont- Triad areas do not yet demonstrate an impact on transit • _• mobility competitiveness analyses but are worth keeping an eye on to may •_ public or private; typically _ app-based track changes. services to extend • replace _• • _ transit A trip-making potential analysis helps identify "underserved" service in areas with low ridership;typically cannot origin-destination pairs. These are pairs with high auto achieve high ridership relative to service levels; trip-making potential but low transit trip-making potential • extending • supplementing representing regional opportunities to better-connect residents existing •" " transit service if transit service can be improved to provide travel times that are similar to car travel times. Potential Limits to feasibility of emerging technologies For trips beginning in Orange County, there are opportunities to May notcommunity's - • improve transit competitiveness for trips between residential values or • of providers, areas • •- areas in Chapel Hill and Carrboro (specifically the Blue Hill if goal is generating • •- • relative to District and other in-town neighborhoods) and Downtown/ cost and efficiency There are more modest opportunities to improve transit More labor-intensive and costly competitiveness for trips between downtown/UNC and northern Full automationcould reduce labor Carrboro/southern Hillsborough. is still prohibitively into the future Public-private partnerships may draw less There are also opportunities to improve regional transit • • -• •- • traditional connections for trips beginning in Orange County including trips between central Chapel Hill/Carrboro to Raleigh; from transit. -A 03 44 transit. Hillsborough to Duke Hospital; and from northern Carrboro/Chapel continuing Hill (including the Blue Hill District]to Duke hospitals. INFO pandemic • . EXPRESS For transit trips ending in Orange County, there are opportunities The • pandemic to improve transit competitiveness for trips between southeastern . disrupted public health Durham County, northern Durham, the Brier Creek area, eastern • • , • quality of • . • Cary, and northern Raleigh and ending in the Downtown/UNC BUS STOP • _ County. Transit is area. It is currently possible to travel between these areas using particularly affected because transit, but it requires at least one transfer and routes tend to be operations and ridership are indirect, both of which undermine the competitiveness of transit. predicated on close proximity to many people. Transit Trerii.A • expected . disrupt our daily Two kinds of transit trends (for the period 2012-2018) guided anotherlives for _ to three years. COVID- decisions for the Orange County Transit Plan Update. These economic19's effects on recovery will likely trends, direct (trips, ridership, and revenue) and indirect (gas outlast direct public health impacts. Over the prices, economic factors, competing modes), help transit service horizon of - 2020 Orange • providers focus investments and make decisions to improve Transit Plan Update, the pandernic may impact service. economic growth forecasts; • •-term impactsDIRECT are more uncertain. Total Annual Ridership Chapel Hill Transit and GoTriangle had the most boardings in the Short-termimpacts ' volatile as public region (6.0 and 1.7 million, respectively); Orange County Public health • public transit officials continueto Transit had notably fewer boardings on their fixed-route operations respond • virus-related issues. COVID-19 (17,852). Each provider served a similar number of trips in 2018 as reduced - •' • affected ••' - by they did in 2012. OCPT ridership fluctuated the most among the mandating - -•- - • fare collection three providers over the time period considered (15,000 trips in changes; and generated ••- • . .•- 2012, about 24,000 in 2017, and 18,000 trips in 2018). Sales tax • other local • • sources support - local and regional transit agencies Service Hours are more unpredictable. Service hours represent the total time during which a transit vehicle offers revenue service.Total annual service hours provide _ • _ of developingthe • _ County a general quantification of how much transit service an agency Transit Plan Update attempted to build in the provides and is useful for understanding each agency's role in the flexibility needed • regional transit network. CHT provides around 160,000 service uncertainties including: hours per year - the most of the three Orange County providers. The evolution CHT's local routes are shorter relative to the other providers and • • • • • focused on downtown Chapel Hill and UNC. GoTriangle provided individual ' comfort proximity 143,000 service hours in 2018,up 33%from 2012.Routes primarily othersaffecting people's operate during peak commuting periods with lengthier travel times Changes ' how we workand between regional destinations. OCPT accrues the least service live hours annually of the three providers(approximately 5,500 service Shifts in anticipated • hours annually), owing to a significantly smaller service portfolio. all levels of government Disruptions in the recoveryprocess • - to Productivity new waves of outbreaks. Measures of transit productivity offer a way to compare system performance while accounting for the varying sizes of transit Even with these heightened - - of agencies. Boardings Per Service Hour considers the number maintaining useful transit system is critical to of people using an available transit service. A higher number of the lives of people, boardings per service hours indicates more productive service. long-term success of transit is essential to the Cost Per Rider considers the cost of each boarding relative to the long-term • _ transit service provider's annual operating costs.A lower cost per rider indicates more productive service. Cost per rider is impacted 03 transit. 45K; by the size of the transit agency, the number of riders, PRODUCTIVITY: BOARDINGS/SERVICE HOUR and the nature of service provided (i.e., ridership oriented 50.00 7.00 or coverage oriented). Ridership-oriented service (i.e., 45.00 6.00 more passengers along concentrated,centralized routes) 4000 35.00 5.00 are inherently more productive than coverage-oriented Z 30.00 4.00 services where vehicles must travel longer distances to 25.00 serve fewer passengers. e°07 20.00 3.00 ° V 15.00 2.00 Productivity: Boardings Per Service Hour 1000 1.00 5.00 Chapel Hill Transit is the most productive provider,serving _ 39 riders per service hour (2018). GoTriangle served an 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 average of 11 riders per service hour (2018). This lower -Chapel Hill Transit -GoTriangle -Orange County Public Transit productivity reflects the provider's role in connecting Productivity:Boardings Per Service Hour Unlinked passenger trips per regional centers, using fewer buses on longer routes. vehicle revenue hour. Please note differences of scale between CHT/Go- OCPT's productivity is the lowest of the three providers Triangle and OCPT (6.5 riders per hour in 2018), reflecting its more rural service context and coverage-oriented service. Productivity: Cost Per Rider PRODUCTIVITY: YEARLY OPERATING EXPENSES / CHT's costs per rider increased by 36%between 2012 and BOARDINGS 2018 ($0.34 per boarding in 2012 and $0.46 per boarding $3.50 $1 $3.00 _ $166.00 .00 in 2018) but they still have the lowest cost per rider of $14.00 the three transit agencies serving Orange County. CHT's z $2.50 $12.00 higher productivity reflects shorter, higher-ridership a $2.°° $1000 routes (influenced by a fare-free system and parking ; $1.50 - $g.°° ° restrictions on UNC's campus). Between 2012 and 2018, x $100 $4.00 GoTriangle's cost per rider increased 250% from $1.22 $050 $2.00 to $2.81 and OCPT's cost per boarding spiked in 2016 $0.00 $0.00 2012 -Chapel Hill Transit 20,15-G Triangle 2016 20-17 Orange County PublicT Transit but stabilized to its 2013 level by 2018 (2012 data was unavailable for OCPT). Cost per rider is significantly higher for OCPT as compared to the other two services Productivity:Cost per Rider(NTD Reporting).Please note differences of scale between CHT/GoTriangle and OCPT. (ex. in 2016, OCPT's cost per rider was nearly$17; during the same period, costs per rider for CHT and GoTriangle were $0.48 and $2.70, respectively).The relatively higher costs per rider for OCPT reflects the system's coverage Weekday Productivity & Midday Frequency orientation in a largely suburban and rural county with 80 decentralized pockets of riders. 70 0 INDIRECT 60 Gas Prices z � I Gas prices directly affect the cost of travel.Very high gas 50 I a prices, generally indicating international high demand, cc 40 have historically led to nationwide reductions in personalco automotive travel and increased transit utilization. The ID 30 cost per gallon of gasoline has generally decreased in 20 I North Carolina since 2012 and average miles per gallon (MPG) have increased for both the typical passenger car a 10 fleet, including most sedans, coupes, and SUVs, and the light-duty truck fleet, including heavier vehicles that can ° 20 40 60 so Peak tow more than 4,000 pounds. Efficiency improvements in Midday Frequency only the U.S. passenger fleet and declines in fuel prices have .CHT 9OCPT •GoTriangle increased the use of personal vehicles for typical travel weekday productivity and midday frequency for all transit service in needs. Despite this systemic change in vehicle trends, Orange County 03 46 tra nsit. regional transit ridership in the region has remained stable. IF- Transit agencies with petroleum-powered vehicles are also INFO electric transit sensitive to petroleum prices. Shifts to buses that rely on EXPRESS vehicles. alternative energy (electric drivetrain, e.g.) may limit transit agency exposure to fluctuations in gas prices. Electric or - • - • buses are the next generation of Shared Mobility&TNCs vehicles. They are quieter and Transportation network companies (TNCs), better known BUS STOP more pleasantride, as ride hailing services, provide shared or distributed reducecar , rint of transit transportation opportunities and vehicles("shared mobility'). agencies, contribute to improved TNCs include services like Uber and Lyft, both primarily improvequality in transit corridors, and community mobile phone-based vehicle ride hailing companies. Other health outcomes. TNCs include bike and scooter-sharing companies, like Lime, Gotcho, and Byrd. The impacts of these players on Innovations in battery technology are making electric transit (and transportation more generally) are difficult to transit vehicles a _ st quantify due to the novelty of shared mobility platforms of electric buses is decreasing (although they still � practical �� � The � and the reticence of privately-owned TNCs to share user data.Academic research has yielded mixed and sometimes cost diesel and contradictory findings about the impact TNCs are having on the FederalAdministration c' to travel behavior. implement grant programs t• help agencies purchase emissionszero There is some evidence that TNCs may help solve the "last- mile"problem, providing a bridge between fixed route transit Chapel Hill Transit was among the first agencies services •- services and trip origins/destinations. TNCs could also in North . • acquire hybrid transit vehicles potentially help riders seamlessly switch between public and now has 29 hybrid vehicles on the road. transit service and shared mobility vehicles, centralizing continue to push the boundaries transit services, enhancing frequency in key corridors, and working towards a goal of converting the agency's reducing reliance on private vehicles. cor_ fleet _ro emission There is also research suggesting that TNCs pull riders away The agency from public transit service,making it more difficultfortransit _ acquired agencies to compete for riders Other research indicates - . that TNCs may offer stopgaps for transit, such as when ;�: walk distances are very for or conditions are unreasonably '_ — " vehicles in " crowded on transit routes. fall of 2021 and will add eight A 2019 Transportation Research Board (TRB) manuscript F` more to their presents mixed findings. Ride-hailing services like Uber and fleet over 2022. Lyft negatively impacted transit ridership but bike sharing The new electric • hours positively impacted transit ridership (both at a statistically on a full battery . .- significant rate).Until more data are available and regulatory were pilot tested for several monthsbefore • models mature, the case is incomplete on the effects of their debut -• Chapel TNCs on transit utilization and/or how transit service design launchedinvestigate can effectively respond to their presence. that solar panels could be installed in bus parking des to charge buses using renewable TNCs also may have a positive effect on overall accessibility. energy.and park and i enhance _ sustainability Examples of new partnerships between ride-sharing - _ companies and transit agencies include DART in Dallas, and cost efficiency of the ro emissions vehicles. Texas, partnering with Uber in 2015 to solve a "last mile" Revenues problem. The federal government has also invested in the � Orange County's could development of technology solutions through programs potentially help offset - costs ' all-electric such as Accelerating Innovative Mobility(AIM) grants. ' supportivecharging • fN,e. - _ K 1 �}Vi /1�^ psi t 9�� •.1 �.., {u \ '� fig per,'.+ •` a= .' meq. 5y 1077,4 1 slow/' I " ,+k . f �p. 71 r 4•:' t'.: �T I i 'cketake A I ff - r nsit Tax District Revenues in Orange County fund improved transit service . SECTION c� 1 04 4�unding. W I JrA I nded it transit - tax 7 A half-cent sales and use tax r, • levied by Orange County and used to improve or enhance the county's transit service. This section describes the collection and allocation of transit funding, including the assumptions used to estimate expenses, costs, and revenues. here are four dedicated revenue streams used to fund the local share of projects and services in this plan, referred to as Tax District INFO transit for Revenues. The revenues governed by this Plan are those collected EXPRESS morepeople in Orange County.These four dedicated Tax District Revenue streams are or • as follows: places? • Article 43: Half-Cent Sales and Use Tax • Article 50: Five-Percent Vehicle Rental Tax Transit planning • Article 51:Three-Dollar increase to GoTriangle Regional BUS STOP requires balancing • Vehicle Registration Fee community's transit • Article 52: Seven-Dollar County Vehicle Registration Fee needs and objectives The projects and services described in this plan update are primarily with the limited funding available. funded through these Tax District Revenues, with a small amount of Equitably meeting transit needs funding for capital projects coming from federal sources. Because this objectives is an update, the projects and services described within supplement morechallenging [are in addition to] the program of projects and services to the 2012communitiesOrange ' Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan and the 2017 Orange County where coverage needs are greater and Transit Plan, with the exception of programmed expenses related to the potential ri•' ' is lowerparts discontinued D-O LRT project. of _ county. -R M M A;r%em C! F I-�--�-,,-�- While trade-offs and decisions must In 2012, Orange County voters approved a half-cent sales tax supporting be made, transit planning is • t a zero transit funding (Article 43]. A regional transportation public authority, sum exercise. Transit systems can known as GoTriangle, was created to help administer these revenues and beconfigured tomeet goalsalong work on public transit service projects involving Orange, Durham, and spectrum of orientations and Wake Counties. mostsystems(including those operating in Orange • somewhere Article 43 revenues are allocated by the North Carolina Department of between the two - Revenue to GoTriangle, which then allocates a portion of that money to Orange County through reimbursements for projects that either offer new public transit services or expand existing ones.There are three additional dedicated funding streams supporting transit in Orange County - a 5% Vehicle Rental Tax (Article 50) and two Vehicle Registration Fees (Article Ridorship Goal Coverage Goal 51 and Article 52). It is worth noting, and is explored in more detail later in this section, that the half-cent sales tax, vehicle registration, and rental Image courtesy of Jarrett Walker; Associates car fees represent only a fraction of the local investment in public transit. Tax District Revenues are allocated to the three transit service providers 04 funding. 49 operating service in Orange County according to proportions established in the 2012 Interlocal Agreement(ILA): EQUITY identifying • 64% Chapel Hill Transit CONNECTION transit equity. • 24% GoTriangle • 12% Orange County Public Transportation. Transit inequities occur when transit The 2012 ILA also authorizes Chapel Hill Transit and OCPTto use 100% of the and transportation amount raised by the Seven-Dollar County Vehicle Registration Fee to cover BUS STOP resources • o not the increased operating cost of services provided before the original plan support _ needs took effect.This update continues to rely on this assumption. all members of the The projects in this Plan Update are preliminary. The Staff Working Group community. Historically, many policies produces an Annual Work Plan identifying specific transit projects, services, • practices related to transit " • and activities to be implemented in the upcoming year and projects and time- transportation '' _ impacted frames are subject to change. For example, if upon further study a project communitiesith is more costly than originally anticipated, or funding available from federal, populations. discriminatory state, or the amount of Tax District Revenue collected does not match the • - •" assumptions in this Plan,the project may be delayed or its scope reduced. Segregated and substandard seating Assumptionsrelegating Black riders to the back . _ This Plan Update isfiscally rest rained and relies on estimates and assumptions ' us that have been developed by GoTriangle staff using current information Segregatedand poorly ' and forecasting expertise. To calculate the cost of improvements, net new rest stops, depots, ' revenue hours have been converted to dollar costs using assumptions shelters in high minoritycommunities regarding current costs per revenue hour and inflation per year, for each Inconvenient or -•-• - bus transit service provider.The following formula determines the amount of Tax routes impacting •• and access Revenue available each year (Fiscal Years 2023- 20401 to support to education,j•• - • more transit improvements: Discriminatory employment, hiring, . promotionpractices Fund Balance/Deficit= (Total Programmed Expenditures)- (Estimated Revenues) Key Funding Assumptions INPUT ASSUMPTIONS Sales tax revenue annual compound growth rate(Orange County, FY23-40) 3.7% Inflation rate-capital costs/operating costs(based on 2020$) 2.5% Allocation of funding for bus operations according to Interlocal Agreement Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange County Public Transportation 64%/24%/12% Tax district revenue share of bus operating costs* Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange County Public Transportation 64%/24%/12% Bus operating cost per hour(2020 dollars) Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange County Public Transportation $118/$133.70/$68 Cost of new transit vehicle 1$560,000 Tax district revenues funding increased cost of existing service** Chapel Hill Transit/GoTriangle/Orange County Public Transportation 100%/0%/100% *Expansion bus services only **$7 vehicle registration fee proceeds only 04 59unding. Orange County Transit Expenditures, Revenues, and Funds Balance FY 2023-2040 Operating $5,424,547 $5,860,322 $6,007,000 $7,939,109 $8,137,900 $8,801,569 $9,488,896 $9,726,000 Capital $3,455,627 $4,954,958 $5,290,541 $2,962,058 $2,794,706 2,381,443 0 $1,474,164 Total Expenditures $8,880,174 $10,815,280 $11,297,541 $10,901,167 $10,932,606 $11,183,012 $9,488,896 $11,200,165 Estimated Revenues $10,556,653 $10,955,819 $11,314,868 $11,683,594 $12,016,055 $12,332,159 $12,739,395 $13,208,008 Balance/(Deficit) $1,676,479 $140,539 $17,328 $782,427 $1,083,448 $1,149,147 $3,250,499 $2,007,844 Fund Balance 0 $1,676,479 $1,817,017 $1,834,345 $2,616,772 $3,700,221 $4,849,368 $8,099,867 Prior Year Fund Balance $1,676,479 $1,817,017 $1,834,345 $2,616,772 $3,700,221 $4,849,360 $8,099,867 $10,107,710 End of Year ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE:PROPOSED PROJECTS A CHT Route CW(midday $190,610 $195,375 $200,300 $205,300 $210,400 $215,700 $221,100 $226,600 frequency improvement) CHT Route HS(weekend $160,038 $164,039 $168,100 $172,300 $176,600 $181,000 185,500 $190,100 service) OCPT Mobility on Demand $438,741 $449,700 $650,588 $666,900 $683,600 $700,700 $718,200 (expanded hours,2 phases) CHT Route NS(service $314,741 $322,600 $330,700 $339,000 $347,500 improvements) CHT Route D (service $453,602 $464,900 $476,500 $488,400 $500,600 expansion) GoTriangle Route 400/405 $823,878 $844,500 $865,600 $887,200 $909,400 (consolidation and improvement phase 1) CHT Route J (service $460,069 $471,600 $483,400 improvement) GoTriangle Route 40j2) $467,296 $479,000 (consolidation and improvement phas Vehicle acquisition, $1,855,583 repower, replacement ' (Route NS improvements) Fordham Bldv./Ephesus $l,000,000 Church Rd.improvements (400/D/F connection) Fordham Blvd./Manning $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Dr.queuejump and ' shoulder running improvements Vehicle acquisition, $672,574 repower, replacement (Route 400, D,J improvements) 04 funding. 51 Orange County Transit Expenditures, Revenues, and Funds Balance FY2023-2040(cont'd) ,0 $9,969,200 $10,218,700 $10,474,300 $10,736,000 $11,004,300 $11,279,400 $11,561,300 $11,850,200 $12,146,400 $12,450,100 0 $2,793,918 $2,927,764 $1,748,555 $2,676,617 $486,966 0 0 $970,161 $331,471 $9,969,200 $13,012,618 $13,402,064 $12,484,555 $13,680,917 $11,766,366 $11,561,300 $11,850,200 $13,116,561 $12,781,571 $13,694,663 $14,183,876 $14,666,548 $15,164,856 $15,704,541 $16,320,714 $16,989,579 $17,689,316 $18,419,706 $19,184,994 $3,725,463 $1,171,258.67 $1,264,484 $2,680,301 $2,023,624 $4,554,348 $5,428,279 $5,839,116 $5,303,144 $6,403,423 $10,107,710 $13,833,173 $15,004,432 $16,268,916 $18,949,217 $20,972,841 $25,527,189 $30,955,468 $36,794,584 $42,097,728 $13,833,173 $15,004,432 $16,268,916 $18,949,217 $20,972,841 $25,527,189 $30,955,468 $36,794,584 $42,097,728 $48,501,151 ORANGE COUNTYTRANSIT1 PROPOSED PROJECTS Operating Improvements(cont'd) $232,300 $238,100 $244,100 $250,200 $256,500 $262,900 $269,500 $276,200 $283,100 $194,900 $199,800 $204,800 $209,900 $215,100 $220,500 $226,000 $231,700 $237,500 $243,400 $736,200 $754,600 $773,500 $792,800 $812,600 $832,900 $853,700 $875,000 $896,900 $919,300 $356,200 $365,100 $374,200 $383,600 $393,200 $403,000 $413,100 $423,400 $434,000 $444,900 $513,100 $525,900 $539,000 $552,500 $566,300 $580,500 $595,000 $609,900 $625,100 $640,700 $932,100 $955,400 $979,300 $1,003,800 $1,028,900 $1,054,600 $1,081,000 $1,108,000 $1,135,700 $1,164,100 r_I 5 $507,900 $520,600 $533,600 $546,900 $560,600 $574,600 $589,000 $603,700 $618,800 45.,000 $503,300 $515,900 $528,800 $542,000 $555,600 $569,500 $583,700 $598,300 $613,300 Capital Improvements(cont'd) VE $133,846 $970,161 04 5?unding. Transit Tax Revenues as a Share of Transit Budgets Orange County Public Transportation, Chapel Hill Transit, and Year by Year Revenue Comparison fin thousands of$$J GoTriangle all receive operations funding from Transit Tax YR TAX DISTRICT REVENUE ACTUAL "' DIFF. Revenues.The service providers, DCHC MPO, and communities Half cent sales tax $6,854 $6,690 $164 in Orange County also receive funding for bus rapid transit GoTriangle vehicle rental fox $595 $570 $25 improvements, capital projects supporting transit, and for c $3 vehicle registration fee $335 $345 ($lo) CM administrative services related to managing the taxing LL $7 vehicle registration fee $780 $805 ($25) authority. TOTALREVENUES $8,564 $8,410 $154 ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 102% Butthe funding generated by Orange County's half-centtransit Half cent sales tax $7,3445 $7,000 $345 sales tax remains a small part of each agency's annual budget. GoTriangle vehicle rental tax $615 $595 $20 The portion of each provider's budget funded by the transit tax CD $3 vehicle registration fee $330 S360 (S30) is shown below. 0 N LL $7 vehicle registration fee $770 $840 ($70) TOTALREVENUES $9,060 $8,795 $265 Orange County Public Transportation ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 103% ■ Transit Tax Revenues Half cent soles tax $7940 $7,400 $540 GoTriangle vehicle rental tax $660 $620 $40 ■ Other Funding Sources °: $3 vehicle registration fee $330 $370 ($40) 0 � N ' LL $7 vehicle registration fee $775 $865 ($90) 6W TOTALREVENUES $9,705 $9,255 $450 ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 105% Half cent sales tax $7,245 $7,755 ($510) GoTriangle vehicle rental tax $565 $650 ($85) 0 c $3 vehicle registration fee $325 $380 ($55) N Chapel Hill Transit LL $7 vehicle registration fee $755 $890 ($135) TOTALREVENUES $8,890 $9,675 ($785) ■ Transit Tax Revenue ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 92% Other Funding Sources Half cent sales tax $8,533 $8,000 $533 t GoTriangle vehicle rental fox $480 $675 ($195) C3 $3 vehicle registration fee $350 $390 ($40) 87% LL $7 vehicle registration fee $820 $915 ($95) TOTALREVENUES $10,183 $9,980 $203 ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 102% Half cent sales tax $7,040 $8,260 ($858) GoTriangle vehicle rental tax $432 $702 ($270) GoTriangle* N $3 vehicle registration fee $335 $405 ($70) 0 LL $7 vehicle registration fee $785 $940 ($155) ■ Transit Tax Revenues TOTALREVENUES $8,954 $10,307 ($1,353) Other Funding Sources ACTUALVS.PROJECTED(%) 87% *Projected revenues from 2017 Orange County Transit Plan 96% -tM001- :. *Operating costs only Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Capital Investment Grants (CIG) Program. FTA provides discretionary grant program funds for transit capital investments, including heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, streetcars, and bus rapid transit. New Starts and Core Capacity projects require completion of two phases prior to issuance of a construction grant agreement (Project Development and Engineering). Small Starts only requires Project Development in advance of the construction grant agreement. Projects are rated by FTA on a 5-point scale at specific milestone points during the process based on criteria assessing project justification and local financial commitment. New Starts • Total project cost equal to or greater than $300 million or total New Starts funding sought equals or exceeds $100 million • New fixed guideway system (light rail, commuter rail, fixed guideway BRT, etc.) or extension to existing system Small Starts • Total project cost is less than $300 million and total Small Starts funding sought is less than $100 million • New fixed guideway systems (light rail, commuter rail etc.); extension to existing system; fixed guideway BRT system; corridor-based BRT system Core Capacity • Substantial corridor-based investment in existing fixed guideway system • Project must: Be located in a corridor that is at or over capacity or will be in five years; increase capacity by 10%; "not include project elements designated to maintain a state of good repair" Full Funding Project ]M Engineering ]W GranAr AW t Development Agreement • Complete environmental review Gain commitments of Construction process including developing all non-New Starts and reviewing alternatives, funding selecting locally preferred Complete sufficient alternative(LPA),and adopting engineering and design It Into the fiscally constrained Pang range transportation plan � s • ♦ Project Small Starts Development Grant Agreement Complete environmental review process Construction including developing and reviewing alternatives,selecting locally preferred alternative(LPA),and adopting it into approval fiscally constrained long range Legend transportation plan Gain commitments of all non-Small Starts FTA evaluation, rating funding •n'approval Complete sufficient engineering and design Process:FTA New Starts, Smoll Starts and Core Capacity Improvements following entry into Project Development 54 LEFT BLANK FOR PRINT FORMATTING ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA • pr cts . 'Ziffs A - 4 fi P I r1 i l * 4 rr e quick•toke " Five transit service improvements and two capital projects are =' proposed in the Plan Update. SECTION o, 0 05 5 projects. it core - values tFive community values identified by the Policy Steering Committee lin( e n re and informing the identification of projects included in the Plan a update? Update. This section describes the program of improved services and projects recommended to be funded using Orange County's available Tax District Revenues. he program of transit projects and services was cor_ developed based on the needs, priorities, and values. recommendations of the public, staff from local •uity: Prioritize the transit needsof •" "• governments, transit service providers, key community or •-•- .-nt residents; inclu•- stakeholders, and the Policy Steering Committee. Guided disinvested communities of • • lower-income by five core values (see box), the Plan Update describes neighborhoods, seniors, and rural communities. transit investments that will improve the types (modes), locations (routes], and schedules (frequency and span) of transit services available in Orange County.The Plan Update Environmental Sustainability: • • _ recommends five operational (service) oriented projects and convenient transit service in areas with existing and two capital improvement projects enhancing transit or planned higher density development connections,access,and reliability.As noted,the projects in this Plan Update supplement the projects and investments Prosperity: described in the 2012 Orange County Bus and Roillnvestment • ' • '" • • access to Plan and the 2017 Orange County Transit Plan and projects jobs - • opportunities. included in the Annual Work Plans of the Staff Working Group (SWG].This update allocates the Orange County Transit Tax Affordable • Attainable of Life: Prioritize District revenues that remain after accounting for these transit service connections to affordable housing, already-programmed expenditures (with the exception of projects related to the discontinued D-0 LRT]. recreation, and arts and cultural opportunities. Project Selection Transportation - • Access Prioritize The projects included in the Orange County Transit Plan service that increases transit access formost Update can primarily be funded using Transit Tax Revenues people . the mostplaces. projected , - projected to be generated between FY2022 and FY2040. The two capital improvement projects recommended in various strategies for investing and maximizing Tax District the update likely require a supplemental source of funding Revenue, beginning with "big picture" priorities (ex. Is transit such as a federal grant, state funding, or local funding from service in Orange County focused on generating higher a source other than the Tax District Revenue. Projects are ridership or is it focused on providing service to more places, intended to be implemented in phases between 2022 and regardless of how many people usethe service?)and narrowing 2040, as Tax District Revenues are generated. While these down project options based on more specific transit needs projects are near-term investments, they are individually and goals. Community members, staff, and policy makers and collectively intended to help achieve the county's were engaged throughout the process, providing critical input longer-term transit vision (see section 6). and feedback for all major decisions and milestones. During the planning process, the project team considered A set of guiding questions helped identify the final set of 05 projects. 57 projects recommended in the Plan Update. Each of the seven projects can affirmatively answer the following: 1. Is the project identified as an unfunded or emerging priority by transit service providers? 2. Does the project helpmeet an expressed public need? 3. Does the project reflect,incorporate,or further the identified core values? 4. Does the project advance the conceptual transit vision and/or improve regional connectivity? The five service improvements and two capital investment projects included in this Plan Update meet all the objectives. Transit Enhancements Summary The Orange County Transit Plan Update recommends seven projects-five enhancements to existing transit service(operations) and two capital investment projects enhancing transit connections, access, and reliability. New bus services (including increased service span and frequency on existing routes) are proposed to be implemented by Chapel Hill Transit, GoTriangle and Orange County Public Transportation using Tax District Revenues. Costs to purchase, maintain, and replace buses required for service improvements are also included.The service costs shown represents the estimated cost of service in the year of projected implementation; these costs are adjusted for inflation over time. As applicable, cost-share assumptions between Durham and Orange Counties are described. Costs for capital improvement projects are estimated based on the cost of similar projects but final project costs estimates require more comprehensive planning, engineering, and design studies. A summary of the projects included in the Plan Update is included below and each project is described in more detail in the following pages. Section 4 (Funding) provides an overview of the funding assumptions used to develop the scope, cost, and implementation of each project including rate of inflation, cost per vehicle, and cost per hour for each transit service provider. HoursTransit Project/Service Net New Additional Revenue Peak Service Improvements Chapel Hill Transit CW: Improve weekday midday service to 30 minutes 1,500 0 Chapel Hill Transit HS:Add weekend service with 1 bus (70 min frequency) (8 AM - 6:30 PM) 1,177 0 Orange County Public Transportation: Mobility-on-Demand Service Expansion (2 phases) 4,400 N/A Chapel Hill Transit NS: Improve morning peak frequency to every 6 minutes. Provide Satur- 2,300 3 day service until 11 PM and Sunday service until 9 PM US 15-501 Service Improvements(GoTriangle 400/405, Chapel Hill Transit D, Chapel Hill Transit J) GoTriangle 400/405(Phase 1): Consolidate into one route pattern (discontinue service to 10,663* 0 Old Chapel Hill Road/University Drive). Schedule effective 15-minute service midday, and improved Sunday and evening service. GoTriangle 400(Phase 2):Shift route to Fordham Boulevard and provide all day service to 5,616* 1* Jones Ferry Road Park and Ride. Chapel Hill Transit D: Extend service to Patterson Place and provide Saturday service until 9 8,833** 1 PM. Chapel Hill Transit J: Improve morning peak frequency to every 10 minutes and offer 3,200 2 15-minute service until noon. Provide Saturday service until 11 PM and Sunday service until 9 PM Capital Projects Crossing and Shelter Improvements on US 15-501/ Fordham Boulevard at Ephesus Church Road Fordham/Manning Queue Jump and Shoulder Running Improvements *Subject to a 50/50 cost shore with Durham County**Subject to a 60/40 cost share with Durham County 1 IDS 5 projects. Projects f rom 2012 and 2017 Transit Plans Most of the Transit Tax revenues collected in Orange County(approximately$9 million in FY2021)are used to fund"programmed" projects, services, and administrative needs (i.e., approved for funding in the 2012 or 2017 Orange County Transit Plans), with the exception of projects that have been removed due to the D-0 LRT's discontinuation.The projects in this Transit Plan Update are new projects.They are being added to the projects that are already being funded with transit tax revenue (shown below).When determining how much transittax revenue was available for new projects,these projects are included in"existing expenses.- Operating xpenses"Operating Projects Durham-Chapel boMetropolitan Planning GoTriangle(cont'd) Organization Transit Operations Route 800 Improvements Transit Plan Administration Staff Working Group Administrator Transit Operations Route 400 Improvements GoTriangle Transit Operations Route ODX Tax District Administration Tax District Admin-Financial Oversight Staff Transit Operations Route CRX Improvements Tax District Administration Tax District Admin-Financial Oversight-Support Transit Operations Route 405 Improvements Services(0) Transit Operations Paratronsit expansion Transit Plan Administration Transit Plan Admin-Program Management Staff Transit Operations Youth GoPoss Transit Plan Administration Transit Plan Admin-Project Implementation Staff Transit Operations Fare Collection Improvements[D] Transit Plan Administration TPA-Transit Planning -Support Services Orange Public Transportation Transit Plan Administration TPA-Legal and Real Estate-Support Staff Transit Operations Continuation of Transit Services Transit Plan Administration TPA-Marketing Communication and PE-Support Transit Operations Increased Cost of Existing Services Staff Transit Operations Hillsborough Circulator Expansion Transit Plan Administration TPA-Marketing,Communication and PE-Support Transit Operations Hillsborough Circulator II Services Chapel Hill Transit Transit Plan Administration TPA-Regional Technology and Administration- Support Staff Transit Operations Increased Cost of Existing Services Transit Plan Administration Customer Surveys Transit Operations Existing Service Expansion FY13-FY20 Capital Projects rh-apel Hill/Chapel Hill Transit GoTriangle Capital Planning ERP System-Transit Plan BRT North-South BRT LRT Light Rail Transit Closeout Costs BRT North-South BRT Supplemental Transit Infrastructure CHT ADA Bus Stop Upgrades Transit Infrastructure Hillsborough Park and Ride Transit Infrastructure UNC Manning Drive Bus Station Transit Infrastructure NewTransfer Center(Location TBD,Hillsborough or RTC) Transit Infrastructure Lighting in bus shelters Transit Infrastructure Mebane Bus Stop Improvement Transit Infrastructure Bus Stop Sign Design and Replacement Vehicle Acquisition Programmed Expansion Bus Renewals Based on Transit Infrastructure Bus Stop Improvements(Orange County) Useful Life Transit Infrastructure Priority Transit Access Improvements Transit Infrastructure RTC Facility Feasibility Study Orange Town of Carrboro Transit Infrastructure Estes Drive Bike-Ped Improvements Transit Infrastructure Mobile Ticket Volidotors-Orange share(includes Route 4201 Transit Infrastructure Estes Drive Transit Access/Corridor Study Vehicle Acquisition Vehicle acquisition and replacement Transit Infrastructure Morgan Creek Greenway Capital Planning Origin Destination Survey Transit Infrastructure South Greensboro St.Sidewalk Capital Planning GoTriangle Short Range Transit Plan Transit Infrastructure Carrboro West Main Street Sidewalk Capital Planning Transit Facilities Study Transit Infrastructure NC 54 signalized pedestrian crossings Transit Infrastructure Bus Stop Improvement(5 OPT Stops]Short Term (Westbrook Drive,Abbey Road,Kingsmill/Laurel) Orange Transit Infrastructure 15 OPT Bus Stop Signs Transit Infrastructure Hillsborough Train Station Transit Infrastructure Hillsborough Park-and-Ride-3(Orange County-Construction) Transit Infrastructure Hillsborough Train Station Bus Stop Capital Planning AVL Improvements Capital Planning Planning for new Transit Plan 05 projects. 5 -- - ----- - - -�- - -- - -- --- - ---- - -/- - - - _1. -- � — • County, North Carolina Proposed Improvements Midday Frequency ® .- Transfer Center 15 min -e.-- Jurisdictional Boundary 20 min *Note-All Peak-only routes except ODX 25-35 min 90 to/from downtown Chapel Hill. -'. 36-60 min 0 2.5 mi 5 mi Peak only l �'al • r L 40 501 a - `j 86 90 V � ._ _\ ` r 54 Y � Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN 1_ UNC CAMPUS i- �A •. ) r � a 5 ' 14 - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - os 6 projects. IMPROVEMENTSERVICE CH :ANSIT The CW route provides service between Carrboro and UNC-CH via West Main Street, Weaver Street, and West Franklin Street. Route: Chapel Hill Transit CW Frequency improvements on Chapel Hill Transit's CW route provides more frequent service between major Improvement: Frequency employment and recreational centers in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. The route serves the historically Description: Increases midday service AfricanAmericanNorthside neighborhood promoting frequency to every 30 minutes on more equitable access to opportunity. The project weekdays also increases transit access near multifamily and lower-income housing. Denser development in these Cost: $190,610 locations, combined with more convenient transit Net New Revenue Hours: 1,500 service, helps reduce the need for private vehicles and supports environmental benefits. Investing Implementation Year: 2023 Transit Tax District revenues in this project also helps address one of Chapel Hill Transit's unfunded transit priorities. F-c• historicallyEquity: Provides more frequent transit service near areas with lower-income housing and in/ near - • •• ••• Environmental Sustainabillity: Route serves an area with higher density development with opportunities to reduce use of single occupancy vehicle. Economic Prosperity: Improves transit access to an area with many jobs and improves connectivity by better connecting Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Affordable and Attainable Quality of • • • • developments. 05 projects. 61 • • L SERVICE IMPROVEMENT fAPELH ANSIT Midday Frequency 15 min 26 min r 25-35 min uef - 36-60 min Peak only n Ti -4 - c`> c JI C}raQ'! IiIV raT O_ Route CW runs &' 30-minute service all day Caron "6 w Gree, ,sb�r n Chapel Hill POP* io Main —y DOWNTOWN •� �y UNC CAMPUS Cr„b �C�lbretr, y r 05 6 projects. • • EL HIL N ! SERVICE IMPROVEMENT -All The HS route provides weekday-only service between Morris Grove Elementary School and Smith Level Road via Rogers Road, Homestead Road, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. Route: Chapel Hill Transit HS Improvements to the HS route adds weekend transit services and provides connections to higher-density Improvement: Add weekend service neighborhoods and multifamily housing. The HS Description: Adds weekend service route covers a large area of Chapel Hill and this project improves transit access to key destinations every 70 minutes from 8 AM - 6:30 PM along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The service improvement benefits lower-income communities Cost: $160,038 and fulfills a stated public need for weekend service Net New Revenue Hours: 1,177 in transit reliant neighborhoods. Implementation Year: 2023 Fl--core values. Equity: Provides improved transit service near lower-income housing and in/near historically neighborhoods lgj Environmental Sustainability: Improves transit access along corridors with existing higher density development ILO) Economic Prosperity: Improves access to jobs Affordable and Attainable Quality of • • - near multifamily housing and naturally-occurring affordable housing. Transportation and Access for All: Fulfills stated need for weekend service in transit-reliant neighborhoods. 05 projects.SERVICE 6 _ PEL H T IMPROVEMENT Midday Frequency 15 min 20 min rcf 25-35 min M+'= 36-60 min Peak only 2 FT to c- 0 Eubanks E'3ti`oanks Route HS adds 09 weekend service that °s runs every 70 minutes. Homestead m =, m , F c Estes c� °/ oo Carol 4 a E Ut � 9,y �°j m ���✓o�,�]w' G ree,� cci 'y o. o U- Brandon �PopYar Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN UNC CAMPUS t� pl4bo r • os 6 projects. • • EL HIL N ! SERVICE IMPROVEMENT -All The NS route provides high-frequency service between Eubanks Road Park & Ride and Southern Village Park & Ride via NC Highway 86 - a planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route. Route: Chapel Hill Transit NS The NS route serves a corridor with existing high transit ridership Improvement: Frequency and span numbers, particularly commuters. This improvement increases Description: Increases morning peak frequency to frequency at a time when many every 6 minutes; extends Saturday service until 11 PM; people travel to work. The route also and extends Sunday service until 9 PM. connects to two commuter Park & Ride lots. More frequent transit Operating Cost: $314,741 Vehicle Costs: $1,855,583 service attracts more riders, helping (3 vehicles - acquisition, repower, replacement for service to reduce congestion on key travel corridors. The longer hours in the enhancements) evening and on Saturday help meet Net New Revenue Hours: 2,300 a stated public need. Implementation Year: 2026 F"-core values. housingEquity: Route serves areas with existing public housing and naturally-occurring affordable Environmental Sustainability: Improves transit access and service along a high-ridership corridor with existing higher density development. ,a Economic Prosperity: Improves access to local and regional job centers. Affordable and Attainable Quality of Life: Expands transit access for existing public housing and naturally-occurring affordable housing. Transportation and Access for All: Fulfills a stated public need for more frequent transit and longer weeke • service hours. 05 projects. 6 • • SERVICE IMPROVEMENT P ;IrT Midday Frequency 15 min 20 min F r� 25-35 min 36-60 min w Peak only � t ( Euf_sank 1. vv Route NS improves morning ASN peak frequency to every 6 minutes,and provides Saturday service until 11 PM t or�,esteac, and Sunday service until 9 PM. ro ro s s p o/ ro m Carol G reen s Cha eI Hill P�,ar p DOWNTOWN • UNC CAMPUS ®pv�cry b e�� 05 6 projects. INGE COUN UBLRTA OCPT's Mobility-on-Demand (MOD) service provides life-line service in difficult to serve locations currently lacking transit options. Route: Orange County Public Transportation MOD The Mobility-On-Demand service provides a critical on-demand Improvements: Two (2) phases extending service hours transit option for Orange County and coverage residents living in areas that lack fixed-route transit service. This projects expands the days Description: and hours when this affordable Phase 1: Expand hours of service and coverage area; transportation option is available Phase 2: Improve coverage area, expand hours and for ALL residents of Orange days of service County in two phases. Cost: $438,741 (Phase 1) increasing to $650,588 (Phase 2) Net New Revenue Hours: 4,400 Implementation Year: 2024 (Phase 1), 2026 (Phase 2) lowerf-core values. Equity: Provides transit service in locations that currently have little to no service, including • communities. Affordable and Attainable Quality of Life: Provides an affordable life-line transportation option for • • of Orange • 05 projects. 67 OR E CO C TR N Mobility-On-Demand service -- provides o critical on-demand - transit option for residents who mi do not live near fixed-route transit service foreos shaded in orange) - 36-60 min 0 2.5 mi 5 mi Peak only y C _ , \ ..,Chapel Hill_ �r 60 Os " • - us is =501 MULTIPLE SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Bundled • • phased • rovements for the US 15-501 corridor including GoTriangle routes 400/405 • p - 1 and J routes. The service improvements proposed • 1 501 prioritize routes with high ridership potential • • regional connectionsbetween • •- and Durham. Collectively, the proposed projects 400/ increase tronsitservices near • • • • affordable housing, multifamily housing, and public housing in two counties and connect 405 residents to employment and recreational CHAPEL centers. The projects also fulfill a stated need for • • frequent transit • • longer weekend HILL service hours, and improved commuter services. TRANSIT DIJ core values. Equity: Provide better transit service near lower-income housing and public housing in two � counties. �v� Environmental Sustainability: Improves regional transit access along ahigh-ridership corridor with existing higher density development. � $ 1 Economic Prosperity: Improves access to local and regional employment and activity centers. Affordable and Attainable Quality of Life: Expands transit access near multifamily housing Alland enhances connections between UNC-CH and Durham. Transportation and Access for All: Fulfills a stated public need for more frequent transit, longer weekend service hours, and improved regional connections. 05 projects. 6 • 4i00 4iC 5EE IMPROVEMENTSERVICE Routes 400 and 405 provide inter-county service between Carrboro and Durham Station via the UNC-CH campus and Patterson Place. Routes: G oTri a n g l e Midday Frequency To Durham 4 00/405 15 min downtown 20 min Improvements: "d —� 25-35 min 36-60 min ` Consolidate routes Peak only 400/405 into one = Route 400/405 combines for 0 15-minute all day service pattern (discontinue 0between Chapel Hill,UNC,Patterson Place, Chapel and GoDurham Station.It also includes a service to Old Chapel Eu1,a;,ks improved evening and Sunday service. Hill Road/University Drive); schedule - effective 15-minute service midday and improved Sunday Ck" and evening service. E,tEz Operating Cost: - $823,878 15-minute all day wow,_o4t Net New Revenue service to Chapel Hill; peak-only to Hours: 10,663* Jones Ferry P&R Chapel Hill Implementation ........... DOWNTOWN ^` Year: 2026 �%—t SNC�aMPus '� *50/50 cost share with Durham16 County b ern - r N • 05 7 projects. • • GOTRSERVICE IMPROVEMENT IA Z 0 Route 400 provides inter-county service between Carrboro and Durham Station via the UNC-CH campus and Patterson Place. Route: GoTriangle 400 Vehicle Costs: $1,642,735* ** Improvements: Provide all day service to Net New Revenue Hours: 5,616** Jones Ferry Park and Ride,- shift route to Implementation Year: 2029 Fordham Boulevard and Manning Drive *Acquisition, repower, and replacement to serve improvements on routes 400, D,J(4 vehicles] Operating Cost: $467,296 **50/50 cost shore with Durham County(service and I vehicle] Midday Frequency To Durham 15 min downtown 20 min ,i 25-35 min -�-36-60 min .�- Peak only Route 400/405 combines for _ 15-minute all day service between Carrboro,UNC,Patterson Place, and GoDurham Station.It also includes cn5a"ks improved evening and Sunday service. "s All day service, 15-minute service to Jones Ferry ` Pork and Ride via Fordham Boulevard, Manning Drive, and Main Street Midday Frequency To Durham -1(W 15— downtown � - --4[W 20mm ud-� 25-35 min 3660 min Peak only ' Route 400/405 combines for e = 15-minute all day service 15-minute all day - between Carrboro,UNC,Patterson Place, to to = and GoDurham Station.It also includes Jones Ferry P&R LL ` r"i"'"i°M improved evening and Sunday service. Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN UNC CAMPUS ' c� Add stops and improved pedestrian crossings to allow transfers between routes D,F,and 400 All day, 15-minute service to Jones Ferry Pork and Ride via Franklin Street and Main Street(existing route, 15-minute all day service to Carrboro Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN & e UNC CAMPUS ®" 05 projects. 71 • SERVICE IMPROVEMENT -A CHAP11: SIT The D route provides service between Mason Farm Road on the UNC-CH campus and Pope Road, west of Interstate 40. Route: Chopel Hill Transit Route D Vehicle Costs: see Route 400 improvements Improvements: Extend service to Patterson Net New Revenue Hours: 5,300 Ploce and provide Saturday service until 9 PM Implementation Year: 2026 Operating Cost: $453,602 **60/40 cost shore with Durham County Midday Frequency 15 min 20 min 25-35 min Mtslov 36-60 min i -�-- Peak only x v 0 o w , S Eul-aie�a Route D extends to band,-, Patterson Place and runs until t uniue'' Weaver D-u� 4 PM on Saturday oq Add stops and improved pedestrian crossings to T allow transfers betweenf nl,Ch. elNi11 routes D,F,and 400 ioo Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN UNC CAMPUS •J 05 projects. • :IILLTRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENT The J route provides service between Rock Haven Road and UNC-CH via Jones Ferry Road and Smith Level Road. Route: Chopel Hill Transit Route J Operating Cost: $460,069 Improvements: Improve morning peak Vehicle Costs: see Route 400 improvements frequency to every 10 minutes and offer Net New Revenue Hours: 3,200 15-minute service until noon. Provide Implementation Year: 2028 Saturday service until 11 PM and Sunday service until 9 PM. Midday Frequency 15 min 20 min rcY r 25-35minMr Sena' —IgW 36-60 min Peak only Eubanks nn ,auks P Weaver Dairy 0 gP S HOII'1GSted� - 4�C �o Route J improves morning peak frequency to every 10 minutes and offers 15-minute service until noon. Weekend service is also improved: ¢ Sys6 Saturday service runs until 11 PM °o and Sunday service runs until 9 PM. '�° Carol�9h — Gree 4i -- N Chapel Hill DOWNTOWN UNC CAMPUS 05 projects. 7 • FORDHAM/ US 15-501 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT at MANNING Improve service reliability and reduce travel times between Durham and Chapel Hill by constructing a queue jump lane and signal on Manning Drive and shoulder running bus lane on Fordham Boulevard. Estimated Cost: $4,000,000 (local share)* Implementation Year: 2027-2028 *May require additional funding sources based on final cost A queue jump lane and signal on Manning Drive and bus-on-shoulder lone[s] and signage along ' , Fordham Boulevard from Manning Drive to _ Raleigh Road (or, ideally, north to Ephesus Church Road) will help outbound buses (from Chapel Hill) avoid backups on US 15-501 and Fordham Blvd. and support the service improvements QuouF to GoTriangle's 400/405 route and Chapel Hill Jump 5 Transit's D and J routes This project strengthens - transit connections between Orange County and the greater Triangle region. core values. Equity: Provides faster and more reliable transit service on corridors with lower-income and public housing and public housing. Environmental Sustainability: Helps mitigate vehicle congestion in existing transit corridors. Economic Prosperity: Provides faster and more reliable transit service to local and regional activity centers. Affordable and Attainable Quality of Life: Provides faster and more reliable transit service near multifamily housing. 66 • : . - ® CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT � • � � 111 111 • • • - ®,�•,�' III Nil oil ME • • • • - • • • • - ..R : 1 • • • • • • 111 - 11 - -Among— • • 1 a , ri,5 I: x core values. Equity: Improves transit amenities and enhances safety. v Environmental Sustainability: Improves regional transit access along a high-ridership y� J corridor with existing higher-density development. �4Economic Prosperity: Improves access to local and regional employment and activity centers. Affordable and Attainable Quality of Life: Enhances transit safety near multifamily housing Alland enhances regional connections. Transportation and Access for All: Improves transit amenities and enhances safety in a high ridership transit corridor. II F • • • AMdi Yd s _ N p y f re w. s �l 133 N u �� �� quick•take The next generation of transit investments in Orange County require regional cooperation and innovative funding solutions. SECTION 0 •: 06 76 vision. at re it v; S • ion O g a view into the future with hope and a positive outlook;an Can region? inspirational , long-term plan This section describes a long-term, conceptual vision for transit service and investments in Orange County, including priority projects that remain unfunded for each transit provider. hile the Plan Update's primary aim is identifying improvements that can be implemented in the next twenty years using existing Transit Tax District revenues, it is also importantto consider longer-term projects. Projects included in Orange County's Next Generation transit vision map (facing page) focus on improving regional transit connections and enhancing transit service options through investments in service like bus rapid transit (BRT). Projects were identified through discussions with staff and decision-makers and by regional long-range transportation plans like DCHC's 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).All the Next Generation projects require further study, discussion, consideration, and funding beyond what is generated by Orange County's dedicated transit revenue sources. Cost estimates are identified for projects on the Next Generation transitvision map.If a cost estimate was not available,a low- to-high range was estimated using industry averages.The cost ranges reflect the diversity of BRT service and infrastructure specifications such as bus-only lanes vs. mixed traffic; existing infrastructure and development; corridor length; type of vehicles and stations; supportive infrastructure; and more. The Institute for Transportation D Development Policy's (ITDP) BRT Standard scoring system provides additional information for a range of BRT best practices. Unless otherwise indicated, these costs reflect construction only;they do not include planning and other project development costs or annual costs of operating and maintaining premium transit service. Next Generation Transit Vision Projects ADPROJECT GoTriangle About 40 miles of existing NCRR 2030(West Durham to Clayton)miles); $1.7-$2.1 billion to build,$37 million/year Commuter Rail Transit(CRT) corridor,eight trips each direction 2050 extend to Hillsborough and Selma operations and maintenance;if extended,$2.5- peak;two trips each direction midday/ $3.2 billion to build,$57 million/year operations evening and maintenance Chapel Hill Transit NC 86/Martin Luther King,Jr.Blvd.in 2026:Construction planned to begin; $150 million total($40 million local share-$35 North-South Bus Rapid Transit Chapel Hill;Eubanks Road to Southern 2028:commence revenue service million requested from NCDOT,remainder from (N-S BRT) Village;bus-only lanes and mixed Orange County Transit Tax District);$3.4 million/ traffic;approx.8 miles year operations and maintenance DCHC MPO UNC to Duke University 6 Hospitals via 2050 $180-$600 million total(construct) Durham/Chapel Hill Bus Rapid US 15-501;bus-only lanes,possible [$15-50 million/mile) Transit(BRT) bus-on-shoulder system(BOSS),and mixed-traffic;approx.12 miles DCHC MPO UNC to RTP/Regional Transit Centervio 2050 $187.5-625 million total(construct) Chapel Hill/RTP Bus Rapid Transit NC 54 and 1-40;mixed traffic and bus- ($15-50 million/mile) [BRT] on-shoulder system(BOSS);approx. 12.5 miles DCHC MPO Eubanks PBR/Hillsborough(approx. 2040:Chapel Hill/Hillsborough;White Approx.$5 million/mile for upgrades to support Express Bus Corridors 9.0 miles);UNC/White Cross(approx. Cross/UNC;Chapel Hill/Hillsborough; express service(shoulder widening,transit 9.5 miles;UNC/Pittsboro(approx.16.5 Chapel Hill/Pittsboro signal priority,potential queuejump lanes, miles);Durham/Butner(approx.15.5 2050:Durham/Butner premium transit stations) miles) Lead TBD Future express bus service between TBD(23 miles total) Approx.$5 million/mile for upgrades to support Express Bus to Mebane Durham and Mebane via Hillsborough express service(shoulder widening,transit signal priority,potential queuejump lanes, premium transit stations) 06 vision. 77 •• NEXT GENERATION TRANSIT VISION MAP Legend Chapel Hill/ RTP Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) — Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) — — — Express Bus Corridors (2040) North-South Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT) Express Bus Corridors (2050) — — — Durham/ Chapel Hill Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) � Express Bus to Mebane — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' DURHAM COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY Cedar Grove . r' ' r i MEBANE HILLSBOROUGH i 40 Duke ♦� `�� Hospito \� DOWNTOWN', Dake �► DURHAM University ♦ 1 ®% ` 1 1D,% 9e CarrawayVillage % % rs South Square %% 70 O l NC Central University %.v Eastowne Patterson Place DOWNTOWN 1 0CHAPEL HILL ` 1 White Cross O ' sn 55 1 CARRBORO O O Meadowmont` Research 1 V� Triangle Park O Southpoint 1 ' Q Southern VillageO 1 UNC Chapel Hill 1 Regional Transit O ' - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Center- _ CHATHAM COUNTY ,Carolina Meadows , s°r 0 OFearrington i 1 / Cha.ffiam Park Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -O/P0-itt-sboro - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' 1 06 78 vision. Unfunded Priorities The revenue generated by the Transit Tax District is not enough to meet all of the region's transit needs.This section identifies those unfunded needs. Documenting these projects can help prioritize investments if additional transit funding becomes available.Projects were provided bytransitservice providers and by reviewing each agency's short range transit plan.Estimated project costs are provided when available.This list of projects is subject to changes as agencies and municipalities continue to evaluate transit need and available resources. Type Project Description Cost Estimate Orange County Public Transportation Vonpool Subsidy Program Provide additional vonpool subsidy for Orange County residents Expand Hillsborough Circulator Service Expand service span and frequency on existing route to operate Monday to Saturday from 7:00 AM-8:00 PM U) Additional Hillsborough Circulator Route Alternative alignment forthe Hillsborough Circulator with two partially overlapping loops 0 E! a` Hillsborough-Durham Connector New fixed-route service between Hillsborough and Durham with connections to the Duke ) VA Hospital operating hourly on weekdays between 9:00 AM-4:00 PM CL o Cedar Grove Peak Connector New peak only fixed-route service between Hillsborough and Cedar Grove on weekdays between 6:00 AM-9:00 AM and 3:30 PM-7:00 PM White Cross Commuter Service New peak only fixed-route service between Chapel Hill and White Cross operating on weekdays between 6:30 AM-9:30 AM and between 3:30 PM-6:30 PM o Transit Amenities New transit amenities in Hillsborough including a new transfer center and a new park- - and-ride facility D U Chapel Hill Transit* US 15-501 BRT Major Investment Study Planning for potential BRT or high-capacity transit on US 15-501 and Alternatives Analysis Route CL** Add weekend service 6:30 AM-10:00 PM(M-F),8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Sat),8:00 AM-7:00 $130,000 PM(Sun] New Service:West INC 54 New weekday peak-only service from White Cross to UNC-Chapel Hill 6:30 AM-9:30 AM; $150,000 3:30 PM-6:30 PM(M-F) New Service:Estes Drive Crosstown New service connecting UNC-Chapel Hill,University Place,and Glen $1,290,000 Lennox via Estes Drive 6:30 AM-8:30 PM(M-F),8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sat-Sun) EZ Rider Same Day Customer Trips 6:30 AM-10:00 PM(M-F)8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sat)8:00 AM- $624,000 7:00 PM(Sun] On-Demand Service Midday/Evening trips to/from service area with no bus routes,10:00 AM-2:00 PM,6:00 $850,000 PM-11:00 PM(M-F) Senior Shuttle Bi-Directional Service utilizing 2nd vehicle,8:00 AM-7:00 PM $220,500 Route A Improve weekday service to 30 minutes frequency,6:30 AM-10:00 PM(M-F)8:00 AM- $340,000 c 7:00 PM[Sat)8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sun) 0 c Route CL Improve weekday peak service to 10 minutes frequency,6:30 AM-10:00 PM $900,000 L CL Route D* Improve weekday peak service to 10 minutes frequency,6:00 AM-11:00 PM $900,000 0 Route F Improve weekday service to 30 minutes frequency 6:30 AM-10:00 PM(M-F);add $740,000(weekday) Weekend service.8:00 AM-9:00 PM[Sat)8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sun) $130,000(weekend) Route G Extend evening service to 9:00 PM,7:00 AM-9:00 PM(M-F) $75,000 Route HS*** Add weekend service,8:00 AM-9:00 PM[Sat)8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sun) $130,000 Route N Improve weekday service to 30 minutes frequency,6:30 AM-10:00 PM(M-F)8:00 AM- $330,000 7:00 PM[Sat)8:00 AM-7:00 PM(Sun) Route NS Improve mid-day to 10 minutes frequency,5:30 AM-11:30 PM(M-F)8:00 AM-11:00 PM $375,000 [Sat)8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Sun) N-S BRT Operation of N-S BRT,5:30 AM-11:30 PM(M-F)8:00 AM-11:00 PM(Sat)8:00 AM-9:00 $1,400,000 PM(Sun) Route T Extend service to Fordham Boulevard,Improve peak service to 30 minutes, 7:00 AM- $400,000 6:00 PM(M-F) New Service:Chatham Park Express Service to/from Chatham Park and UNC campus(weekday only),6:00 AM-9:00 AM $625,000 [M-F]4:00 PM-7:00 PM(M-F] *Estimated costs ore in 2020 dollars "Identified by CHT os o priority unfunded project ***Connected to proposed projects 00 vision. 'TY,% :Ctl Description Cost Estimate Chapel Hill Transit continued* Improve Weekend Service**,*** Improve weekend service on A,CM,CW,D,J,N,NS and NU(Saturday and Sunday; $1,200,000 o increased frequency on existing routes 8:00 AM-9:00 PM(Sat]8:00 AM-7:00 PM[Sun] E! Improve Weekday Service Improve weekday service;7:00 PM-11:30 PM(M-F) $500,000 a) a oSeamless Regional Paratransit** Partnership with GoTriangle to provide seamless paratronsit service. $500,000 Town of Carrboro Homestead Road multi-use path and Short section of multi-use path and crossing;identified as a priority in Carrboro's bicycle $938,437 crossing plan update(2020) Old Fayetteville Road sidewalk Complete the missing sections of sidewalk on Old Fayetteville Road(behind Carrboro $750,000 connections Plaza);identified as an unfunded priority in 2017 transit plan Starlite Drive sidewalk Pedestrian safety improvements on Starlite Drive,sidewalk on north side or roadway; $270,106 o identified as a priority by residents of Starlite Drive CL Baldwin Park connector 10-foot wide multi-use path,approximately 0.7 mi long,extending through Baldwin Park $299,000 v and connecting Carrboro and Chapel Hill. 203 Connector Bike and pedestrian connection from East Main Street to Roberson(new public facilities $172,500 including library) Morgan Creek Greenway Phase 2 20%local match;provides off-road access to University Lake and eventually Carrboro High $366,800 School for residents living in apartments along NC 54 BPW Road sidewalk connections Complete missing sections of sidewalk $170,000 GoTriangle US 15-501 BRT Study Major Investment Study,Alternatives Analysis,and design and operational concepts as a $1,000,000 follow-on to the DCHC's draft 15-501 Corridor Study Improvements to 400/405 service on Incremental or phased service improvements on these routes(ex.adjust peak service to 15-501 Corridor*** provide consistent 15-minute frequencies and improve early evening span) y Midday and Evening service on route Make route more user friendly by providing a consistent service pattern between peak and 0 420 off-peak service(coordinate with OCPT service) a Provide all day service on Route 805 (D CL Weekend Service on 420 Increase Frequency on Route 800 Increase route frequency to support higher ridership,future BRT as included in the 2050 MTP,and transit oriented development at Southpoint,HUB RTP and other locations in south Durham(medium-long term] Regional Transit Center Included in 2050 MTP;funded in Durham and Wake Transit Plans;(10%of local share) $1,120,000 [CON] Regional Bus Operations and Feasibility Study funded by Orange,Wake,Durham plans, PE funded in Durham and Wake, $50,000 Maintenance Facility [10%of local share] Regional Bus Operations and Funded in Durham and Wake Plans;(10%of local share) $500,000 Maintenance Facility Bus stop improvements(10 stops) Planning and engineering,right of way,and construction often(10)bus stops serving $500,000 GoTriangle,CHT and/or OCPT(selected based on ridership,demographics,and community assets);can be scaled and phased in batches Chapel Hill/Carrboro Layover and Shared charging facility with Chapel Hill Transit,local match(20/80)for federal grant $2,000,000 Electric Charging Facility application for Lo-No Emission vehicles and fleet transition,including on-route charging facilities,location/scope to be determined in ongoing Regional Fleet and Facilities Study; cost accounts for escalation through 2030 NC 54/Farrington Park and Ride Additional park and ride capacity in NC 54 11-40 corridor serving UNC and Raleigh;includes $1,000,000(Orange [property owned by GoTriangle] bus ramp to 1-40 EB;requires coordination with UNC,Durham,and NCDOT project 1-6006; County portion of cosi cost accounts for escalation through 2030 share) Arterial Bus Rapid Transit on US 15-501 Incremental step towards BRT on US 15-501 corridor;includes shoulder widening,transit $25,000,000(est. [UNC Hospitals to Orange County Line] signal priority,potential queuejump lanes,premium transit stations;coordinate with $5,000,000/mi.) 2030+ NCDOT Project(STIP ID U-5304);cost accounts for escalation. Arterial Bus Rapid Transit on NC 54 Incremental step towards BRT on NC 54 East corridor.Includes includes shoulder widening, $5,000,000(est. East(US 15-501 to Orange County Line) transit signal priority,potential queuejump lanes,premium transit stations,coordinate with $5,000,000/mi.] 2027+ NCDOT project(STIP ID-U7741;cost accounts for escalation. Full BRT on NC 54 and US 15-501 Build on incremental projects to achieve full BRT build-out[silver or better on ITDP scale]as $300,000,000[est. 2040+ envisioned in the 2050 MTP Implement,cost accounts for escalation. $50 million/mi.] *Estimated costs are in 2020 dollars **Identified by CHT os o priority unfunded project 'Connected to proposed projects 72 •. '� EQUITY advancing CONNECTION transit equity. Despite the fact that transit equity was a cornerstone of the BUS STOP American Civil Rights Movement, the EQUITY FACTOR 1: concept did not join Transportation investments will improve access to housing, the policy lexicon until the 1990s. Since jobs,services,recreation,and education,addressing then, equity advocates have promoted remaining inequities created by redlining. deeper analysis to determine who —R—11— is being impacted by, and benefiting _ Transportation investments will reconnect and revitalize from, transit investments and where communities to address inequities created by the highway those impacts and benefits are being i I— system's dissection of neighborhoods. actualized. Transportation investments will improve neighborhood connectivity and revitalize the fabric of the communities Practicing transit equity requires negatively impacted by urban renewal. familiaritywith the social characteristics that help identify those most in need EQUITY FACTOR 4: � Transportation investments will improve access to housing, of transit service. And it is not enough jobs,services,and education to address the isolation of low- to rely on a single characteristic income inner ring suburbs where families are pushed. because vulnerable populations are EQUITY FACTOR 5: often affected by multiple systems of - Transportation investments will address gaps in the f_ r multimodal network and will utilize new planning tools to oppression that intersect and overlap I I I I improve safety and accessibility deficiencies stemming from in their lives("intersectionality"). I I traditional car-centric planning. Discussions advancing transit equity Transportation investments will equitably increase the are not intended to generate guilt or safety and comfort of cyclists and pedestrians,connecting critique transportation systems simply _ communities of concern to opportunities. for sake of criticism. Change requires transparency and honest reckoning Transportation investments will improve reliability of transit with the past; corrective measures and other non-car services to increase access and remove barriers to opportunities for communities of concern. will not generate sustainable solutions without trust. We must openly EQUITY FACTOR 8: acknowledge that our systems have Transportation investments will prioritize the needs of socially vulnerable users and address climate and treated people unfairly. Without environmental equity(heat island effect,air-quality,water- reconciliation and restorative justice, quality)as identified in RVAGreen 2050. transit equity in the present cannot EQUITY FACTOR 9• hope to achieve transit equality in the ^ Transportation investments will prioritize densely populated future. ^ ^ ^ areas of communities of concern including communities of color,low-income communities,senior and limited mobility populations,families traveling with children,and at-risk youth. Transportation improvements will focus on improving climate resiliency for the most impacted communities. Credit:City of Richmond Path to Equity ORANGE NORTHCOUNTY • lemente.,L ea od vO r _ � d �- ;• � � a _ �, Z � d quick•take E i Implementing proposed service and ; .��_::. � capital improvements requires next 11 ` steps for coordination, planning, and R�Ip 4 �R programming. SECTION -• 3 3 07 imp8�ement. it at eth rext annual-work- plan Documentation and budget for S allocating transit Tax District Revenues each year; developed by the Staff Working Group (SWG) This section describes the steps and coordination needed to implement the projects proposed in Orange County's Transit Plan Update. Service Improvements implementing Implementation steps for the transit service improvements EOUITY transit equity. should be relatively simple: CONNECTION Disparate to • Transit service provider coordination with the Staff • • n services Working Group (SWG) to finalize cost assumptions for als' leads '' ' unequal each service improvement economic and social • Program service improvements in Orange County's BUS STOPoutcomes. Annual Work Plan and financial model planning • • Develop new route schedules and promote new services undo past harm by through typical agency protocols working to improve and enhance access Implement the new service and track performance; and opportunities f• • - who have tweak service as needed to meet goals. been hist. disadvantaged. requires • metrics such as improved Proposed service improvements in the Plan Update can environmental, economic, and social be fully funded with revenues Transit Tax District revenues outcomes _, of • _ traditional between 2023 and 2029. measures of successcost _ _ It . requires understanding community Capital Improvements vulnerabilities, acknowledging - • The proposed capital improvement projects require more disparities, . considering significantcoordination prior to implementation. mitigate disparities. Improvements for Fordham Boulevard and Manning Drive Successful examplesinclude: include a queue jump lane and bus signal on Manning Drive for outbound buses from Chapel Hill to help ovoid backups BikeDurham Equity Campaign and more quickly reach Fordham Boulevard. Proposed improvements also include a bus-on-shoulder or similar bus- Minnesota Tribal Nations only lane along Fordham Boulevard at least from Manning Drive to Raleigh Road, but ideally further north to Ephesus Relationship Church Road. These improvements would substantially improve the reliability of bus service between Durham and CTUIR Chapel Hill, allowing transit vehicles to bypass significantPublicit Confederated roadway congestion and reducing overall travel time. Tribes of • ian Reservation Proposed improvements at Fordham Boulevard and Ephesus 07 implement. $ Church Road include an upgraded transit shelter and pedestrian crossing enhancements to facilitate transfer connections between Chapel Hill Transit routes D and F and GoTriangle Route 400. The overlap between the two capital improvement projects creates synergies if the projects are implemented simultaneously, meaning there are benefits to combining the planning, design, engineering, funding acquisition, and construction for the projects. More substantial coordination and planning is needed to refine the scope of the two proposed capital improvement projects. This includes: • Discussions and coordination between the Town of Chapel Hill, City of Durham,Orange County, Durham County, DCHC MPO, and NCDOT for preliminary project scope, goals, cost share options, and funding streams • Programming and funding a planning and design studyto review and analyze alternatives forthe proposed improvements (Major Investment Study, Alternatives Analysis, and design and operational concepts as a follow-on to the DCHC's draft 15-501 Corridor Study];this may require a formal National Environmental Policy Act[NEPA] assessment and determination • Identification and description of preliminary specifications for each project • Pursuit of formula or discretionary grant funding (including strategic coordination and/or application preparation)through the US Department of Transportation (US DOT); Federal Transit Administration (FTA); Federal Highway Administration; DCHC MPO; and/or NCDOT • Development of final design, scope of work, bidding, and construction for each project. Implementation Summary FundingTransit Project/Service Net New Add. Vehicle/ Service Cost Implem. Lead Agency Revenue Vehicles Capital . Service Improvements Hours Chapel Hill Transit CW 1,500 0 N/A $190,610 Tax District 2023 Chapel Hill Transit Revenue (CHT) Chapel Hill Transit HS 1,177 0 N/A $160,083 Tax District 2023 CHT Revenue Orange County Public 4,400 N/A N/A $650,588 Tax District 20246 Orange County Public Transportation MOD (two phases) Revenue 2026 Transportation (OCPT) Chapel Hill Transit NS 2,300 3 $1,855,583 $314,741 Tax District 2026 CHT Revenue GoTriangle 400/405 10,663* 0 $823,878 Tax District 2026 GoTriangle (Phase 1) I Revenue GoTriangle 400(Phase 2) 5,616* 1* $467,296 Tax District 2029 GoTriangle $1,642,735 Revenue Chapel Hill Transit D 5,300** 1** $453,602 Tax District 2026 CHT Revenue Chapel Hill Transit J 3,200 2 $460,069 Tax District 2028 CHT Revenue Capital Projects Crossing and Shelter Improvements on US 15- $1,000,000 - Tax District 2026 Durham-Chapel Hill- 501/Fordham Boulevard at Ephesus Church (local share) Revenue+ Carrboro Metropolitan Road additional TBD Planning Organization funding (DCHC MPO] Fordham/Manning Queue Jump and Shoulder $4,000,000 - Tax District 2027- DCHC MPO Running Improvements [local share] Revenue+ 2028 additional TBD funding *Half of these revenue hours and costs are assumed to be shared with Durham County 84 LEFT BLANK FOR PRINT FORMATTING 04 Attachment 2 8Funding. Orange County Transit Expenditures, Revenues, and Funds Balance FY 2023-2040 ' FY30 Operating $5,424,547 $5,860,322 $6,007,000 $7,939,109 $8,137,900 $8,801,569 $9,488,896 $9,726,000 Capital $3,455,627 $4,954,958 $5,290,541 $2,962,058 $4,144,706 $3,701,443 $1,290,000 $2,734,165 Total Expenditures $8,880,174 $10,815,280 $11,297,541 $10,901,167 $12,282,606 $12,503,012 $10,778,896 $12,460,165 Estimated Revenues $10,556,653 $10,955,819 $11,314,868 $11,683,594 $12,016,055 $12,332,159 $12,739,395 $13,208,008 Balance/(Deficit) $1,676,479 $140,539 $17,328 $782,427 $(266,552) $(170,853) $1,960,499 $747,844 Fund Balance 0 $1,676,479 $1,817,017 $1,834,345 $2,616,772 $2,350,221 $2,179,368 $4,139,867 Prior Year Fund Balance $1,676,479 $1,817,017 $1,834,345 $2,616,772 $2,350,221 $2,179,368 $4,139,867 $4,887,710 End of Year CHT Route CW(midday $190,610 $195,375 $200,300 $205,300 $210,400 $215,700 $221,100 $226,600 frequency improvement) CHT Route HS (weekend $160,038 $164,039 $168,100 $172,300 $176,600 $181,000 185,500 $190,100 service) OUT Mobility on Demand $438,741 $449,700 $650,588 $666,900 $683,600 $700,700 $718,200 (expanded hours,2 phases) CHT Route NS (service $314,741 $322,600 $330,700 $339,000 $347,500 improvements) CHT Route D(service $453,602 $464,900 $476,500 $488,400 $500,600 expansion) GoTriangle Route 400/405 $823,878 $844,500 $865,600 $887,200 $909,400 (consolidation and improvement phase 1) CHT Route J(service $460,069 $471,600 $483,400 improvement) GoTriangle Route 400/405 $467,296 $479,000 (consolidation and improvement phase 2) Capital Improvements Vehicle acquisition, $1,855,583 repower, replacement (Route NS improvements) Fordham Bldv./ Ephesus $1,000,000 Church Rd.improvements (400/D/F connection) Fordham Blvd./ Manning $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Dr.queue jump and shoulder running improvements Vehicle acquisition, $672,574 repower, replacement (Route 400,D,J improvements) 04 86 Orange County Transit Expenditures, Revenues, and Funds Balance FY 2023-2040 (cont'd) • FY40 $9,969,200 $10,218,700 $10,474,300 $10,736,000 $11,004,300 $11,279,400 $11,561,300 $11,850,200 $12,146,400 $12,450,100 $1,230,000 $3,993,918 $4,097,764 $2,888,555 $3,786,617 $1,566,966 $1,050,000 $1,020,000 $1,960,161 $1,291,471 $11,199,200 $14,212,618 $14,572,064 $13,624,555 $14,790,917 $12,846,366 $12,611,300 $12,870,200 $14,106,561 $13,741,571 $13,694,663 $14,183,876 $14,666,548 $15,164,856 $15,704,541 $16,320,714 $16,989,579 $17,689,316 $18,419,706 $19,184,994 $2,495,463 $(28,741) $94,484 $1,540,301 $913,624 $3,474,348 $4,378,279 $4,819,116 $4,313,144 $5,443,423 $4,887,710 $7,383,173 $7,354,432 $7,448,916 $8,989,217 $9,902,841 $13,377,189 $17,755,468 $22,574,584 $26,887,728 $7,383,173 $7,354,432 $7,448,916 $8,989,217 $9,902,841 $13,377,189 $17,755,468 $22,574,584 $26,887,728 $32,331,151 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE: PROPOSED PROJECTS (cont'd) Operating Improvements (cont'd) • FY37 FY38 FY39 FY40 $232,300 $238,100 $244,100 $250,200 $256,500 $262,900 $269,500 $276,200 $283,100 $290,200 $194,900 $199,800 $204,800 $209,900 $215,100 $220,500 $226,000 $231,700 $237,500 $243,400 $736,200 $754,600 $773,500 $792,800 $812,600 $832,900 $853,700 $875,000 $896,900 $919,300 $356,200 $365,100 $374,200 $383,600 $393,200 $403,000 $413,100 $423,400 $434,000 $444,900 $513,100 $525,900 $539,000 $552,500 $566,300 $580,500 $595,000 $609,900 $625,100 $640,700 $932,100 $955,400 S979,300 $1,003,800 $1,028,900 $1,054,600 $1,081,000 $1,108,000 $1,135,700 $1,164,100 $495,500 $507,900 $520,600 $533,600 $546,900 $560,600 $574,600 $589,000 $603,700 $618,800 $491,000 $503,300 $515,900 $528,800 $542,000 $555,600 $569,500 $583,700 $598,300 $613,300 Capital Improvements(cont'd) $133,846 87 Capital Improvements(cont'd) N-S BRT $1,350,000 $1,320,000 $1,290,000 $1,260,000 $1,230,000 $1,200,000 • • • 46 N-S BRT $1,170,000 $1,140,000 71,110,000 $1,080,000 $1,050,000 $1,020,000 $990,000 $960,000