HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-22-2008 - 5Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrlboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Member Governments:
Town of Carrboro
Town of Chapel Hill
County of Chatham
City of Durham
County of Durham
Town of Hillsborough
N.C. Department of
Transportation
County of Orange
2035 Long Range Transportation PrIa
Report
Alternatives
August II
Direct Questions and Comments to:
Andy Henry
City of Durham - Transportation Division
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
(919) 560 -4366
awn drew @durhamnc.gov
[This page left blank intentionally]
Table of Contents
Section
page
1. Introduction
a. What is 2035 LRTP?
1-1
b. What is CTP?
1-1
c. What are Alternatives?
1-1
d. How can citizens Participate?
1-2
e. What is the Next Step in 2035 LRTP Process
1-3
f. Development of Alternatives?
1-3
g. Summary Description of Alternatives
1-3
2. Alternatives — Model Data
a. Performance Measures
i. Purpose of Performance Measures
2-1
!I. Performance Measures Tables
2-3
b. Evaluation Measures
i. Purpose of Evaluation Measures
2-9
ii. Evaluation Measures Tables
2-10
c. Congestion Maps (V/C)
L Use of Congestion Maps
2-23
ii. Congestion Maps of Alternatives
2-25
3. Financial Information
a. Preliminary Costs and Revenues
3-1
b. Local Options Revenue Estimates
3-3
4. Alternatives — Detailed Description
a. Purpose of Alternatives
4-1
b. Development of Alternatives
4-1
c. Description of Alternatives
4-2
d. Summary Charts of Alternatives
4-3
e. Alternatives Maps
4-5
f. Alternative Project Tables
4-19
S. Land Use Scenarios
a. Land Use Scenarios Proposed
5-1
b. Summary Chart of Land Use Scenarios
5-2
c. Scenario Review
5-3
d. Scenario Maps
5-7
e. Policy Directions for Land Use Scenarios
5-21
[This page left blank intentionally]
1 - introduction
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Introduction
What is the 2035 LRTP?
The 2035 Long -Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is the guide for major transportation
investments in the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
(DCHC -MPO) area. The DCHC -MPO area covers the entire Durham County and the
urbanized portions of Orange and Chatham Counties. The 2035 LRTP recommends
major transportation projects, policies and strategies designed to maintain existing
transportation systems and serve the region's future travel needs. The 2035 LRTP is also
designed to support land use and air quality goals for the urban area, and must be
prepared in accordance with Federal transportation and environmental requirements..
Projects must be in the 2035 LRTP in order to receive state and federal transportation
funding through the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
What is the CTP?
North Carolina General Statute 136 -66.2 requires each municipality or Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), with the cooperation of the NCDOT, to develop a
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) serving present and anticipated travel demand
in and around the MPO. The CTP is a series of 5 sheets that include: Adoption Sheet,
Highway Map, Public Transportation and Rail Map, Bicycle Map, and Pedestrian Map.
These sheets show current and future transportation facilities. The principal differences
between the -LRTP and CTP include:
• LRTP lists only proposed highway improvements and transit services, whereas
the CTP maps out both the current and proposed projects;
• LRTP must be fiscally- constrained, i.e., the anticipated revenues must cover the
anticipated costs, but the CTP has no fiscal element.
The development process for these two documents, which includes the use of a travel
demand model and extensive public involvement, are very similar. As a result, the
DCHC MPO will complete the development process for both documents at the same
time.
What are Alternatives?
The DCHC MPO plans to develop and evaluate several Alternatives in the process to
create the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Each Alternative will be a combination
of a Transportation System, which includes a set of highway, transit and other
transportation improvements, and a Land Use Scenario that distributes the forecasted
1 -1
1- Introduction
population and employment for the year 2035. These Alternatives will be run in the
Triangle Regional Model (TRM) to produce a set of transportation performance measures
that describe how the transportation system will handle the travel demand generated by a
particular population and employment distribution in the year 2035. These performance
measures, such as the level of roadway congestion, average travel time, and transit
ridership, will be used to evaluate and compare the various Alves.
It should be noted that it is very unlikely that one of the Alternatives in its entirety would
be advanced as the Preferred Option. These Alternatives have been designed to '
emphasize a particular mode in meeting the future travel demands so that the public and
technical staff can understand how well the designated mode works.
How can Citizens Participate?
There are many opportunities for citizens to review and comment on the Alternatives and
Preferred Option at a series of public workshops and public hearings that will take place
from August through December 2009. The public involvement calendar for the
Alternatives is displayed below. The DCHC MVO Website will continue to post a
detailed list of these public involvement opportunities in the 2035 LRTP section of the
Website - www.dchcmpo.ora. For more information, citizens can also contact Andy
Henry, (919) 560 -4366, andrew henryna durhamncAov.
AU- d.vw»t U9xC AnAVAS - Public Involvement Calendar
*One workshop will be rocusea iar Guvuviuuv1uw =rte - =w -b -- - --
1 -2
1- introduction
Note: Check DCHC WO Web site for any meeting date and time updates —
www dchcmno.or:s
What is the Next Step in the 2035 LRTP Process?
In the next major step in the 2035 LRTP development process, the public, elected
officials and technical staff will use the evaluation and comparison of the Alternatives to
create a single Alternative that best meets the NIPO's Goals and Objectives and the fiscal
constraint requirements. These requirements demand that the project costs do not exceed
the expected funding revenues. This final Alternative is called the Preferred Option, and
it will also go through an extensive public review process similar to that of the
Alternatives.
Development of Alternatives
The table on page 4 shows the combinations of Transportation Systems and Land Use
Scenarios that will be modeled for the 2035 LRTP development process. Each of these
Transportation Systems will be combined with one, or more, Land Use Scenarios to
create an Alternative.
• The first two Transportation Systems ( #1 and #2), the 2030 LRTP and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will be used as benchmarks to compare with
the 2035 LRTP Alternatives, and therefore will not form Alternatives.
• The next five Transportation Systems ( #3 through #7), are Alternatives for the
2035 LRTP.
There is a unique set of Socioeconomic Data (SE Data) for each Land Use Scenario. The
Baseline Land Use Scenario, for example, is the SE Data approved by the Transportation
Advisory Committee (TAC) for use in developing the 2035 LRTP and is based on the
current land use plans and policies of the local jurisdictions in the DCHC WO's
planning area. The other Land Use Scenarios assume certain changes to current land use
policies.
Summary Description of Transportation Systems
Each Transportation System is composed of many highway, transit and other
transportation projects. A review of the long list of projects is a difficult task. The table
on page 5 provides a summary of the major projects in each of the Transportation
Systems to - highlight the level and type of investment in the three major modes —
highway, bus transit and fixed- guideway.
Section 4 of this report, called Alternatives — Detailed Description, presents maps and
project tables for each of the transportation systems used in the Alternatives.
1 -3
0
ai
•o �a0i
o
Z ci kn e �a.,
2°� o rA
1
H o
LA 0 b
y
in e
r--.
® rA b N 'b
Piz
p.
y
a 0�
as
as M ti
cl
+�+ Q bA
O
O
V �
O
eC .� r i
tn
a S
® ..,, v...t
0 all
any A V1 � xn
iol 0 O A 5 ;� vi m~ "'O 0
16. o o
LLi��,i^ 0 la
C > .... v. w w .. __ �� �. �.: �i_.�.
e0 a �� s .O y i �• A y a0i
00 wl 7� zl to •�i
ca
{�.
o °' .Q y o M
bD
a
p ® �: ob E-4 ,y a°' r.O ry., o,w O O �
aHWHaNW�UV�w
® Z cV N cr1 et v� tp n
Y
ca
C,6
V .2
o 0 r. 0
0J., 4- b 0
UK
0
0
0
4
cd
96
16
t4
- -------------- ---------------
--------------- ------------------ ----------------- --------------- -
>
ta .0 ' Cn
V, 2 m
C3 A q 0 1
-n
I W2
tin 0
rn 1
PEW
=fir vii $In C4 03
(4 V1
tn >p I
"I t4
cd:
& w -us
>p 00. EA
U ID
Ei 0 u A N
41 :03
0
-n
0 'n 00 0 24-4
PL P-4 J14
.0
0
------------- - o a
---------- -- ------
---- ------------ ------------------------------------- --
4-4
0
Nftwo 0
.l
ono
0 CO >e s: - 31 1. 0.
0
0-1 in a 0 A z
V. I
0
F- 'o S E, P4 0 0,-
o aai 0 .
0 > 7a 0, Cc'
>
0 tw -A o .2
In 0 0 > 9.2
9 -� - .9.. zo
>
0
Al
W po
M
40 cd
C, ca
rn M.0
Fa
I?
1- Inirodudion
[This page left blank intentionally]
1-6
Sedion 2 - AftemaWes - Model Data - Performance Measures
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Performance Measures
Purpose of Performance Measures
performance Measures provide a general indicator of the a transportation system from a
variety of perspectives such as mobility, travel time, congestion, mode choice, air quality,
financial, and environmental justice (i.e., perspective of minority and low- income
populations). The measures are not specific to a particular travel corridor but instead
cover the entire transportation system, and therefore are useful for comparing the
efficiency and effectiveness of the different transportation Alternatives. Most of the data
used for calculating the Performance Measures comes from the Triangle Regional Model,
which is a travel demand model that forecasts future travel statistics based on a set of
assumptions concerning the highway network, transit service and other transportation
facilities.
The tables in this section provide the Performance Measures for the fifteen different
transportation Alternatives that are being analyzed. Each Alternative is a combination of
one of the five transnorta on systems, including:
• Comprehensive Transportation Plan;
• Intensive Highway;
• Intensive Fixed Guideway;
• Intensive Bus Transit; and,
• Moderate Multimodal,
And, one of the five Land Use Scenarios, including:
• Baseline; .
• Constrained;
• Buildout;
• Travel Corridors; and,
• Transit Node.
(Note: For additional information on the development of the Alternatives, see Section
4, "Alternatives — Detailed Description" in this report.)
Performance Measures Tables
For comparison purposes, the Performance Measure tables are organized by
transportation system type, plus the first table compares all the Alternatives that use the
Baseline Land Use Scenario. The order of the tables on the following pages is:
2 -1
Section 2 - Aitematives - Mode! Data - Pertormance Measures
1. Alternatives using Baseline SE Data
2. Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Alternatives
3. Intensive Highway Alternatives
4. Intensive Fixed Guideway Alternatives
5. Intensive Bus Transit
6. Moderate Multimodal Alternatives
Use of E+C
The column in the table designated as E+C indicates Existing plus Committed. The E+C
is composed of a transportation network of the existing and committed highway and
transit facilities, and the 2035 socioeconomic data (i.e., population and employment in
the year 2035). Thus, the E+C serves as a benchmark for comparing how much the
performance measures improve with the transportation investments in the different
Alternatives.
Targets
The ets WO set Targets — Good, Better and Best — for each Performance Measure.
The Target values are shown in the right. side columns and serve as another benchmark
for comparing the different Alternatives.
2 -2
m
ID
m
m
m
m
0
c
W
`ot
m
a
m
0
m
v
0
m
m
E
m
ZE
N
coO
V
m
Y
N
m
p
O
°
\
t"
O
O
a
m et
m N
O
N
N O\
d' N
o
d'
N
O
OD
C
•�
PV
�
O
-e
'Q'
�
�p
"'�
oO .0
ODD
N
L
�i
o
\°
o
\�
o
°
o
o\
\
o
p bmD
o
�
N
M
o
o
p
p
\
�
�
C
1n
O�
o
O
C
o
O
N
�
N
�'
�
O
� p
�
C
�
O
N
N
C7 CA
�Ae��+�Nr"~
t7a�'�
Y
N
m
m
w
m
m
m
v
C
m
m
a
m
0
m
�o
0
m
E
m
a
N
O
V
m
V1
O N D N o O G t' N p O n
N et N 00 �! � O N
N CP w N
NI�I�I�I�N"rlr4
0010 hI ~INI�
ODIC �IinIhI�IM
S.
G ypmp o p •�+ � o o a
N
u
m
ate+
N
PC
1
m �'
n
�7
O 4•�
y
p
C
00
V7
[�
O
00
C
O
nl
w
�•
� an
o
Q
p
N
O
V7
to
O
O
P+ n. �
o
w
V
o o i
in
w
N
ate+
N
1
m �'
n
�7
O 4•�
G
y 'o O
w
�•
� an
o
JO`°
0o
U
m
U
a o�
P+ n. �
o
w
V
o o i
w
N
ct3
ra
'S r
'Jn
X
0
J
Lf)`
0
N.
m
m
cn
m
a3
m
m
v
c
mi
'C
m
Q
m
O
0
m
E
m
N
O
V
m
n
N
m
Ifs
o
h
o
O
'0'-
_
PC
N
O
N
N
O
N
a
�
�Oj
OO
l."
O
p
�
� •p
C
N
O
v''
4
1/)
\
N
h
Ofl
rl
C
)
V1
\\
p
0
pt
N
\
o
tf)
O\
It
e
e
\
0
b m\
y�
p "C!
o
O
O
�
O
N
p
O
M
0
\
o
M
\
0
N
O
N
O�
M
o
O
yg
",j
Zp
h
1/1
n
N
m
m
m
m
m
v
c
'C
ro
m
ID
'a
0
m
E
R
N
0
V
m
oo
N
tf)
\\
o
1A
e
0 c N
o
g
o
o
NO,
'
!t
O N
O
O l7
p
p 0 t
H O
V1
O
N
p
"C3
O
'A
h
p
0
O
CA
O
N
L
M
P
O
\ CT
O
O
\ o
O
N !! t
O
\
O
O O
\ to
O O
\
o
O
\
o
O
\
O
\
"Ci d
q
"C7
O
O
M
as
�
OD
C�
O
\
�
O
\
O�
N�
t
CA
N H
N O
N
e
N
O
Cf?
t
00 O
O
N
CT
L
C
N M
o
o p
N
iA
Nv4
N V..4 .-q
O
p O C
eV
OC
tOrf
O
CO
O C^
us ~
t- ^i
M
T.1 �/i
N
t
o
\ .O
N
oo
N
Section 2 - Alternatives - Model Data - Evaluation Measures
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Evaluation Measures
Purpose of Evaluation Measures
Evaluation Measures are very similar to Performance Measures. Evaluation Measures
indicate the general performance of a transportation system and therefore are useful for
comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of the different transportation Alternatives.
All of the data used for calculating the Evaluation Measures comes from the Triangle
Regional Model. The Evaluation Measures provides a more detailed set of statistics than
the Performance Measures.
The tables in this section are presented in the same order as the Performance Measures in
the preceding pages. The only significant difference in the format will be:
The Performance Measures compares the Alternatives' values to a set of Targets,
while the Evaluation Measures compares the Alternatives' values to the E+C
values. The E+C is composed of a transportation network of the existing and
committed highway and transit facilities, and the 2035 socioeconomic data (i.e.,
population and employment in the year 2035). Thus, the E+C serves as a
benchmark for comparing how much the evaluation measures improve with the
transportation investments in the different Alternatives.
The Evaluation Measures table has columns are in the right -hand side that
calculate the difference between the E+C and Alternatives values.
Please note that there are two pages for each Evaluation Measure table.
2 -s
0
w
N ,
>m
am
C N
Q
N
OR
CL w
�m
0 o
�a
W
Q
w
N�
� m
R m
C N
v
.4+ m
Q i
N
Om
CL
�m
V o
ctl
m
w
+
UJ
Ui
> >
CL
SO
LU
>
E
av
OC
Lb
lop_
ve
lop_
ZR
* ale
M
Moe
M
CD
*op-
CD
w
to
C4
It
ON
C�
Cl
M V)
CD
to
C14
to
MM
C-A
co
co
—
—
—
—
—
-,o
ve
-oe
—
—
—
pp
ve
-
-
-
-.
-
Ile
-
-
-op_
-
Cl
.97
9
P.
P.
Wg
M
co
coloco
MMOWONMCD
P-
IR
0
A
r-
cm
w
r..
CO
rz
to
co
w
Ct
Vi
—00
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
co
0;
'i
4,
11-0
co
w
r,
co
—OM
OMWOMMWW
WMV—N—W"
CD
0-*
to
0-0
loe
co
co
M
w
CD
co
,It
co
co-q-t
q
C'!
C4
mm"N"
q
cq
CR
r-
M
C�
ci
to CD
Cl
w
r-
I--
to
co
to
-T
CD
w
w
WNV
Z9
4z
CD
"It
't
co
vo
--t
w
M
f.-
Co
Cp
co
to
ui
6
6
O
.
M
O
M
W
rt
OMM
Of
cq
Iq
co
M
Ull
rrr
www
w
Co
Cl
M
co
F' iri
E!
to
0
C?
0
0
cr,
-as
w
to
w
I
C D
0
.2
E
0
IM
cz
C
r_
CD
w
M
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
CL
F-
<
=
E
I--
-K-
0
;
tM
C
tM
.5
0
A
A
0 CL
V
a
LL
E
s
r_
w
J2
w
CD
=
c
a
ID
o-0
U.
U.
(D
0
E
(D
E
—S
9
S
CD
L
:3.2
0
IM
M
0
EL
0)
U
M
tv
A
*0
'o
ra
23:
w
tM
7j-6 1
1
r:
w
83
0
0
0
0
0
>
>
w
C2
(D
cm
0
0
a
CD
e
(D
e
w
A
>
E-L
a
rj
e
U.
<
E
0
0
0
U;
I
�
0)
w
W
08
CD
w
DOMz
m°°
IL
3:
IL
N
M
rc)
C�
Cp
CD
0
. N
-:
. M
.
.
414
cq
r
q
r
cq
r
Co
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
C4
cm
r
"
r
r4
r
N
-ZI-Z
U
+
U) W
°> >
AW d
w C V
o� N
�O
m� m
EV O
¢v
Nu' _
c tC
� W
m
N
Om
IL
O
LU
O
e,
e.
Ne
CO
CM
—
CD
to
rr
C,
C-A
CD
C*
C,
CM
CR)
r-
CIP
r- M
w
NX
CD
NX
cr)
VC
r..
C=1
C4.
T
IT
IT
7
- t
R
6 Z
zr
X
6N<
II
CD
CD
o
'T
a?
w
'T
0q
C4
o
'T
m
"T
U,
_
C
CM
r-
0)
CD
C,
cp
V
0)
w
CD
M'T
co
R
Ics! C4
cc
co
o-*
1.1Z
CR
CR
'.e
It
Z
C!
to
C)
Ct
c,
V-
C�
co
ID
co
rIt
CYO
C-4
Vt
CM
CM
0
M
V)
C4
CIJ
M
to
a
w
go
C*
0)
r-
=
co
C%I
Ir
IR
0)
Ct
co
a
cm
G'.2,,�g'' ,_ V�kc�
n
r
r
fn
CD
CD
u):
I=
Q
co
r%
"t 01
CI
co
co
Lo
Ci
U7
Ci
m
N
0,
-
N
CZ
4ir
":
cm
Ci
v
to
co
to
in
4=
CD
co
I":
CD
V)
O
V
co
0)
U)
w
Cq
co
IT
C4
CD
CR IR
" co
w
co
co
CD
W
q
cn
ca
.4t
CO
r
w
t-
(D
00
to
—
co
CD
C4
cq
Iq
rC4r
cm
Cq
Iri
01i
o)
C,4
;
C3,
�-1
—
,6
(M
C6
OD
co
N
-
LO
W
V)
in
IT
IT
in
IT
M
v
C4
r,
Cq Lq
90 M
D
o
o
Nt
IR
R
"t
'Yh
Q
(a
o
W
.0
co
ui
0)
C6
CD
C6
C3
co
0
oc
:3
0
E
La
iE
OL
w
r
cc
tm
C
co
A
A
CL
C3
C7
C
.Z- In
w
CD
CL
CD
CL
0
0
tm
.0
CL
ca
E
E
>
0
tm
a
0
towo
0
CD
M
r_
C
w
0
c
S
12
w
-
00
—
cL'
t6
■
3:
w
5
LOL
0
0)
-
10
WN
WO
!S
3:
r-
is
E
-�
W
o
m
it
0
U.
cc
140
U;
ID
W
>
U;
0
U.
CD
w
5
A_
to-
to-
CL
0. 3:
U
0-
a.
a
13
I
'I
c;
ciC;Icicic;
'.7
C4
-I
"t
q:
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
rrr
U
W
Ri
C
L
Q
m
IL
2w
m
C
W
0 0
e�Lo
0
0
o
0
000000
O
O
0
opON�
0
0
0
O Z
N (C1
40
0
r
r
10
e!�-
N
m
m
N
3
'ate:
0 0
0
o
Q
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
co
o
co
0
0
n'
0
c
o
W
C? C?
C?
CP
hxli.
W In
OZ
O�NOrr
in
�N
m
V
M
M
z
tp
�
0
m
0
1-
0
0
O
0
0
O
��
0
r
0
N
o
r
N
O
Z
4 N
0
0
for
Nm
N
ee
Q
W -W
OOM
r4
N
mm
W
M
M
W
V'mm
1[�Ot�(DO
N
'O:
W
O
MOSt
M
V:
m
O?
In
0m
OOMON.
N
N
mam
I()
tD
W
;M':•i .:?A
.y.rap
st
r
ti
r.:
m
m�L9
W
NlOrto
OmQi
co
C)
m V'�(f
M M
v
mNr
m
rm
N
N
N
t o
C 7
N
r
m
r
4"/
In
m
M
N
W
m
M
�• :.
m� t' f
C W
N
rmr
co
z
z
M r
W
O
GON
r
m
MM
M(:O
v
v
m
In
Ci
to
I=
RR
O
OO
07
CUR
to
r
Nr
N
N
MNm
V`(OP
N
41
r�"
VW'OOD'
W W,
4:13
�C~'')`tOq
NmCi
N•t
co
NIn
CO
Nr
(o
43;C6
43;
C6
ti Op
V'
W 00
W W
�
�"
�'Ml�mr
N
N
p� sr r
t`�' •
¢
Z
v Cj
vm
W
wC3,U)
m
w0Wmr
0
to
MVm
C'7
V:
(`,
NWto0to
mvv_mm
O m
Mi['f
M r
�e�-m
M
Cl
00
01
nN
to
C
V)NMrm
U7
M
W
co
M
cl
W
m
1�
ik
co W 2
O
N
N
M
N
`55
- '
W ON
erNN
Z
V'Nm
n ( l 9
N
V
CD
Lo
Ill
C,
Oh
W
m
In
W
W
rCO
(7O
NAmO
.4t
m
U)
L1(?
to
N
CO
l7N
rWNNO
W
V'at
hMM
W
W
M
O
m
41
M
0606cco
WC
N
y'N�C6
N
V'NNr
clv
N
M
r
to
to
M
C.)
O
co
m
W)
M
m to
O co
M
N
Eli
s..
�t. F
4a"'i'lvi�
Q
(fO�
_j
m
�
it
IMP
m
m
rt3"
c
jE
m
yf
m
I
U
m
V
m
C
7
I_
s,
m
0
m
m
m
t
cx
F
p
wU
m
ao
�=mro
m
U m
oo�m
m
G
Y
C
V
mY
0
r
0
m
m
m�
�v
m
7
°o
m
t
c
$
c�
o
m
o _
O
�o o_ o
o
o
• ?m
o c
° c
m
E
ao
a
m
o
m
m
c
H`
c�c)ozoU
o
E
o
La
Ept�mmz
EoummzQ1=
QF�-
a
mDUJI12
a m
o
E o
0 0
-
.
-
'I
MMC+�C�,
�;
rra=r
rN
(7r�o
rrrrN
t0NCO
rN
Cl
it-4
-
.A.y,.d
K•tNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMM('O
NN
NN
NNMM
M.
MMMM
V'
�t
L
W
m
m >
m �
m ;p a)
w v C9
`0 X
Oi
Rl
m � �
E _ m
C O
O
U)
W
i�r •_ Ne
O
\ Z9
0
-0'e
p
o
o e e
t-
O
G_
0
0
T [ir
0
tl�
p\
CV
I p\
��
0
N
.} s�
CO
CD
90
CO
Imo/.,
er
to
NN
t
�C*t
,�,
pY.�NM
t
o �°.
�2 p
a°.
ve
�p
a
op
o
p
tl` o oe
e�
c+�
p .p
tl`
0
0
0 0
�NM
0
0�°
e!'fD
tD
(O
CO
I'�Ci
eN-�NN
O�CY
pYYM�
µ.
�.°
0
0
0
�°.
0
0
cT° 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
o
CV
p
tl
P
tl
r-
�e
o
o
off`
at,
/DOt+q'Qi
f;
NCNN
10
�,Y
0q,
q,
C?
I?
•_-
�'• Spa
(4.
O1A
N
r
C Go
tom
N-CO
OM
O'd;
ID
r
V;G
C-) CAON
N T
p
CO
0
co
00
00CDOfA
CV t6
�`�°.
CO
O
-per°.
V'
"p°.o
trl 1,
CO to
CO
0
to
to
o
NN
Cl)
Napo
17
V'
C~N
r
co CD
CD
p
5
1
SIZES
NM
VN'
�M
COO
CD
Cl
N
52
t•
T
CD
C
p0r
10M
t, co tl�Nt-1%0
V' 1DMv 6N 0f+1`-
N
0 0
0109
0
OO�NlO
O�!'1--
0 0
00
COT
o
r
to
CM
C�DW
VO•
%:
rN TOiC�
(v iCi
tnOtc)
V
T
to
T
tD
.�eirayx
^�}y
CO
r
T
co
CO
lvai
CD
O
p
N
1C! r
o 0
0 0
0
0
0
CD
co
CO
N
co
.i }.'s
±"
'
COD
CAT
TO
01 co
kaco
t` tD CO CC) er
' tOMd•COMCIIN
rNrCAm
p
r
147
OfN1D
"wm
O�YM
whmOd•
COM
"It
tW
ci
Oit')e
tC>r
=tD
C
N
r
0
M
m
C
p
r
N
U
� �
r
OO
nOto
N CD vi
n, Lo O
rNNaOtC')
0
Cl
Co
0 'p`e
CON
U7CA0
.
V;
00000
'R
Oc+iOCDO
tiMa'
W
m
N
iD
�+
0)
to
�T-
mO
N
?.
Mme'
rr
co
SO
to
EG
0
O
pOp
co
"
E
a
C
m
v :r ex•'
4
m C1
m
m
rp
CD
ca
.
C
E CL
o
0
0
u0,.
0
.0
9
to H `o
cm
3
o
n
n
CL
—
u. _ m
E
¢....
—
cm
m
...
...
U
U
a.�_o
00
..
Y
w 3
p
li
�.
o mmm
CD E E W
-:S
i0
(D
X
C
X
C.
oo�t
m
C ` m
—�
W a
C
ti
m
'O
'O
(6
CD
m
`�'
O
m
m > > C)
W
O
O L
O O
E
»
i W m C1
m u Q
p
0 C
O
m
O
SD m ,a `
O >
W
mO =
C
O O
mLLQQ
wLL Q
=
I
LQ
LL
�
o EpUmWx
O O
Z
i
=i
a
�o
Orz
rNC''f
TNC?
C'r'i C')�7'C' V. tC')l'DraD
tD
r
CA
CA
C7>Qlrrr
00N000
e -a-e�
Nlql
h
�s
rNMt!9
rN
«»
U
W
� tri
w
m
m �
a+
w C 0
c0 X
v 0
IL
m = �
N Q
C Q
.r
m
y 3
TI
U
L° W
3
� G
111
L y
v WC 1
m
O m
IL
4 �
m v m
v
� o
N ;y
O
0 Q{
W W
T
W
3
m (�
U)
.F+
m
Wr.
L to
O �
� O m
? r �
E V �
a V o
O
m �{
W
W
N
w
to
0
.DEC
W
to
m
O
.L
m
a
m
Q
N
O
N
cc
.V
o.
W
W
[6
O
N
N
O
N
t3
m
c
O
W
D '
o
OR
O�
O�
G
O^
O'er
e�
Cis
CT
O�
o
O_
O�
O"
Cis
o_
0
0
0
z w,-
O_
NO
�1'toh
O�
Oe
tOt�aO�'Ot.
1
�ON
1
eWtl+f
eNt
GGD�d!•IeAteN�fO
Sur
0
o
0
0
o
a`
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
a-
o
o\°
Ile
0
0
CD
•tO1+
to
CDtdTr
WI
c�N
'
TYv
�•
r
D
a.\
O
O
\
O
\o
oa.
O
\a•3•a•o
0
0
0
0
0
vP
0
�P
0
\`
0
_C
0
\
0
0
°
0\
o
:G. -0
CDCDCO
OO
N
QUeN!•0
1
r
0400)OtC7
U
1
ui
CD
LO
N
O
t
a�
N
�l'
O
t-
co
CD
h
tOCM
t0
CO
V'rNrrW
tD
Ch
W
O
W
\ °
o
NNC--
\\
0
0
`ems
0
to(-r.01r
0
�°
0
°�°
o
W
CYROr1CD
O
[�
1
O
O
N
h
O
N
C';N
O
r�i'
nN
mC3,f
tD
r
O
N
;3.. �,♦ �_
N
O
0
LO
co
CO
pp
IT
tA
CD
co
Cp
Cp
rN—
CO
O)
V
�tr*�
00)
d;
�l;h•000O0
N
co o
O
mO
co
1
0
v
F
tA0
N
t'>etco
Otiui
d'd'
Or
O
CO
tt
co
co
to
to
m
Ch
aD
V'
n
to
CO
CO
O-
V'r
Ch
Nr
-
CO
o
OC71O
0
0
0
OInMOr
0
0
0
o
OcoCm'
O
IO
1
C9
w co
'
Nio
N
ci
CD
W
(h
(*i
(•i
t(i
h
ui7
(O
CA
ti
CD
N
v
mco
OOCO
r
N
i —:
eF ,
N
I•.
tO
(D
co
to
v
vITNNt7DY7N0
to
M
rf
I;
CC/
O
to
CO
00
Cp
N
0
d'
0
to
0
aD
0
�t
0o
d;
t�
t�(oet
r
W
m
N
'
O
h••
O
O
rNNt0
to
itl
co
co
O
�
O
co
O
ci
t6
C6
O
1O
O
,�,
r
CODS
O
N
qtr .+ xt, aT
wE
co
'
O
m
r
m
y
0
m
U
V
i
;rah 5 t
O
.r
E
to
H
m
0
mO
0
c
0
w
c
o
m>
m
�
m
m
U
U
c
E
m
c�Q
F-
c
AA
X16
-
a
>>O
E
U
U
C�i
C�
�
Q
1
Cc,
0
.m
m
0
. m
'O
'-
-e
'
Cp
'O
m
to
m_
m
m
0
0
O
m
s
_: v
`U"a
-_
0
m
m
m
w
E
ID
o
E>
m
H
m
m
m
p
!-
F-
c
c
a
m
c`
m
a
N
CL tnO�pUm
��nF-
i-m0�c
oma00m�oof�
-..w.
�o
c
0
�
,_..
1
v! �7 �K i
>>
3:
a)
(fl
o
>3
m
m
omm
i�.
>00..�m
OVR
c
m
�
3cW
(fl
V.
(fl
m20OQv000cO
(�i
U)
'm
m
_
1
-f O
mC
-
Y
¢¢¢n°'.
Q-M¢
-.VLL+
tm
xrm
o
o
>�;
>r
4`tau-
=�a1LQ¢a1LQ¢
m
m
1
1
1
1
1
T n
T.
92
cio�z
Sw
��'@7M
rNt*>
rNCO
r'
CA
CA
rNMvU,
6161
hl
ld�
vi
CY
t'Y"It
�1
CO
I�000001
N
N
tV
N
U
W
0
m v
m O
o y
} C
m G1 t6
O � �
v Q O
CL
m � N
a
m
m v
o = N
N
C
C
O Q
N
W
Section 2 - Alternatives - Model Data - Evaluation Measures
[This page left blank intentionally]
2-22
2 -23
Section 2 - Alternatives - Model Data - Congestion Maps
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Congestion Maps (V /C maps)
Use of Congestion Maps
The performance Measures provide a meral indicator of the overall transportation
system. On the other hand, the Congestion Maps show the forecasted level of service on
s§g cific road segments and corridors based on the afternoon peak hour. These maps are
sometimes called "V /C" maps (V over C maps) because the level of service, or existence
of congestion, is derived by dividing the traffic volume by the traffic capacity of the road
segment. For example, a volume of 9,000 vehicles on a road that is capable of carrying
10,000 vehicles will produce a V/C of 0.9. A V/C of 1.0 is equal to a Level of Service
(LOS) of "E ", which can be described as:
Limit of acceptable delay, unstable flow, poor signal progression,
traffic near roadway capacity, frequent cycle failures.
Although the term traffic congestion is subjective in that it means different levels of delay
to different people, it can be said that any road segment approaching a V/C of 1.0, which
is indicated on the maps with a yellow color, experiences some delays. A V/C greater
than 1.0, which is indicated on the maps by the purple color, means frequent delays for
the motorist, and a V/C greater than 1. 1, which is indicated by the red color on the maps,
translates into unacceptable travel delays.
The Triangle Regional Model (the travel demand model for the Triangle Region) uses
travel behavior data for the Triangle Region, future transportation system networks, and
future population and employment data, to forecast the volume and capacity values
needed to produce these maps. The forecasts are for the year 2035. Each Congestion
Map represents one of the Alternatives, which are comprised of a specific transportation
system (Intensive Highway, Fixed Guideway, etc.) and Socioeconomic Data (Baseline,
Buildout, etc.).
Review and comparison of the Congestion Maps for the various Alternatives will show
how well a particular Alternative addresses travel demand on the key roadway segments
and corridors in the WO planning area.
Of particular importance is the comparison ns any � a benchmark. The E+C map uses a
(Existing plus Committed), which can be
transportation network with the current roadways and transit services plus any others that
have been committed to being implemented, and the Socioeconomic Data (i.e.,
population and employment) for the year 2035. This map shows the level of service to be
experienced if no additional roadways improvements or transit services are implemented,
and thus helps to answer the question, "When we make our next transportation
investment decision, where do we need to focus our investment ?" Furthermore, by
Section 2 - Attematives - Model Data - Congestion Maps
comparing the E+C Congestion Map with the other Alternatives, you can see how well
the transportation investments in that Alternative address the congestion in the E+C.
Congestion Maps for Alternatives
On the following pages, the Congestion Maps are presented in the order shown on the
table below.
2 -24
Alternative:
ID
: IEM22rtation Sy stem
: Land Use Scenario
N/A
Existin Plus Committed
; Baseline
2–A
; Com rehensive Transportation Plan: Baseline
2-B
; Comprehensive Transportwon Plan ; Buildout
3–A
; Intensive High wa
: Baseline
3-
; Intensive ITighwa
:Constrained
3-C
Intensive ffighway
Travel Corridor
4A
Intensive Fixed Guideway
Baseline
4B
Intensive Fixed Guideway
Travel Corridor
4-C
; Intensive Fixed Guideway
;Transit Node
5 -A
; Intensive Bus Transit
; Baseline
5 -B
; Intensive Bus Transit
: Travel Corridor
5-C
; Intensive Bus Transit
: Transit Node
6-A
; Moderate Multimodal
: Baseline
6-B
Moderate Multimodal
: Travel Corridor
6-C
Moderate Multimodal
Transit Node
2 -24
M
2035 Afternoon Peak Hour
Volume over Capacity Ratio (VoC)
Alternative 2a
Thic map upnseum the ratio bamem
cnmpnchmsive tnnapomlim plaa rot
the baserne land use $=-&.
.Ug at 2M
VA
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Baseline Land Use Scenario
DCHC MPO Area
2-ai
2035 Afternoon Peak Hour
Volume over Capacity Ratio (VoC)
Alternative 2b
I'm. anp mpw== the ratio bdt
Pr6im�a,wdmafvoh mwdopxft7.
usnmmy anpleaxantioa ofdm
compabmniae mnspomtion pha foc
dm buU= Lad vx ccrntrio.
Ed
Comprehensive
Transportation Plan
Buildout Land Use Scenario
DCHC MPO Area
® DMC WO so�
M-& ilnl B —A2d -'
O Cmfy so,mdu es
Rm&my Voles Ov= Cq='ey R-o (vbQ
O.W <= VoC < 0.80
®0.80 <= VoC <1.00
1.00 <= VoC <1.10
1.10 — VoC
A Peak Hour Volume
10000 5000 2500 1�
0 15 3 45
Miles
Seef m 2- arema®ves- Wde! Dam- Conoesfmt NhV5 2-25
6?
tM14,.
��. A� � � a,� c.�y. :`1i 4. 'r+' � ��� .yV�.� a r Z�"r {� � 4 " v . �+^ �' ` "�•.
,eT �r ,:�KH h >• ,iY4al 3� �# 51 }� � . i� e�i��.. Ftt�.' iJC'f+riia'", i r.
c
I�1 n• t� 7n §
O'gANG
Q;p'IFIAM
DMC MPO Botmdacy
ON Mtttridpal Boundaries
7035 Afternoon Peak Hour Hyd -bgi -I Bo ndaries
Hi hwa Intensive o County Burn sties
Volume over Capacity Ratio (VoG) y Roadway votttme Dots Capacity Ratio (VoC)
Cop
® 0.00 <c VoC < 0.80
Alternative 3a ® 0.80 <_ voC < 1.00
Baseline Land Use Scenario 1.00 <= VoC < 1.10
1.10 <= voc
Afternoon Peak Hoar Vohtme
twr 1Lis map septesmts the ratio between
,..W— P�madma<y= and °P'°q, DCHC MPO Area r� N
nsmmingahowlymteasive 10000 5000 7500
•ra imspo- 6— s) msaCot the btseyme 0 1.5 3 4.5
laod trse amo io.
U% =2006 Miles
HEJ
2-30
2-31
2035 Afternoon Peak Hour
Volume over Capacity Ratio (VOC)
Alternative 4a
M,js map wp�ts the atio baween
ptnj,=d ..Iwq —Iwm and api6q,
auwmaga Cued gukL -q uU SrAC
tmspoaatiou q. fm the buaw
land use urn
Augurt 2003
Fixed Guideway Tall STAC
Baseline Land Use Scenario
® DMC MPO B-un&q
MbicipgBoun&fm
County Bounbties
Rm&M Vohme a— C-Va* Ratio (VOQ
0.00 <= voc <0.80
oso <= VoC < LOD
MW LOD <= VOC < 1.10
1.10 <= voc
Afu=Doa Peak HourVobww
IOODD 5000 2500
0 1.5 3 4.5
Milrs
r,mqlm 2. Almmtivrs- model Orbs- Comestion YaPS 2-32
;'lat3u
;y, 4
i�
-U:
4' l
N i
,04y.� FS O tr `Fl
Xa �
']3'"1 L
Wit
'k -`5 Bqz f9+ } % f i rs rlk•„^i' ie % ,.x�;r
k " (p�." �'+'L'1 ! ct aT� 5 �I � A� C�t � �� . 1'�•'��,"'rr. - - ...
ttv/ ikkii' 1 °`ic��u`' 1 fir, n tYc, a3": 3• yyam�;;
44' a> ry r
1 ��M1P slw "�yn': m � �% •i�Pf Y Vin,..
ORAN
(�iA'rl�M
t
�i
ly"•
® DCEIC MPO Botmdny
Muvicipamuwoaries
2035 Afternoon Peak Hour
Hyd -bgi d Botmdaties
Volume over Ca p acity Ratio (VoC)
Fixed Guideway Tall STAC
t= -m
Roadway vo hue octx Capacity Ratio Nq
0.00 <= voc < 0.80
Alternative 4b
® 0.80 <= voc < 1.00
Corridor Land Use Scenario
ME Loo <= voc < 1.10
1.10 <= voc
Afurnoou Pnk Hmm volume
r I MV MP the ndn>>e:�
e �nl m =d�Yy.
DCHC MPO Area
nj
msuming•famdgaidemgtaBSrAC
10000 5000 2500
• • tnaspomtion sp i= fnt the maid=
0 L5 3 45
hmd use acenado.
An=2008
Mks
2-n
2-34
"S
z-W
z-V
j
i
R
0 J
J �' —"5,a I � �t'e ¢Y sski �"i .ID• e
r s ac e1^ .
�" � ��' c �r�� '• • � • Viz' ,
Nii�`' a'aai� ytx14;r`�1 w
OR
�f
s
P �c
�,�T
2035 Afternoon Peak Hour
Volume over Capacity Ratio (VOC)
Alternative 6b
m,js cup p=�=d, md.
exs>em fac ehe rnmdoc I=d nse s<ma�
Ang=2M
Moderate
Multimodal
Corridor Land Use Scenario
DCHC MPO Area
2-36
r39
2-40
Section 2 - Altemalives - Model Data - Congestion Maps
[This page left blank intentionally]
Section 3 - Financial Plan
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Financial Information
Preliminary Costs and Revenues
The 2035 LRTP must be fiscally- constrained- This requirements means that the cost of
the various highway, transit and other transportation facilities must be covered by the
reasonably- expected state, federal, local and private transportation revenues. The .
Alternatives presented at this stage of the 2035 LRTP development process do not have
to be fiscally- constrained because these are draft proposals that are used to analyze the
performance of the various transportation facility types. Nonetheless, knowing the costs
and revenues related to an Alternative will help inform us to where that particular
Alternative stands in relation to being fiscally- constrained.
Therefore, preliminary costs and revenue estimates have been developed. It must be
stressed that these figures are preliminary, and therefore could change significantly as.the
project details of the Preferred Option (i.e., final Alternative) are decided. Certainty in
cost and revenue estimates for Alternatives is difficult because so many project details
are unknown. For example, moving the implementation year of several fixed -route
transit services, say five years, can change the system life cost by millions of dollars.
Therefore, the costs and revenue presented at this point are to be used to get an idea of an
order of magnitude presented for each Alternative.-
The table on the next page presents the total costs and revenues for each Alternative,
including a breakdown by highway and transit facilities, and shows the difference
between the total cost and revenue.
Local Options Revenue Estimates
There are several options for raising revenue on a local basis, e.g., by county, that could
be targeted to finance transportation projects. The tables on pages 3 and 4 present the
estimated annual and 25 -year total revenues for each option. The 25 -year total assumes
that the option would be implemented in the year 2011, and therefore produces 25 years
of revenue from 2011 through 2035 (horizon year for the 2035 LRTP). These figures are
illustrative and not intended to be final estimates for use in the 2035 LRTP. One of more
of these options could be selected for further refinement and inclusion in the 2035 LRTP.
It is important to note that many of these revenue options would require enabling
legislation from the North Carolina General Assembly, and those in which enabling
legislation exists, i.e., Sales and Use Tax., and Real Estate Transfer Tax, require a local
referendum for approval.
Page 5 shows the 25 -year totals for the local options in a chart format.
3-1
Section 3 - Financial Pion
3-2
Section 3 - Financial Plan
Local Options Revenue Estimates
Transportation and Infrastructure (values in $millions)
(Sonrw Regional Transportation Alliance; apdxted January 10, 20081
It is important to note that many of these revenue options would require enabling
legislation from the North Carolina General Assembly, and those in which nabling
legislation exists, i.e., Sales and Use Tax, and Real Estate Transfer Tax, require
referendum for approval.
The RTA (Regional Transportation Alliance) is composed of businesses and chambers of
commerce that promote solutions to transportation issues in the Triangle Region. The
RTA compiles the data for these revenue estimates.
➢ Sales and Use Tax*
11.9 / al
'/4% sales tax **
'/ :% -sales s_ ales tax
10/. sales tax
Durham:
$9.3 m
$185 m
$53 m
$37.0 m
$10.5 m
Orange:
$2.6 m
$1 1 m
$2 1 m
$4.2 m
Chatham:
.
$130 m
$25.9 m
$51.7 m
Revenue per year.
$325.0 in
$6475 to
$1,2925 in
Revenue over 25 years:
. (2011 through 2035)
* The statewide Sales and Use Tax rate is currently 4.25 %, with the addition of the local rate of
2.5 %, there is an overall 6.75% Sales and Use Tax for Durham, Wake and Orange Counties.
** In 2007, the State Legislature authorized an additional Article 39 (point -of- sale - based) local
option sales and use tax of '/4/o.
➢ Motor Fuels Tax
11.9 / al
1 /
$142 m
Durham:
$12 m
$5.9 m
$3.1 m
$7.4 m
Orange:
$0.6 m
0 4 m
$2 n m
$4.8 m
Chatham:
Revenue per year.
$2.2 m
$11.0 m
$275 m
$26.4 m
$660.0 m
Revenue over 25 years:
$55.0 m
➢ Vehicle Registration Fee*
(additional) $20
Durham: $3.8 m
Orange: $2.0 in
Chatham: 1.3 m
Revenue per year. $7.1 m
Revenue over 25 years: $177.5 m
The current cost of vehicle registration renewal is $20 plus a $5 Triangle Transit Authority
tax. Refer to GS 160A -613, 623 -624.
3-3
➢ Rental Car Tag*
3 County:
Revenue over 25 years:
Section 3 - Financial Plan
odditional) 5% (additional) 10%
$8.7 in $175 m
$2175 m $4375 in
* Revenue for future Triangle Transit fixed - guideway project(a) are based on a 5% car rental
tax levied.
➢ Real Estate Property Tag
Durham:
Orange:
Revenue per year.
Revenue over 25 years:
> Real Estate Transfer Tax
Durham:
Orange:
Revenue per year:
Revenue over 25 years:
$OA5 / $100 (0.05 %) $010 / $100 (0.1 %)
$8.7 in $173 m
$55m $10.9m
$14.2 m $28.2 m
$355 m $705 in
$0.20 / $100 (0.2 0/,,)*
$0.40 / $100 (0.4 0/o) **
$5.1 in
$10.2 in
$20m
$4.1m
$7.1 m
$143 m
$1775 in
$3575 m
* The State of North Carolina currently levies a 0.2% tax on any real estate transfer.
** In 2007, the State Lekislature authorized an additional 0.4% local option real estate transfer
tax.
➢ Vehicle Property Tax
$0.05 / $100 (.05 %) A-10 / $100 (0.1 0%)
Durham: $0.8 m $1.7 in
Orange: $0.4 m $0.9 m
.Revenue per year. $1.2 in $2.6 in
Revenue over 25 years: $30 m $65 in
* PersonalNehicle property tax must be congruent with Real (Estate) property tax rates per Art.
5 of the NC Constitution
9 Income Tax
0.10%
0.25%
0.50%
Durham: $3.6 in
$7.4 in
$14.8 in
Orange: $2.6 in
.$5-.2 in
$10:4 m
Revenue per year. $6.2 in
$12.6 m
$25.2 m
Revenue over 25 years: $155 m
$315 m
$630 m
3-4
a
IL
U;
Cl)
c
0
U)
16
(D
le
C2
IV ul
m
LU
CL
of
w
w
/PIP
%%
0
C2
0
0 0 M 0 en
0 0 r, W Ln
m co
CD
sjLwajL SZ jaAo anUBAaH
Section 3 - Financial Plan
[This page left blank intentionally]
3-6
Section 4 - Altematives - Detaned Description
2035 LRTP and CTP
Alternatives — Detailed Description
Purpose of Alternatives
The DCHC WO plans to develop and evaluate several Alternatives in the process to
create the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Each Alternative will be a combination
of a Transportation System, which includes a set of highway, transit and other
transportation improvements, and a Land Use Scenario that distributes the forecasted
population and employment for the year 2035. These Alternatives will be run in the
Triangle Regional Model (TRM) to produce a set of transportation performance measures
that describe how the transportation system will handle the travel demand generated by a
particular population and employment distribution in the year 2035. These performance
measures, such as the level of roadway congestion, average travel time, and transit
ridership, will be used to evaluate and compare the various Alternatives.
In the next major step in the 2035 LRTP development process, the public, elected
officials and technical staff will use this evaluation and comparison information to create
a single Alternative that best meets the MPO's Goals and Objectives and the fiscal
constrain requirement that demands that the project costs do not exceed the expected
funding revenues. This final Alternative is called the Preferred Option, and it will also go
through an extensive public review process similar to that of the Alternatives.
It should be noted that it is very unlikely that one of the Alternatives in its entirety would
be advanced as the Preferred Option. These Alternatives have been designed to
emphasize a particular mode in meeting the future travel demands so that the public and
technical staff can understand how well the designated mode works. For example, the
Intensive Highway Alternative has a high level of High- Occupancy Vehicle/Toll
(HOV/HOT), road widenings and new roads, a relatively low level of bus transit and no
fixed- guideway (e.g., light rail) to meet the future demands. The Alternative is helpful in
understanding the effect of increased roadway capacity on specific corridor congestion,
travel time, mode share and other performance measures. This knowledge will be used to
develop the Preferred option, which is likely to have a lower level of roadway expansion
than the Intensive Highway Alternative and a more balanced modal approach.
Development of Alternatives
The table on the page 3 shows the combinations of Transportation Systems and Land Use
Scenarios that will be modeled for the 2035 LRTP development process. Each of these
Transportation Systems will be combined with one, or more, Land Use Scenarios to
create an Alternative.
4-1
Sec Oon 4 - AttemaUves - DetaOed Description
• The first two Transportation Systems ( #1 and #2), the 2030 LRTP and
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, will be used to compare with the 2035 LRTP
Alternatives, and therefore will not form Alternatives.
• The next five Transportation Systems ( #3 through #'n, are Alternatives for the
2035 LRTP.
There is a unique set of Socioeconomic Data (SE Data) for each Land Use Scenario. The
Baseline Land Use Scenario, for example, is the SE Data approved by the Transportation
Advisory Committee (TAC) for use in developing the 2035 LRTP and is based on the
current land use plans and policies of the local jurisdictions in the DCHC MPO's
planning area. The other Land Use Scenarios assume certain changes to current land use
policies.
The Transportation System and Land Use Scenarios have only been combined into
logical matches. For example, the Intensive Highway Transportation System assumes
many highway improvements, relatively few transit improvements and no fixed -
guideway service. Thus, this System was not matched with the Transit Node Land Use
Scenario, which is designed to support fixed-guideway a Use Scenarios to for the Alternatives.
l
combinations of Transportation Systems
The System Preservation ( #7) will not require separate travel demand data because the
TRM (model) is not designed to be sensitive to the levels of Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS), Travel Demand Management (TDM) and the other related programs and
policies inherent in the System Preservation Alternative. The impact of these particular
programs and polices will be accounted for after the model is run (these are sometimes
called off -model credits).
(Description of Transportation Systems
Each Transportation System is composed of many highway, transit and other
transportation projects. A review of the long list of projects is a difficult task. The table
on page 4 provides a summary of the major projects in each of the Transportation
Systems to highlight the level and type of investment in the three major modes —
highway, bus transit and fixed- guideway.
The detailed Highway and Transit project lists are presented at the end of this section.
To compute the transportation system performance measures, the Triangle Regional
Model (TRM) does not account for transportation facilities and services related to
bicycles, pedestrians, Travel Demand Management (TDM), Transportation System
Management (TSM), and Intelligent Transportation System (TSM). These facilities and
services are accounted for after the model process occurs (called post processing
adjustments), and therefore they are not listed in the Transportation System project lists.
4-2
0
a
m
0
m
m
0
E
m
0
m
ai
N
CD 42
P
F
z to
b
O of
b�
b
Tr O
wl '
� � H
N M
rn
e� U
o�
NJ:
N -d°o
cl
r:4 v i7 y °rb A5
r+
® QI O O 0 .2-6 N
a
"Oo U2
mi °O 9+
'+''....
vQ � [e:a r C• d �° ° ° C. � � aO s N
4.4 rA in Wl 042
Cd
p (�0m v
cwo O a y g CD 0412 a a a
eei o� o°E cc M �a o ' y°A� E�- aa O �
0 i.► 4 O ;Pb s
.0 NU V��a�WNa�W U WF+rr�
C� v v
L—Lj I
d/
c;s
c
0
S
`o
D
.6
m
0
m
Q
E
c
0
ca
n
.--i
MW
PmmW
SWOO
W
w�
W
9
CIS
O
O
4.4
m
CIS
3 0
0 3 v G
U2 p.
g79
ooi b q
& aU�
m G4
o,
S�IQb
off
❑ a�H
O
of N 0A
mb c
Od o
II >g
?a.04 -0
�A�w°
a•
G. � •.. W
G at
'� G
Owilm
ocso�
.o
b 5
it • � •� y
H 3 C7 :
W
+ a
'C3 11 A .a
q o
a�i y '`
�
U2
v�a.nNq
v
v
S. 0
`
n DO
Cd
�: •�
d m
�+ a>
o
'O
p C p
�✓"
O .G p
5
-- �.b
'
�b
a
'•o
aao
at
z • •
------ - - - - --
• • •
--------- - - - - --
•
------------ - - - - --
. • •
------------------------------
O
. ,
--------- - - - - --
-m'
q
q
q
q
�
�
•�
�
N s
N d•�
O
Ly b
�
•� �
a
tn
b w
M
H
5 ti
k S M
.'� 2 V1 q
ter r q 'r
tai
q�
N r, q
6i q
ati_ pp 0
bN A !p � •lR7S .0
3 a� as ..
b
bO p
.5 d
bAC
3 ==
79
Qb 3
3
N y cb n b
},
N ) q
N O �# .
a+ .Y
oaaOpaS
�p.oaao
,s c�aa0
aopg
• • •
• • • • •
• • •
--- — ------------
• • • • O
- ---- --- --- -------
• • •
---- ---- - ---
• -® -® -
--- -- - --
--- ------ - --- --
-------- ---- ------
b
z
.�� 00
t0
b^
q
3
9
79 4
0
o
• H w
H
a^" o.rs,
aE,a
New
a
y0 0��
'•
A,
° �i, o
00 0°�
vi o
a�> a>^
o
a>O a;�
a>> as
O on °•
v�
N. DO ti
o
M�vI
O H
) z H
I O
oo p
iv � z H t�
e • e • •
• e • • •
• • e • •
• • e •
• • e s
• • • •
r
•�
1�
n
pw
�MII
PCA
w
`I
w'
PIZ
rte.
m
CIS
3 0
0 3 v G
U2 p.
g79
ooi b q
& aU�
m G4
o,
S�IQb
off
❑ a�H
O
of N 0A
mb c
Od o
II >g
?a.04 -0
�A�w°
a•
G. � •.. W
G at
'� G
Owilm
ocso�
.o
b 5
it • � •� y
H 3 C7 :
W
+ a
'C3 11 A .a
q o
a�i y '`
�
U2
v�a.nNq
v
v
Section 4 - Altematives - Maps
Maps of Transportation Systems
This section presents one hioLway and one tr ansit map for each of the five proposed
transportation systems, including:
o Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP);
• Intensive Highway;
• Intensive Fixed- Guideway;
• Intensive Bus Transit; and,
• Moderate Multimodal.
In addition, there is a one bic cle facility and one off -road facility map. The various
transportation systems have the same set of bicycle and off -road facility projects, and
therefore, these maps don't vary from one system to another-
4-5
CHAPEL DURHAM ..
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIO
Roadway Improvements Alternative
DURHAM CHAPEL HILL • •
METROPOLITAN PLANNI- • .
Roadway Highway Intensive Alternative
N
�i WE
n
st ,
s
pto.: MPOSoundary
el HIH County Soundarin
am
corough
r Munidpalbas
m hTriangle Pork
DURHAM -
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIOI
Roadway Improvements -• Guideway
®. Naw/lmproved Intarsocitons
■ ■ s 4-5 Lane Divided New Location
Canhoro MPC Boundary
.
4.5 Lane Divided Improvement
Chapel Hill - Calmly Boundaries
HOV Projects
�5 -Lane Divided Improvement
Durham
_"�'IrderstMes,
-% US and NO Highways ,
Upgrade to Freeway
Mlishorough
Roadways in Fixed Guideway Alternative" - New Freeway/Expressway
other Municipalities
• 23 Lane Now Location
Upgrade Etdsting Freeway
Research Triangle Park
�� �a r nne Yrtromvament ;
_
_ _
Transportation
205 The Louis
Berger Group, Inc.
8.62008
Milos
0 1.25 25 5
DURHAM CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO
MF.TROPOLITAN
Improvements
DURHAM
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Roadway Modified Alternative
®.. Naw4mproved Intersecllons'
■ 4-5 Lana Divided New Lncatlan ^
_.. Danboro _MPo Boundary
>_iw 45 Lane Divided Improvement
Chapel Hip County Boundaries
HOV Projects
�IMorststea-
6-Lane Divided Improvement
Durham
wand NO Highways
= Upgrade to Freeway
f Hillsborough
Roadways in Modified Aiterttative - -= Nor FroewsylF.xpressway
othor Municipa6ges
-• 2-3 Lane Now Location: ",
on= Upgrade F,dsgng Freeway
Research Triangle Park
�- 2 -3 Lane Improvement
On -Road Bicycle Facilities
Off -Road Bicycle Facilities
[This page left blank intentionally]
Section 4 - Attematives - Project Tables
Tables of Transportation Systems
This section presents one highway project and one transit project table that shows which
project are in each of the five proposed transportation systems and in the benchmark
systems such as the Existing plus Committed (E+C) and 2030 LRTP (the current long
range plan that is to be updated by the 2035 LRTP).
4-19
w
a)
.0
cc
0
CD
0
(L
0
U
N
U)
CL
C
M
CL
fi
U)
ce)
0
N
yin
E
cu
E
z
z E
w
U)
L
C>
1=
0
0
C>
a,
C)
0
o
C,
0
C,
U
Cc
A:
en
C�
0
0
—
—
C5
—
CD
00
CD
0
0
C>
O
C)
C:)
0
0
0
CD
0
OW
-0 r=
M
1:11)
U
M
bE
u
a
bE
bt
a
a
m
t1c
a
tc
u
ot
d
-a
-a
C
r.
r
r.
a
a
41
z
Z-
Z�
-00
�r
Z-
z
z
ed
z
'a
-P
Ja
Ja
-E
Ja
4
-e
-E
-E
ii
ii
-E
-E
-E
-E
U
1:�
m
Q
m
m
n
Q
1=1
n
0
Q
m
m
Q
Q
0
m
m
Q
Q
Q
C�
Q
0
000
Q
m
Z
o
C)
cu
m
M
CO
UQ
00
P.
s
>
:E
2
E
Z
ic�
Iz
It
N
0
'o
--
--
fo
U
4
4
.-O.. r>
cm
—
Zt,
—
-4
—
-
-
-
-
en
ao
mi
lz�
I
1
W U w
c-4
c-41
eq
4
z
C14
N
N
Z
Z
C4
z
-
Z
Z�
c" I
cq
't
Z�
�o
4
A
A
z
A,
A.
u
z
u
z
d)
0
o
t-
r/l
:I
a
U
u
v
u
ti
In
CD
C)
w
E
7R
U
0
:3
0
�o
0
Z
r
U
00
o
u
z
C>
In
U
0
0
0
to
va
z
u
ct4
M
.0
,
u
R.
zo
.
z
9
.2
-
jo
0
0
�1.
u
Z
0
D
-,t
In
C,
u
r-)
0
fa
u h
-14
0
z
zi
.90
o
Z 0,
Z C',
I 000
I
P4
0
0
7.
>
0
U
CQ
-
=
C
0
O
x
x
A,
'A'
ID 0;
D
It
rn u
PQ
in
u
u
u
u
u
u
C'I
cn
-,d-
In
In
-I
ld-1
I
I
1
-11-111-121
=1
111411
1
11
FdL-U"o
E
z
z E
w
U)
ca
W
.f
a)
w
E
2
0
C,
Of
cn
IL
ca
CL
ii
LO
Cl)
0
CM
O
O
O
O
cn
N
S)
.0
ca
F-
CD
f
EL
cc
E
0
U
a)
U)
V
C
m
IL
is
to
M
0
04
N
N
54
O
n
z
E
w
z
o.
ca
EL
(D
ca
E
2
ZZ
0
IL
C
m
CL
O
N
U)
CZ
CD
V
k
O
O
O
ri)
in
CO
0
CD
U)
ca
aNN
LO
O
CM
;I
O
S
n
Z
E
w
z
E
cn
CD CD
c:,
CD
C)
CD
CD
C>
C:)
C)
C�
C:,
Ls
th
000
cD
C)
C)
0
0 C>
C)
— —
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
c
O
z
z
U
Q p
Q
z
0
-0
-00
'00
v
Z
.b
bbbb
4 cq
cq
z
z
bN
C
A
z
A
0
g
0
In
0
q
0
z
00
>
ca
E
0 r
U cn 0
oW
mo
bi
td
2
R
o
.0
0
0
0
of
a
wo
con
ol
-d
CD
CY,
V4
m
,It
al
O
S
n
Z
E
w
z
E
cn
N
N
n
m
ca
U
N
O
a
E
d
�t
c
0
3
(n
IL
V
C
IL
J
O
co
O
N
d
w
Q
a
CO
O
a
R
U)
N
T
a
J
O
N
C
O
G
V
m
O
d
3
m
z
i
E
m
z
U
O
n
V
cn
m
v
m
L
W
O
n.
2:
li
E
0
3
CD
cn
•
O
C4
u
G
0
z
CD
co
E
0
z
0
IWO,
C�!)
0
TT=:,(:,
C,
-
I..
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
CD
CD
C)
0
O
C)
C)
O
O
C)
O
Cl
CD
a
r
O
C)
O
I
0
a
C,
01
C,
C)
C)
C)
CD
C)
C)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
C)
C)
C�
CD
a
CD
CD
CD
Cl
CD
C>
Cl
CD
0
oil
r1 N
C�
C�
CD
Cl
CD
CD
C)
Cl
CD
L
CD
C)
C)
Cl
C,
a)
a)
Cc:
C
r
:3
=1
E
0
.2
0
a
D
CL
c 0
o
r- 0
0—
a
0
0
(D
.2
a
o
0
E
E
E
0
E
a)
x
w
(D
w
0)
cr-
-j
owom
0
a
<L
z
z
z
z
z
aw
N
C,
co
C)
to
C)
(D
C>
C14
C)
C14
C)
to
co
C)
co
C14
co
O
4
Z
Z
C4
P4
in
U')
ce)
M
C�
CN
C)
CN
C)
Ce)
Cl
C)
C)
0
C)
cr)
0
—
NT
U
to
0
cd
z
Cd
0
0
0
o
z
co
u
C4
c
0
z
u
u
0
Cd
C's
0
0
—0
t9
U
En
C)
C*
u
cd
0
u
2
m
0
" '.
g
tn
u
0
0
0
04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cd
0
0
0
0
0
-0
df
cz
0
u
-0
o
Uu
<
IC
<
<
<
<
I—
I in)
I co—
I--
(WO
I (n
—
I rn
W
rn
(D
co
0
z
CD
co
E
0
z
0
IL
C.)
CL
o
0
d.
CD
U)
CL
IL
O
O
CL
'4.
C;
1 116
75
E
2
O
z
0
<
<
<
o
'm
'm
o
o
o
0
Or.
IRRS
-s
0
0
"Cl
o
0
0
0
oc
00
Eq
0
a)
a)
rz.
�Z-
44
05
-0
z
Z
z
U
z
U
z
(D
o
<
Tz.
0.
C14
m
cn
<
C;,
�o
c)
I r-
I r-
N
r-
wt-.
100
00
go
00
00
LILL
t—
N
wo
CN4
en
(7%
N
C�
CM,)
75
E
2
O
z
0
0
m IL
4;
Cc
> CL
is
E
—J
0 Cc
V) CL
C4
cn
(D
cc
0
C
Z
75
E
2
C:
16
Z
0
mum
HIM
a
H Mill
�i0m00o0aa maav0am0�0am0a'0aaaaaam0'
�ieoeeeeeeeoeeoeomeoeeoeeeeoaa0amaamo
�iaam0e0�am0aoaaa0oaa '0a00�0aa0mam0aoaa
�eeeEe�eeeeeeee�eee ee°e�ee9 °a e ° °o eCCC 16��
H
y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '� `� `� c° `�
aaaaaaaaaxxxx�r���xr�xxxc�r���tiaatititiatia
A.- „• ^„ r, ,_„ ,.. ._, .- .•+ N fV tV CV N hl CV N CV N tV fV fV (V fV (`l N
46S 46S En
46S IS E's
Cc a
LL
l0^!
.�1 V �[ to � to to .'n, rte., �, - - '� in � 'n, — �, .. .�- 'n. �— W) IV') ''�, '�. �- �-+
O C �.
N y F
t-��r���rr�tia`titi�h�ti�N�
1=
� ddddddddd �UVUUUVUUUUUUC.�UUUC.�c.�UUU
HHHHHE "HHHd`CddUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUUU
�n A A A A A A A A A HIE- HH H A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
b b '
+=' Cd cd 000
VJ V7 VJ d' Ci' •=i •� V N Ci �,y .�
Z U U iy ics D> y T p r. p C
U H F � A 4 'o 0
Z', p p o
u o Q A Bi w' U U.
U
0 °
A A o o
5 o cc ca
flan p o p o a n �.
0 0 c
U U o
ti o
A A A d d
A R' ce o co ca a s o b > o 0 0
�� o o �.o.c o c.c.c oxx3'
cl o b °°
U U U Ry . •� U U .0
CY
MCI H H o 0 0 o d o o c� oUUtQ W o oAU U2ZU
r L oo v� \� ad .n d v a6__,,hLU_AU8�L.L.h1
in r [- oD o0 O� N 00 N_ S2 cM v v U
0
m
m
0
c
m
II
Q
z
m
E
d
c.
0
z
n
0
E
d
c
Ir
(a
a)
.o
CD
.ff
Q.
ca
E
2
0
:B
CD
(n
CL
CL
Cl)
Q
C14
U)
ILI
I
CE
ct
I.,
1 14,
0
O
II
E
C)
E
U
UEU
uuuu
MMMmMUUUUUUUUUU
uuuuuuuuuuuuuu
M
El
-Re
CL
�D
ga
M-0
0
0
0
0
•0
cn
cn
cn
0
0
cn
0
9
r.
0
229991
Go
00
00
00
00
o
o
>
>
C,4
C'l
9--
cl
2
9
-09
"-o
0
m
m
C�
E),
9
9
'0
8
8
-0
o
o
o
9
r,
0
0)
2
0
0
z
u
6
Cd
co
0
tn
u
u
u
uuuuuuuuuu
u
Z
z
�:z
I'D
I N
cn
UUUUUUUUUUUC-)
"D
Zo
"D
"D
00
Z
a\
Cl
—
V-
Cq
t-
m
P
�t
t-
u
0� 0
cn
M[",
0
O
II
E
C)
E
1111111111 low
UNION am00mm00�m0aa'a a
HE aeeaaeeomm�meeeoe 'aeeeooemmoeee
� oet eea0eoeeeeeoeeemeeeeeeemeeeoeeeo
GIs' ee�e��eee�eese�e�e� me�eee�ele�C
.0 30 3 ..O y .0 .0 vi vi ai vyi .0 .fl � � .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 � � .0 .0 .0 .0 .0
«3 CCi tCf lCi iii a1 CCi i�-� L 4Ui SUi CG a1 SU.� iU.r CCS RS a3 tCI CLS RS �"� �" U U U U U U c. a
U
Q� 0 0 0 0 >C 00 %'� >: i< k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7C iG 0
a
a a
t— ~ w G y
d 0 �.0 . a.0 . c0 . IWO
i w w w w rw w w w
w w w w w w w w
o � Q
a C
a
> CL Im 0
:
�a' 0 o 0 0 o Z o o Z Z o 0 0 o z Z o 0 0 0 0 o Z Z o 0 0 0 0 o z z o 0 0 0
' M
o Cry., a
� N H R
U4�' tnknkn Zknv,ZZ In. kn-Ltn tn' ntn llintnv,'llnInZZtnkn -ntn
F=
x
(MUUUUUUUUUUUUUVUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
2
0
c
0
O oU
o U z
o >
O� 0 0 07 .0 te a+ p d o
W W
p 0?� pa; �
CL CL rn
C o s C oo o ;>0o3 O
0 0 W 0 � m d
Z > a i U
0 � c
�° c
P7 b o m 0 0 U U '� � a� .� ... a� C � .� � o
NNww �rstd ZZMMUUaawwNN a��0��'g a n
0
M U y CN N °y' y p p O �i
W d U U U U U U A A U U
M� /� U
W U U Pa W CG W W W w W CQ W W W w rl d 1
R; U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U v Q
A � Q, ��� rn� CN 0 0 0 O Q O O Q O O° --� •N-' '� N �' `O° `N `N° 'M° e n
N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N `'
a)
ca
U
N
O
d
N
E
cn
a
,
c
0
N
CL
U
G
L�
r
0
M
0
N
d
ea
i
Q
a�
�o
a
v.,
C
L
'r.
N
N
(6
O
C
f6
[0
0
it
Q
z
0
0 0
s~
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
C.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C '
In Qa
y;
O
O
—
.-. .-.
.-.
.-,
.-,
.-�
r-, .-.
.-.
O
O
O
O
Q '1
"T wI
TIIHa;
,
d
'�
'�
•O
�
�
�
'°
•�
y
.�
.Q
y
y
y
N
f/1
V7
VI
Vl
fq
fn
N
V1
p1
Vl
U]
N
y
N
�
..O
. .O
-��.>>
.°
-
.°
_c
�
.°
-9
�
..°
.°
�
.fl
a
y
N
ti
N
.
.n
-
.aw _CD
S1
.
_ctc
N c
y
N
..�
•�
co
y
Itnn
. �
.°
.fl
..°
g
.a
.O
m
i
s
F
F
F
'
o
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
X
X
ww
X
ww
0
aw
0
aw
0
aw
0
aw
0
aw
0
aw
aw
aw
aw
a.0
0
ad
aw
aw
PaO
mO
a
PaO
a
aw
a
aw
aw
aw
w
ww
aw
ww
ww
aw
fQO
w
w
w
w
w
I
vx
O
O
O )
CD
CD
O
d
d
z
z
O
O
O
O
• 1
O
i
O
,(�W
O
n�s
O
.-•o
1
1
'(�W
O
1
r(�W
n0
H
z
.0
O
O
r0 1
H
�-�
I
H
CD
.
rVj�j�W
1
r��(�(�W �h
H
z
�x
eN 1
rN
r,
.-U
r(�r�P,4
e�
F U
�
�
�
VH
1
7
�
1
V(�(�W
)
'0
!a.
��H
ii,,0
rH �
ii -°
'
��f(C(CW
V
V
h
in
V
in
h
�z
M
((CCW
.°
�
..0
��w..°
((CCW
.. �� ��
MM W
yyyy
��.. ,,
yy
rrW ��
yy
��.teU.
(�(�W ��
yy
���.
.. ��
rrW
��
MM W
U
U
U
y
U
U
U
U
U
U
�--s,•�y
U
U
�°w
U
jCW
U
�co.y�
U
U
W
U
U
U
U
,'
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
°
~ `
°
.C�
.0 .Co`°
y
�
°
�
x
.�
°
A
p
d
"
°
b
O
kn
U° ca
d
b
0
U
W
U
Z
o
.
c
CIJ
� ,
Vs
v
�y
45
, a)
o
d
c a
„ !
0
o
a
v
, °
U5
U
W
,
v>r
i
U
o °
°
U
` "
'ti
U
Q
0
`
�
o
�
a
°
n
o
x
o
o
°
o Q
°
c
vo
i
prr
,
�1
U
c ' -
o
Go
>
w
yy
.
Uo
. o
W°
U
, c
0
En
O
.6
wO
�
�
O
�
r
U
O
U
O
O
O
OGz
cn
o<
M
w�v
7
xc`y
7"
x
•°
-
ti
o
x
x
x
x
8
8
x
m
4
0
0 0 U U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
mlm
t
C
\O
ti
oo
N
N
O
N
.-,
N
N
N
m
k
d• V1
N N
�°
N
[�
N
00
N
Q\
N
O
-+
N
N
N
m
N
�t
N
N
n
00 N
o0
N
N
°i N
M
M
U v
v
U
N
N
(6
O
C
f6
[0
0
it
Q
z
�9199169119019911e1�000000rooro�oo��
�0m�0mm�aoaa '�mm�amateeteemeoeeooeee
�laoa0aa a000m �m a'aam0a��0a00aeaam0
�eeeeomea0eeeeeeeooeeoeeoeeomeooeeoe
�100�00 10000am�0am0aoeeeeeoemeeeeemee
�I�i ���� � =Ae�00eee�eee�em vv m 4v 1C
�►�►�► �► �► �►�► �► �► ► ► ► o►w► ►
v� U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
C) U
U C) O a o
z It
0 z u
O Z O H Z W U U
O R t5 cd b U U c o y o U U ✓
a-+ N W U :� 06 - .-. U •O U U
W d raU O U -� U 5 O •N U i � W � �d Q tY1XCt�L a. � pa,� M f� a 00 0
6 C> U U U M U ,6 V 00
o o o
?✓�? W
O�Om,OUCa`m�Pa�pPa+m� Y�O�OgO °' .��a� ON
%+ M fn 0 M M O {� O 'o - {=7 1 , 00 00 — q q 2, N � GvJ V � � � '.i. .S4
N M d' C�
N N N N N N .N-, n M M
N
N
m
0
m
m
0
I
z
ca
EEi
C
O
Z
II
0
N
.@
E
d
c
n
d t
t� R R c� �4 R+' �4 �., C4 c4 a = o o o o o c
� �
� �
���������������aaracaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
N ..
a°�i oai aoi °���o 'laoli av l 4
WE
41 44 a
d
> CL
d 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O''
4 O
CO) v a
ci
0 N a
H `°
(�.y1 (�y.1 (F�.1 (i�y.� (�.�.1
C) U
U C) O a o
z It
0 z u
O Z O H Z W U U
O R t5 cd b U U c o y o U U ✓
a-+ N W U :� 06 - .-. U •O U U
W d raU O U -� U 5 O •N U i � W � �d Q tY1XCt�L a. � pa,� M f� a 00 0
6 C> U U U M U ,6 V 00
o o o
?✓�? W
O�Om,OUCa`m�Pa�pPa+m� Y�O�OgO °' .��a� ON
%+ M fn 0 M M O {� O 'o - {=7 1 , 00 00 — q q 2, N � GvJ V � � � '.i. .S4
N M d' C�
N N N N N N .N-, n M M
N
N
m
0
m
m
0
I
z
ca
EEi
C
O
Z
II
0
N
.@
E
d
c
n
U)
a)
a
cc
F-
16
CD
O
C,
3
CD
co
G.
cc
CL
O
O
W
ca
(D
E
6
Z
0
Section 4 - Altematilves - Project Tables
[This page left blank intentionally]
4-36
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
2035 LRTP and CTP
Land Use Scenarios
Land Use Scenarios Proposed
Background
The Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
prepared Socioeconomic Data (SE Data) based on the current land use plans and policies
of local jurisdictions for the year 2005 and 2035. The SE Data shows the location of
population and employment throughout the planning area. The Transportation Advisory
Committee (TAC — the DCHC MPO policy board) approved this SE Data for use with
the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) at their meeting on September 12, 2007. The TRM
uses the SE Data to generate trips and show how those trips will be accommodated on
highways, transit and other transportation modes, and then produces transportation
system performance data, such as the level of congestion and vehicle miles traveled, for
the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(CTP).
The question is often asked during the development process — How might changes in land
use plans or policies affect the design and performance of future transportation system?
And, how might local jurisdictions change their land use plans and policies to realize a
desired outcome in the future transportation system?
The DCHC MPO has created land use scenarios as part of the 2035 LRTP and CTP
development process to evaluate the impacts that land use changes might have on the
transportation system performance data of the TRM (travel demand model). That is, the
MPO has developed alternative land use assumptions that change the SE Data that was
approved in September 2007. The SE Data approved in September 2007 is often referred
to as the Baseline SE data.
Contents of this Document
This presentation of the land use scenarios is detailed and lengthy. Therefore, therefore it
will help the reader to know the principal contents of this document:
• Summary of Land Use Scenarios -- The concept of the proposed land use
scenarios are summarized in the table on page 2. Begins on page 22.
• Scenario Review — Tables and maps show how the future population and
employment would change to achieve each Scenario. Tables begin on pa-e3
and maps begin on page 7.
a
V 0
W �
aPC
M �
N a
N
v
N
�
cd N
°0
v
y tD O
E
p p
i
O
i
°
v
° O
bA U
bq U
U rn
o
z �z�.4
O
°'
x
z °
V
U
ed
=
A
y
ti
0
.0
U
'+
O
�O
Y p�
b49 O A 'C
.
�CCi v G,'
v ii '
pU ❑ '
. v y
O 'v
U v �pcct
9 °
c�
v
p
a�i H
b o
a�i b o
Cd
as
co
>
oy�
v—,, U
0
v
,
ell
3
°
o
CZ
b y O�
U U N
O N
O v O
O
;.j
� O A
°�
y Q,1 U
ray A, d c .Li
O U
�
0
, 4-
O
o U
v
O
b
cd cd
O
v ~ °
O O
p
4-4 >
p b
o,
U
i
avY�,N
O
y v
�
b
CCS
cz
�.v. y
aa�dAb
-a �.�
�.n�•
�b v
b v�
En
n
U
> O,
rn
v
v
v O
cd bq.v
v abi
o
^b
o~ Y A O
O
cc -cy ^O
°t1. v 'cam .ry Ua
O ti ^"
U:,
Q. t3 y
d O O
ti O L�
as O Y� cn
v := O
y O O
U N ^p
U
� a :;5
C a i�, �
~
�C �b �
v
-d
a
b
v
b
n'
ca d7
Hz
z acl
v�
HU
z
N
M
tn
N
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
• Recommended Policies — There is a discussion of the objectives of each scenario and a
list of sample policy directions to realize the scenarios. Begins on page 21.
Additional. Information
There are a few additional points that are important to understanding the use of these
scenarios:
CAMPO Participation — The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CAMPO) has developed SE Data for a set of land use scenarios that complement the
four DCHC MPO land use scenarios. The SE Data for these scenarios has been
combined and checked by the Triangle Regional Model Service Bureau.
Scenario Implementation -- The TAC might be able to adopt the SE Data produced by
a favorable land use scenario. The 2035 LRTP and Air Quality Conformity
Determination would also be based on this newly adopted SE Data.
Scenario Review
This section presents several methods for reviewing the Scenarios.
Total Comparison
The two tables on page 4 compare the total employment and population for each Scenario
with the Baseline SE Data (the data approved by the TAC for use in the 2035 LRTP
development and that is based on the current land use plans and policies of the jurisdictions).
The tables demonstrate that the overall totals for the Travel Corridor and Transit Nodes
Scenarios remain equal to the Baseline SE Data, and that the Buildout and Constrained
Scenarios show expected increases and decreases, respectively, compared to the Baseline SE
Data.
5-3
ca
ca
CL o
c U
U E
co
�o L
0 0 �
• f D
N
G U t0
C �s
G
= C O
N N 4 U
N.
O m Ca 0 01
U U
my E O
3 L C
C U
C m O 0.
N F L
OO L U
Z O E O
Un ca w
o.
L
y fn fA
O
L O O >
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
Movement Comparison
The total population and employment in the Travel Corridor and Transit Node Scenarios
remains the same as that of the Baseline SE Data. However, the individual TAZ totals
increase and decrease to depict a shift, or movement, of the population and employment from
one TAZ to another. The two tables on page 6 show the amount of population and
employment movement that occurs in these two Scenarios for the various jurisdictions, and
indicates what percentage of the total this movement represents.
TAZ Maps
The remaining pages in this section present ten maps:
A population and employment map showing the forecasted growth in each TAZ from
the year 2005 through 2035 for the Baseline Scenario. There is one map for each
county.
A population and employment map for each of the four Scenarios.
The map coloring depicts the level of increase or decrease of population and employment in
each TAZ (Traffic Analysis Zone) for that Scenario. The reader can distinguish the expected
patterns such as the increases around transit stations and along corridors for the Transit Node
and Travel Corridor Scenarios, and decreases in areas of low transportation access for the
Constrained Scenario.
TAZ Tables
The tables showing the detailed SE Data for each of the four scenarios are voluminous and
therefore are not included in this document. The tables are available on the MPO's Web site —
www dchhcmpo.or, or by contacting Andy Henry, (919) 560 -4366,
andrew.heM@durhamnc.gov.
@durhamnc.gov.
5-5
w
0
c
N
v
U)
4)
in
v
c
m
J
LC)
C
O
U
CD
U)
C
^y
E
`W
5O
G
L
O
�L
L
O
V
d
L
W
E
`W
5O
G
d
O
Z
L
to
L6
1
Pop. Increase
i aa�o .L1�1
WA
kTPj-'MM%,r-;O
r...
4, ®�-
x'11
Pop. Increase
i aa�o .L1�1
WA
kTPj-'MM%,r-;O
r...
4, ®�-
%tip
11*49,
IL
1174
El
1-50
250
51 -
251-500
City of Duhom Transportation GIS
S.
Map p,,pwed.by.
on July 11.
poses
501-1,000 hi..u. aoan isbi.-gfee— Pe 5
hereon
.-rees.
> 1,000
MM
Is �tmp'p-,t,-d
only and he voluble
The City ofDurimm/Dudlem G.uoty assumes no respon-l-
bifity for am= wising from the misuse of this map
1
IL
%tip
11*49,
IL
1174
El
• • ,' • r r- 1 1 • i
r • •
Rr
�`.y t?- a.`�-
,° y x''i pssm..�.,.
IS IF-, x t
q �s���.,s,_� �t J ff�E,��-�s� � ��?'� � � ,• +s�'`fiJ' --r+ ^ ',t iu.s �'.� � r zs �t� e -
i��� `a..
ui s-"' rF-- err, a
f5s -
Sall
��V-�
- �.yr•, '"..�' �, `.�'"' s x S'ECt ?n �' , #t 1� or E� sx t J f t , t� ° t j;i s
t it
t
y lst � i =i 5 1,
�`
�t
r
�i��.,u
s.• a; z s f c 1 r
t x�
t' T r t
x�
�RfSv' P tiy�� •3 L >?i ry
ti z xy' cl
r
S 'ter
t.
"�.>!h= ✓„ '� i `§-f- .a"".� x s"t't
r�-�k� n1-.
Ys-r
f27 5� fx�� 3 Yr"
3 i f
f tp
��"3`'R.,ka*�x -.'s t du
'W.§.�F-'*a .o. -� r
{w`F< Map f .,-'v'ru�r f 5
1
-.J ;ill- a5.
gg
�adz7 ,:nt.
°* `T-- `•.�{aai ,5"'�" `�n4 ¢ r iT'��`l��Ery {i"�ii
Pop. Increase
< 1 #'
iL
1-50
EM 51-250 tidy
251-500 Map prepared by City of Durham Transportation GIS
an July 11, 2007.
n
501 - 1x000 information
nly and Is depicted hereon Is eat reference purposes
Doty and is compiled from the best avaiabie sources.
The City of DurhamlDurham County assumes no responsi-
4,`, t i 1 r 000 btity for arras adsin0 from the misuse of this nap.
See lon 5- land Use Scenados
Buildout L.U. Scenario -- Population
rr%w" , rari to Baseline
5.13
Section 5 - Land Use SCen2de5
Buildout L.U. Scenario -- Employment
P^mnnrari to Baseline
5-14
Constrained L.U.nScenario -- Population
Compared to Baseline
Fixed Guideway Station
c Addt9 Transit Nodes
Population Change
Increase > 500
3r _ Increase 101 to 500
Increase 1 to 100
No Change
Decrease 1 to 100
r'- Decrease 101 to 500
Decrease > 500
Section 5 -Lend Use Smnados
Constrained L.U. Scenario -- Employment
t+_..o....,r•e.� fn Raca -line_
5-15
Sedbn 5 -Land Use Sceneries
Travel Corridor L.U. Scenario -- Population
5-17
Section 5 -Land Use Scenarios
Travel Corridor L.U. Scenario -- Employment
t-.,mnnrprI to Baseline
5.15
Section 5 -Land Use Scenarios
Transit Node L.U. Scenario -- Population
r-e%mnnrpd to Baseline
5-19
sedbn 5 -land Use Scenarios
Transit Node L.U. Scenario -- Employment
to Ra -qeline
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
Policy Direction for Land Use Scenarios
Introduction
In preparing the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), the Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has developed a series of alternative land use
scenarios. The purpose of these scenarios is to explore how patterns of land use different
from those reflected in adopted land use plans would affect travel demand. The MPO staff
presented those scenarios to the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) in spring 2008.
A reasonable question that follows is, "What objectives and policies would the MPO's
jurisdictions have to put into place to begin moving the community in the direction outlined in
the scenario ?" Below is a preliminary response to the question. This memo presents various
sample policy directions that local governments could pursue to begin to implement the
scenarios.
The policy directions suggested below span a range of complexity and political acceptability.
Some are relatively easy to implement, while others may require complex planning studies
and revisions to land use codes. They may require significant research, legal advice, and
potentially enabling legislation to implement. Some may be inexpensive, while others may
require a significant shift in priorities for operating and capital budgets. Note that this list of
policy directions is preliminary and not exhaustive. Other policy directions or variations of
these might be the best fit for the implementing the changes that the scenarios envision.
Clearly, broader discussion with a variety of stakeholders about long range community goals
and objectives would be needed to reach agreement how best to proceed.
Scenario 1 -- Baseline
The baseline scenario represents the fundamental projection of the MPO's future for purposes
of transportation modeling. Fundamentally, the scenario assumes that land is developed over
the next few decades in a manner consistent with the adopted land use plans, policies, and
official actions of MPO jurisdictions. Projections of employment and housing were
developed by determining what amount of housing and employment could be expected from
each of several hundred traffic analysis zones, based on the future land use anticipated.
Assumptions are used to account for: a) land undevelopable for environmental reasons
(floodplains, stream buffers, etc.); b) the density and intensity of future development; and c)
the proportion of development that might be expected by the 2035 planning horizon of the
LRTP. The Baseline Scenario forms the basis for the adopted LRTP and the Air Quality
Conformity Determination.
Scenario 2 -- Build -Out
The Build -Out Scenario is similar to the Baseline Scenario in that it represents the amount of
housing and employment that could be expected if the MVO area were to develop in a manner
consistent with adopted land use plans, policies, and official actions of MPO jurisdictions.
However, the Build -Out Scenario is not "time constrained." It does not focus on a future
5-21
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
year, 2035, as the Baseline Scenarios does, but instead on an end state. It assumes that the
entire scope of the MVO is developed.
Scenario 3 -- Constrained Growth
The Constrained Growth Scenario is the first of three that asks the question, "What might the
future projections of employment and housing, and ultimately travel demand, be if the MPO
was to alter its land use and development policies ?" This scenario assumes that long range
land use plans and development regulations would be consciously changed to scale down the
amount of new development allowed each year. It also assumes that mechanisms be
established to prevent growth beyond a certain annual target level.
Scenario Objective: Local governments
planning and policy actions to constrain growth in
housing and employment by 2035 of approximately
Scenario, and up to 35 percent in Chatham County.
m the MPO should employ conscious
certain locations, resulting in forecast
10 percent less than for the Baseline
A. Land Use Planning
1. Develop a systematic and defensible method for determining the maximum
amount of development that the local jurisdiction wants to accommodate each
year and the basis for that determination.
2. Change local urban growth area boundaries to limit the extent of urban and
suburban development.
3. Restrict the extension of sewer and water utilities.
B. Land Use Regulation
1. Develop a systematic and defensible method of evaluating and selecting highly
desirable development projects that will be considered for legislative approval
each year.
Scenario 4 -- 'gavel Corridors
The Travel Corridors Scenario speculates about what might be the effect on housing,
employment, and travel demand from a conscious effort to achieve a different land use pattern
in the MPO 'area. The focus in this scenario is on new development along major arterial
roadways. This approach assumes the same amount of employment and housing growth, but
assigns it to locations different than in the Baseline Scenario.
Scenario Objective: Local governments in the MPO should employ conscious
planning and policy actions to focus a significant portion of future growth into transit- oriented
corridors, including Downtown Durham. Ensure that new development is located and
designed in an appropriate manner and that appropriate regional and local transit service are
available. Develop effective strategies to encourage new development in Corridor areas and
discourage new development elsewhere.
5-22
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
A. Land Use Planning
1. Through the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, identify transit
oriented corridors as the land within a certain distance (perhaps i/4 mile) from
major arterial streets. Examples in Durham include Roxboro Road, Main
Street/Hillsborough Road, University Drive /Chapel Hill Road, Alston
Avenue/NC 55, Holloway Street/NC 98, Miami Blvd, and NC 54. Other
examples include: US 15 -501 (Gateway area) in Chapel Hill; I -85 in Orange
County; NC 54 by -pass in Carrboro; and Old NC 86 in the southern part of
Hillsborough.
2. Prepare detailed small area plans to identify locations in transit- oriented
corridor areas for mixed use and high intensity development, transit
stops /stations, structured parking, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, other
infrastructure, etc.
B. Land Use Regulation
1. Create a transit- oriented corridor zoning overlay district or base district.
2. Establish minimum land use intensity (residential density in dwelling units per
acre and non - residential floor area ratios) for new development in the transit -
oriented corridor district.
3. Require a high level of pedestrian and bicycle connections within the transit -
oriented corridor district and between the district and surrounding
neighborhoods.
4. Require accommodation for bus transit in specific locations identified in the
small area plan for the transit- oriented corridor.
5. Prepare design guidelines and review new development against the guidelines
to ensure that new development is transit, pedestrian, and bicycle friendly.
6. Prohibit auto - intensive land uses.
7. Significantly restrict surface parking and encourage /require structured parking.
8. Amend the development review and approval process to provide a higher
priority and reduced application fees to new development in transit- oriented
corridors and a lower priority and higher application fees for new development
outside of transit- oriented corridors.
C. Transportation System Management (TSM)
1. Systematically assess the designated transit- oriented corridors to identify
opportunities for TSM and roadway improvements to better coordinate traffic
flow, especially with increased bus traffic.
2. Incorporate a program of TSM and roadway improvements into the
jurisdiction's CIP.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
1. Prepare a TDM Plan for each transit- oriented corridor, including objectives
and strategies to reduce traffic congestion; manage parking; and make the
corridor area a desirable place to live, work, and visit.
2. Require that TDM improvements and programs be included in any new
development in accordance with the TDM Plan.
5-23
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
E. Transit Service
ansit service along the arterials in the transit -
1. Provide a high level of bus tr
oriented corridors.
2. Ensure that transit amenities are convenient and comfortable to encourage
transit use. Amenities could include benches, shelters, lighting, landscaping,
public art and graphics, ticket vending machines, rider information displays,
bicycle facilities, etc.
F. Parking
1. Prohibit commercial parking lots as a stand -alone use in transit- oriented
corridors.
2. Reduce or eliminate required parking in transit- oriented corridors.
3. Establish a maximum parking requirement in transit- oriented corridors.
Scenario 5 - Transit Compact Zone
The Transit Compact Zone Scenario also speculates about what might be the affect on
housing, employment, and travel demand from a conscious effort to achieve a different land
use pattern. The focus in this scenario is on new development in transit- oriented compact
neighborhoods in strategic location in the MPO. Likewise, this approach assumes the same
amount of employment and housing growth as the Baseline Scenario, but assigns it to
different locations.
Scenario Objective: Focus a significant proportion of future growth in compact
neighborhoods. Ensure that that new development is located and designed in an appropriate
manner and that appropriate regional and local transit service are available. Develop effective
strategies to encourage new development in Transit Compact Zones and discourage new
development elsewhere.
A. Land Use Planning
1. Through the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, identify transit -
oriented compact neighborhoods as the land within a certain distance (perhaps
'/Z mile) from regional transit stops or stations. Examples in Durham include
Roxboro Road, Main Street/Hillsborough Road, University Drive /Chapel Hill
Road, Alston Avenue/NC 55, Holloway Street/NC 98, Miami Blvd, and NC
54. Other examples include: US 15 -501 (Gateway area), Carolina North, and
UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill; I -85 in Orange County; NC 54 by -pass in
Carrboro; and Old NC 86 in the southern part of Hillsborough
2. Prepare detailed small area plans to identify locations in transit- oriented
compact neighborhoods for mixed use and high intensity development, transit
stops /stations, structured parking, pedestrian/bicycle facilities, other
infrastructure, etc.
B. Land Use Regulations
1. Create a transit- oriented compact neighborhood zoning district.
5-24
Section 5 - Land Use Scenarios
2. Establish minimum land use intensity ratios(residential for ew development dwelling i he transit
acre and non - residential floor a )
oriented compact neighborhood district.
3. Require a high level of pedestrian and bicycle cle cO between the within
district oriented compact neighborhood
surrounding neighborhoods.
4. Require accommodation for bus transit in specific locations identified in the
small area plan for the transit- oriented compact neighborhood.
5. Prepare design guidelines and review new development against the guidelines
to ensure that new development is transit -, pedestrian -, and bicycle - friendly.
6. Prohibit auto - intensive land uses.
7. Significantly restrict surface parking and encourage /require structured parking.
8. Amend the development review and approval in transit compact zones and
and reduced application fees for new
a lower priority and higher application fees for new development outside of
transit compact zones.
C. Transportation System Management (TSM)
orhood
1. Systematically assess the designated compact
unprovements to better
districts to identify opportunities for T SM and roadway
coordinate traffic fl, oowespecially of TSM t and increased TOadway traffic. p ovements into the
2. Incorporate a p gt' �
jurisdiction's CIP.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
1. Prepare a TDM Plan for each transit-oriented reduceo neighborhoo
st on; rnianage
including objectives and strategies to
parking; and make the corridor area a desirable place to live, work, and visit.
2. Require that TDM improvements and programs be included in any new
development in accordance with the TDM Plan.
E. Transit Service
1. Provide a high level of regional transit b
to the transit- oriented compact neig odsen and bus feeder transit services
2. Ensure that transit amenities are convenient and comfortable t land ca in e
transit use. Amenities could include benches, shelters, lighting,
ping
public art and graphics, ticket vending machines, rider information displays,
bicycle facilities, etc.
F. Parking
g lots as a stand -alone use in transit- oriented
1. Prohibit commercial parkin
compact neighborhood districts.
in transit- oriented compact neighborhood
2. Reduce or eliminate required parking
districts.
5-25