AGENDA #10
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Southwest Durham Transit Corridor Realignment Recommendation
DATE: September 12, 2005
The adoption of the attached resolution would provide the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with comments and recommendations on the proposed realignment of the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway corridor in southwest Durham. We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolution.
In February 2004, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee engaged the Triangle J Council of Governments to prepare an evaluation of options for modifying the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway corridor in southwest Durham County. The assessment was requested by Durham County in conjunction with their approval of an elementary school in the fixed guideway corridor and proposed station area.
Transportation staff from the Triangle Transit Authority, City of Durham, Durham County and Town of Chapel Hill assisted Triangle J staff in preparing the evaluation of alternatives. A final draft Chapel Hill-Durham Transit Corridor, Southwest Durham Alignment Evaluation Report was prepared in June 2005 (Attachment 1) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Technical Coordinating Committee reviewed the draft Report and findings and prepared a recommendation for the Transportation Advisory Committee. (Attachment 2)
KEY ISSUES
We have identified the following key issues related to the modification of the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway Corridor.
Modifications to the Fixed Guideway Corridor: The Technical Coordinating Committee recommended that the Transportation Advisory Committee endorse Alignment C3 (page 10, Attachment 1) and refer the recommendation to Chapel Hill, Durham and Durham County for their consideration. They also proposed that Durham, Chapel Hill and Durham County, Triangle Transit Authority and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization officially amend the US 15-501 Transit Corridor Major Investment Study to reflect the revised alignment in southwest Durham County.
Staff Comment: The Southwest Durham Alignment Evaluation includes an assessment of the opportunities and impacts of eight different alignments, including the alignment adopted as part of the Major Investment Study. None of the proposed alternatives would modify the location of the fixed guideway corridor in Chapel Hill. While the proposed modification has no direct impact on the Chapel Hill portion of the fixed guideway corridor, we believe that the proposed modifications might have an impact on the overall feasibility of the future implementation of the corridor. We believe the most important considerations with regard to revising the alignment are the potential impacts on the cost of the project and ridership.
Alternative C3 proposes to shift the fixed guideway corridor and the transit station approved in the Major Investment Study to the east, adjacent to the I-40 right of way. Alternative C3 would also identify a new transit station at the southern portion of the fixed guideway corridor as shown on the Alternatives Map of Attachment 1.
The adoption of Alternative C3 would provide the highest overall increase in population, dwelling units and jobs compared to the adopted alignment and proposed station area. Alternative C3 also represents the largest increase in cost from the adopted alignment. While the development potential and cost impact of the other alternatives vary widely, the land use impacts of Scenario #4, which includes alignment B1/B2/B3 and C1 are similar to Scenario #8, which includes alignments C3 and C4. We have provided below a table comparing the two land use/alignment scenarios.
|
|
Scenario #4-Alignment B1/B2/B3/C1 |
Scenario #8-Alignment C3/C4 |
|
Population |
11,740 |
13,050 |
|
Dwelling Units |
5,452 |
6,060 |
|
Jobs |
2,300 |
2,560 |
|
Cost |
$7-$14 million |
$15-$29 million |
|
Cost Per Person |
$596-$1,192 |
$1,149-$2,222 |
|
Cost Per Job |
$3,043-$6,086 |
$5,859-$11,328 |
The federal new starts criteria evaluates projects based on the cost per new rider of the proposed system. Although there has not been an analysis of the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway corridor we believe that adding cost to the overall project should be accompanied by a commensurate increase in potential ridership. Although Scenario #4 and #8 above add similar population and jobs to the corridor, the cost of Scenario #8 is more than double the cost of Scenario #4.
While we are unable at this time to assess the projected ridership from the different scenarios we can develop a cost per person and cost per job ratio. Since population and jobs are the two components of ridership we believe the proportional relationship between population/jobs and ridership would hold constant. If this is the case Scenario 8 would add significantly more cost to the project for minor increases in both population and jobs.
The Triangle Transit Authority has prepared anis preparing an evaluation of the alignments, with specific emphasis on Alternative C3/4. (Attachment 3) We believe the findings of this evaluation should be incorporated into the final Southwest Durham Alignment Report.
We are also concerned about the uncertainty over the impact of the Durham County Transportation Corridor regulations. These regulations set out a 100 foot buffer from the edge of the I-40 right of way.
While the total numbers of population, dwelling units and jobs are a broad indicator of potential transit ridership transit oriented development design will have a significant impact. It is unclear from information available concerning the Durham Comprehensive Plan and Development Ordinance as to whether Durham can ensure that transit oriented development will be implemented in the transit station areas. We also note that ridership for fixed guideway systems is focused on station areas rather than spread along the length of the corridor.
We propose that before endorsement of Alternative C3 by local jurisdictions and the Transportation Advisory Committee Durham prepare a small area plan for the proposed station areas, consistent with the Triangle Transit Authority Station Area Design Guidelines. We believe these small areas plan should include specific design guidelines for the integration of uses and design of the pedestrian networks. The Plan also could evaluate consistency between the Station Development Guidelines and the adopted Durham Land Use Plan and Development Ordinance.
Protection of the Fixed Guideway Corridor: The Technical Coordinating Committee proposed that Durham, Durham County and Chapel Hill protect the full transit corridor and that local governments, to the extent possible, seek right of way dedication (rather than reservation) for the transit corridor through the development review process.
Staff Comment: We agree that the transit corridor should be protected and that right of way be secured rather than reserved. The dedication of right of way through the development approval process could reduce the overall cost of the project.
Implementation of Transit Supportive Land Use: The Technical Coordinating Committee proposed that local governments use the provisions of their development ordinances to maximize the certainty that high densities, mixed uses and transit supportive design occur in proximity to planned station locations.
Staff Comment: We agree with the proposal for local jurisdictions to implement transit supportive land uses within the corridor and at the station locations.
Proposed Memorandum of Agreement: The Committee recommended that Durham, Durham County, Chapel Hill, Triangle Transit Authority and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization sign a Memorandum of Agreement establishing procedures for considering any future changes to the approved corridor alignment.
Staff Comment: We agree that a Memorandum of Agreement should be developed and adopted by the local jurisdictions along the corridor. We have reviewed the draft Memorandum and believe it should be revised. There has been little discussion about the proposal to modify the corridor near the Glenwood Elementary School and believe it is premature to include that revision in the Memorandum of Agreement.
We understand the need to reflect the actions taken by Durham during their approval of the redevelopment of the South Square site which modified the alignment of the corridor. We are concerned that no plans have been prepared to indicate how a revised station location would function and how transit supportive land use will be implemented around the station. We propose that Durham prepare a small area plan for this station.
We also believe the language in the Agreement dealing with ensuring transit supportive land use should be revised to reflect the language recommended by the Technical Coordinating Committee. The language in the Technical Coordinating Committee memorandum requests that local governments use the provisions of their development ordinances to maximize high densities, mixed uses and transit supportive design.
Required Analysis of Proposed Changes to the Alignment: The Memorandum of Agreement proposes to establish a formal process for any future modifications to the fixed guideway corridor.
Staff Comment: We agree with the process proposed for modifying the corridor in the future. We recommend that this process not be applied to the modification of the corridor around the Glenwood School since this modification had been previously identified. This will allow a more simplified process for approving the modification of the corridor in this area.
Strategy for Improved Transit Service Between Durham and Chapel Hill: The Technical Coordinating Committee proposed that the Triangle Transit Authority facilitate the development of a strategy for improved transit service between Durham and Chapel Hill consistent with the Memorandum of Agreement between the Triangle Transit Authority and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization on transit planning.
Staff Comment: We support the development of a strategy that would allow for improvements to transit service between Chapel Hill and Durham, including an evaluation of potential implementation of portion of the fixed guideway corridor.
NEXT STEPS
The Transportation Advisory Committee is scheduled to review the comments and recommendations from Chapel Hill, Durham and Durham County on September 14, 2005. At that time the Committee will decide how to proceed to approve the proposed realignment in southwest Durham County and will suggest changes to the proposed Memorandum of Agreement.
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution which would provide the following recommendations to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee. We recommend that:
ATTACHMENTS
A RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE SOUTHWEST DURHAM FIXED GUIDEWAY CORRIDOR REALIGNMENT AND THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (2005-09-12/R-17)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill participated in the development of the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway Major Investment Study; and
WHEREAS, Durham County has requested that the adopted alignment for the US 15-501 Fixed Guideway corridor be revised; and
WHEREAS, the Triangle J Council of Government, in cooperation with the Triangle Transit Authority, City of Durham, Town of Chapel Hill, Durham County and the Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Planning Organization has prepared the Chapel Hill-Durham Transit Corridor, Southwest Durham Alignment Evaluation; and
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has forwarded the findings of the Evaluation and recommendations of the Technical Coordinating Committee to local jurisdictions for comment; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has reviewed the Chapel Hill-Durham Transit Corridor, Southwest Durham Alignment Evaluation and Technical Coordinating Committee recommendations.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that that the following comments and recommendations be submitted to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee.
This the 12th day of September, 2005.