AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council Members
FROM: Mayor Rosemary Waldorf
SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Strategy for the Triangle Region of North Carolina
DATE: May 21, 2001
As requested by the Council on May 7, my request for endorsement of the Regional Transportation Strategy returns to our May 21 agenda to receive public comment and any discussion the Council desires. I ask the Council to adopt the attached resolution, which I have revised to address concerns expressed to me.
I offer the following information about the purpose, background and content of this report.
After some time of service on the DCHC MPO, the transportation planning group for Durham and Orange counties, I came to some realizations that seemed important to me:
1. Transportation planning in the Triangle region is not as well coordinated as it should be.
2. Our transportation needs far outstrip our resources. New and additional sources of revenue need to be identified and secured.
3. A stronger multi-modal emphasis is needed, region wide.
4. Air quality problems call for an approach that is somewhat different from what we have pursued in the past.
5. The public perhaps believes that our transportation problems will be addressed in a timely and responsible fashion. Well, this is not happening. It will not happen without some dramatic changes in what we do, the pace at which we move ahead, and resources available.
6. The NC General Assembly needs to be more responsive to urban area transportation needs, particular non-road needs. A serious effort at presenting the problem seemed in order.
In the late fall of 1999 and early winter of 2000, Mayors Tennyson, Lang, Coble and I met several times to discuss what we might do to stimulate an improvement of this situation. We eventually agreed that a region wide analysis of the problem and statement of need would be a useful tool, both for purposes of public education and illustrating transportation needs to the General Assembly.
We buckled down to the task in August 2000. With professional planning representatives from DCHC, CAMPO, TTA, DOT, TJCOG and our hired consultants, we met every 2-3 weeks until February, when the document was completed.
Content
Here are a few observations about what this report, Regional Transportation Strategy, is and what it isn’t. It is:
1. A statement of the problem.
2. A compilation of existing, publicly adopted plans – the long range plans and TIP’s from CAMPO and DCHC; TTA regional transit plans; RTP transportation plan; the I-40 HOV study; the 15-501 study; an others.
3. A plan that asks, where do existing “fiscally constrained” plans fail to meet the need?
4. A plan that quantifies the cost of what we need but do not have funding for. The estimates include infrastructure, operations and maintenance.
5. A strong argument for a more multi-modal approach. For example, if you look at page 4, you will see that we suggest that dramatic increases in funding are needed for managed lanes, transit and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
6. A proposal that private sector funding contributions be explored and increased.
The Regional Transportation Strategy is not:
1. A blueprint, a directive, a TIP or anything that anyone can count on to happen. Again, it was created to stimulate good action.
2. A proposal for any particular revenue source. It estimates what the Transportation Finance Study Commission’s proposals would have raised, had they been adopted ($50-60 million for the Triangle). Those proposals will not be adopted in this session of the General Assembly. It also estimates what several revenue sources (e.g. sales tax, real estate transfer tax, 8 cents on the property tax) would raise in the Triangle if they were implemented. The document before us makes no recommendation whatsoever about what revenue source is most appropriate.
3. Comprehensive on all subjects. For example, improved land use decisions over the next quarter century could probably reduce transportation costs considerably. Those improved decisions, and any rules or bodies that could compel them, cannot be counted on. Adding land use, though it is obviously critical to transportation planning, was a dimension we reluctantly let go because it is too complex and controversial and we are seeking some regional consensus on transportation needs.
4. Comprehensive on non-infrastructure strategies, such as transportation demand management, parking fees and restrictions, and intelligent transportation systems. We discussed all these and view them, as an essential part of an effective overall strategy, but quite frankly, couldn’t include everything.
A comment was made on May 7 about the surface street recommendation. I appreciate the opportunity to explain that in more detail. As we all know, building new collectors and arterials and widening existing ones is not popular in Chapel Hill. However, these kinds of roads are welcomed and exist on the plans of other communities. Wake County, for instance, has subregional plans that cite new arterials/surface streets as desirable, if funding is available. According to Mayor Lang, Cary will soon decide to spend many, many millions over the next decade to build and improve arterial roads. Durham also is interested in new arterials and collectors, though to a lesser degree than Wake, and Durham does not have Cary’s resources. This plan’s figures reflect no new money and no new alignments for arterials and collectors in Orange County.
To sum up, a decision to build arterials and collectors is obviously a decision made by local government. This plan reflects and respects the particular and differing positions of the local governments within our region.
Current Activities
The mayors’ group continues to meet at least once a month to plan speaking engagements, confer on the status of transportation discussions in the General Assembly, and strategize about how we can get the public interested, informed and active on this topic. To date we have presented to and received the endorsement of the following official bodies:
DCHC MOP (March 14)
CAMPO (March 21)
Wake County Board of Commissioners (April 2)
Raleigh City Council (April 17)
Cary Town Council (April 26)
As you recall, Mayor Lang made a presentation to the Orange County Assembly of Governments on April 19. I’m in the process of seeking local endorsements here at home.
Presentations already made to non-elected groups include:
Triangle Legislative Delegation (April 20)
Wake Legislative Delegation (May 7)
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (March 15)
Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce (May 9)
Triangle Community Coalition (May 9)
Women in Transportation Seminar (May 15)
We also have the following presentations scheduled:
Durham City Council (May 17)
Durham County Board of Commissioners (not sure of date, sometime in May)
NC legislators in Washington, DC (May 23)
Jammin’ in the Park (celebration of RTP’s travel demand management program, June 1)
NC Board of Transportation (June 6)
We are seeking opportunities to present the report to the State and/or Triangle Sierra Clubs, League of Women Voters and other citizen groups. In fact, we have compiled a list of governmental groups, think tanks, conservation and environmental groups, and civic clubs. I am open to any suggestions the Council might have for interested audiences, and would appreciate any help you can offer in arranging things. We are also beginning to explore media opportunities.
As I mentioned in my May 7 memo, I think this analysis will prove to be very useful if and when our region falls under EPA air quality sanctions. A legitimate, region wide analysis of problems and needs will help our region to work with EPA more expeditiously to prioritize improvements. Under sanctions, as I understand it, non-roadway options would receive high priority.
Thank you for reading and considering this report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Report on Regional Transportation Strategy For the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina (p. 6).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY FOR THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION OF NORTH CAROLINA (2001-05-21/R-4)
WHEREAS, the Mayors of Chapel Hill, Cary, Durham and Raleigh have met and developed a Regional Transportation Strategy for the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina; and,
WHEREAS, the Strategy outlines the long-term, multi-modal transportation needs of the region, quantifies those needs, and identifies several potential sources of revenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Strategy's proposal for surface streets includes proposed new surface streets for Wake and Durham counties but none for Orange County; and,
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council places higher priority on transit, managed lanes and bicycle and pedestrian improvements than on roadway improvements;
WHEREAS, the Council has received public comment on the Strategy at business meetings on May 7 and May 21;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby endorses the Regional Transportation Strategy for the Research Triangle Region of North Carolina.
This the 21st of May, 2001.