AGENDA #1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Work
Session:
DATE:
This memorandum reviews
information from the
In June 1995, the Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee initiated a major investment
study for the
We summarize below the major
milestones of the 1st phase of the
In November 1999, the Town Council endorsed a scope of work for Phase II of the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study. The U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study is intended to recommend transportation improvements within the U.S. 15-501 corridor between Chapel Hill and Durham. The City of Durham, Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Duke University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Triangle Transit Authority are participating in the Study and have provided financial support. The Phase II project is intended to provide recommendations on the alignment of a fixed guideway corridor and possible transit technologies to be implemented in the corridor.
The Phase II project is now nearing completion and draft Final Report has been released for comment.(Attachment 4).
The consultant preparing the Phase II Study, HNTB, Inc. will present the results of the Phase II Report to the Council on October 17, 2001. This work session is intended to provide the Council with a preliminary review of the information and identification of key issues.
The U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study, Phase II Report has 2 key objectives:
· Provide additional information and analysis to allow for the selection of a fixed guideway corridor between the Chapel Hill and Durham; and
· Select a transit technology for deployment within the selected corridor.
The firm of HNTB, Inc. provided consultant services for the completion of the Phase II Study. While management of the Study was provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the Policy Oversight Committee, composed of officials from Durham, Chapel Hill, Triangle Transit Authority, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, reviewed the work of the consultant and provided direction for the Study. A Technical Committee composed of representatives from the same organizations worked with the consultant and provided recommendations to the Policy Oversight Committee.
The Phase II Report was presented to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee on October 10, 2001. The Committee released the Report for public comment and is anticipated to take action at their November, 2001 meeting.
The Transportation Board and Planning Board will review the Phase II Report on October 16, 2001. The Town Council will hold a public forum on the Phase II Report on October 17, 2001. It is anticipated that the Council will approve recommendations for the Transportation Advisory Committee on October 22, 2001. The recommendations of the Policy Oversight Committee and local jurisdictions will be provided to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee for their consideration of the Phase II Report.
We have attached for your information the following items:
On
We believe the key issues include:
1. Policy Oversight Review of Preliminary Alternative Evaluation Marix
2. Modeling Process
3. Projected Fixed Guideway New Riders
4. Impact on Congested Corridors
5. Capital and Operating Cost Estimates
6. Use of Proposed Transit Corridor on UNC Campus
7. Boardings per Station
8. Electric Light Rail vs. Diesel Light Rail
1. Policy Oversight Review of Preliminary Alternative Evaluation Matrix: The Policy Oversight Committee was given the Alternative Evaluation Matrix at their September 24, 2001, meeting and little time was available to allow for a thorough review of the information. The Matrix has also been revised subsequent to the Policy Oversight Committee Meeting, and now includes additional information on cost per rider for the Light Rail alternatives and additional ridership information for the Regional Rail alternative.
Comment: We believe that a more thorough review of the information included in the Matrix is warranted, particularly with regard to the evaluation of transit technologies. Although it does not provide as many new riders as other alternatives, Light Rail Alternative 2 does generate the most total riders, 16,910 and the lowest overall cost per rider. Similarly, Light Rail Alternative 3 generates more total ridership, as many new riders and a lower cost per rider than Bus in Mixed Traffic Alternative 2. Further evaluation of the Matrix could result in the identification of additional findings and recommendations.
2. Modeling Process: During the course of the Phase II Study time constraints allowed only limited time to run and evaluate each separate alternative using the Triangle Regional Model.
Comment: To be effective the modeling process must be a iterative process, allowing for the evaluation of results and the identification and correction of errors. Scheduling constraints in the Phase II Study did not allow enough time to fully evaluate and refine the various alternative. We believe that these results should be viewed as a preliminary evaluation which should be refined to maximize their potential impacts. For example the feeder bus systems that provide access to the fixed guideway stations could be refined to provide greater coverage and improved access.
3. Projected Fixed Guideway New Riders: One of the criteria highlighted in the Evaluation Matrix are the new riders generated by each alternative. The determination of new riders is the difference between total regional transit ridership generated by the “No Build” alternative and the total regional ridership of each alternative. The estimated new riders generated by the alternatives evaluated ranged from 310, Regional Rail B, to 2,700 for Busway Alternative 3.
Comment: While some of the fixed guideway alternatives, particularly Light Rail, generated significant total boardings, none of the alternatives generated significant new riders. HNTB. Inc. suggests that a minimum threshold of 6-8,000 new boardings is necessary to meet federal new start guidelines.
Our review of the alternatives evaluated suggests that part of the reason that the new boardings are low can be explained by the impact of the No Build alternative. The No Build alternative used for the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study was taken from the ongoing development of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area 2025 Transportation Plan. The No Build alternative is supposed to represent an estimate of the future transit systems in the region through a continuation of current policies.
The No Build analysis suggests that by 2025 total regional transit ridership will increase from approximately 24,000 riders in 1995 to 118,000 riders in 2025. Chapel Hill Transit is projected to increase ridership from approximately 12,000 boardings per day in 1995 to 29,740 in 2025, requiring an increase in fleet size from 45 buses in 1995 to 115 in 2025. Annual bus hours would increase from 93,500 in 1995 to 212,000 in 2025 and annual bus miles of service would increase from 1.26 million to 3.4 million in 2025. There were similar increases in ridership and service levels for both the Triangle Transit Authority and Durham Area Transit.
We believe that while we can expect to expand the local transit systems over the next 25 years, the projected increases included in the No Build alternative appear excessive and should be revised. A more realistic assessment of the No Build alternative would result in revised new rider projections that would be more consistent with the total boardings shown for each alternative.
4. Impact on Congested Corridors: The Phase II Study did not include in the Evaluation Matrix any consideration of the impacts of the fixed guideway alternatives on projected congestion along U.S. 15-501 or adjacent roadways.
Comment: We believe that the impacts of each alternative on congestion along U.S. 15-501, particularly during the peak hour, should be included in the evaluation of impacts for each alternative. In addition to improving mobility along the U.S. 15-501 corridor the development of a fixed guideway system could also improve air quality.
5. Captial and Operating Cost Estimates: The Evaluation Matrix did not include financial information for the No Build Alternative.
Comment: In order to fully evaluate the total impact of all alternatives evaluated it would be useful to include the annual operating and maintenance cost for the No Build Alternative. Similarly, the No Build Alternative includes an assumption that the local transit systems within the region would have to purchase approximately an additional 200 buses to meet passenger demand by 2025. The cost of the initial purchase and replacement of these additional buses should be provided in the Matrix.
6. Use of the Proposed Transit Corridor on UNC Campus: The Regional Rail, Light Rail and Busway alternatives assumed the use of the corridor identified in the University of North Carolina Campus Master Plan from Fordham Boulevard to the proposed station. The Bus in Mixed Traffic alternatives assumed use of Manning Drive from Fordham Boulevard to the Hospital area rather than the separate corridor.
Comment: HNTB is in the process of completing an evaluation of the operational impact of using Manning Drive rather than the separate corridor between Fordham Boulevard and the Hospital area for the Bus in Mixed Traffic alternative. This analysis will be made available as a separate report. If the analysis suggests that Manning Drive could be used without impact on the operational efficiency of the buses we should continue to keep this option available as we proceed into the federal environmental evaluation.
If it is determined that the use of Manning Drive is not a viable option, then the capital cost projections for the Bus in Mixed Traffic options should be revised to include the construction of a separate guideway from Fordham Boulevard to the proposed transit station.
7. Boardings per Station: The Phase II Report (Attachment 4) includes projections of boardings at each station for each alternative. The boardings by station for rail alternatives are provided beginning on page V-7, while the busway alternative projections are included beginning on page V-22. Note that these boardings include the Phase I rail system currently under development by the Triangle Transit Authority. The corridor included in the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study begins with the 9th Street Station in Durham.
Comment: The UNC Hospital station has the most projected boardings within the corridor after the 9th Street station, which benefits from the Phase I service. Overall, the boardings for the rail alternatives are higher than the busway alternatives. Our preliminary review of the station boarding data raised concerns about the low boardings at the Meadowmont Station. Review of the socio economic data for the Meadowmont area and model network have identified two problems that might explain the low boardings. The size of the Meadowmont zone is large and may impact on the potential transit ridership estimated by the model. Generally smaller zones are required to accurately reflect transit activity. In addition, the 2025 average annual income for the Meadowmont area is well above the median for the region. We believe an error in projecting the future annual income, generated from the 1990 census data, has resulted in lower transit ridership than might be expected given the density of development and mix of uses at Meadowmont. These errors should be corrected prior to further analysis of the U.S. 15-501 fixed guideway corridors.
8. Electric Light Rail vs. Diesel Light Rail: The cost estimates included in the Evaluation Matrix include both diesel and electric projections.
Comment: Prior to the initiation of the Phase II Study the consultant, staff and Policy Oversight Committee had dismissed the possible construction of a electric light rail system in this corridor due to the estimate that electrification would cost 20% to 30% more than a diesel powered system. Although the operational flexibility of the electric vehicles was identified as a positive feature, the cost was determined to be prohibitive. HNTB has included construction and maintenance costs for both diesel and electric in each Light Rail alternative. The cost of implementing an electric system is projected to be 8%-9% higher than the diesel costs. Given the operational flexibility of an electric light rail system and lower than anticipated construction and maintenance costs we believe that further evaluation of fixed guideway corridors should include electric light rail.
After review of the Phase II Report we believe that the ridership estimates provided by the Phase II Study support the continued evaluation of the development of a fixed guideway system between Durham and Chapel Hill. We also believe that the federal environmental assessment process should be started as soon as possible.
We support the recommendations of the Policy Oversight Committee that:
We believe that some additional work is necessary to complete the Phase II Report and recommend the following:
We recommend that the following should be included in future analysis of a fixed guideway corridor required by the federal Environmental Impact Statement:
After public comment on October 17, 2001, the Council will consider approving recommendations for the Transportation Advisory Committee on October 22, 2001. Included in this memorandum is a draft resolution for your consideration.
1. Maps of Fixed Guideway Corridor (p. 10).
2. List of Stations Served by Alternatives (p. 15).
3. Preliminary Alternative Evaluation Matrix (p. 16).
4. US 15-501 Major Investment Study, Phase II Report-Revised Draft (begin new page 1).
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE U.S. 15-501 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY, PHASE II REPORT
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has initiated a Major Investment Study for the U.S. 15-501 corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Phase II Report, reviewing possible fixed guideway alignments and technologies in the U.S. 15-501 corridor, has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has participated in development of the Phase II Report; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the Phase II Report and recommendations of the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study Policy Oversight Committee;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following comments and recommendations be provided to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following items be addressed to complete the Phase II Report:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following items be address in any further evaluation of the fixed guideway alternatives in the U.S. 15-501 corridor:
This the _____ day of ___________ 2001.