AGENDA #9.1

 

MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

 

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

 

SUBJECT:       Review of Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2025 Transportation Plan Alternatives

 

DATE:             March 4, 2002

 

This memorandum reviews the analysis of 14 alternative transportation scenarios for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area 2025 Transportation Plan. Adoption of the attached resolution would provide the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with comments and recommendations on the alternatives.

 


PROCESS

 

The 2025 Regional Transportation Plan must be developed and adopted by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area to meet federal transportation and air quality regulations.  The 2025 Transportation Plan will include all roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian projects to be completed over the next 25 years and will include a financial plan designed to fund these improvements. Future State and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs will be developed using the adopted 2025 Plan to evaluate projects for funding.  The adopted Plan must also meet federal air quality standards.  Development of the Plan was been underway since early 2000.

 

The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has adopted a schedule for completing the final 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. That schedule proposes that a final draft Plan will be adopted by the Transportation Advisory Committee by May, 2002.  Once a draft Plan is approved, it will be analyzed by State and federal agencies for compliance with federal clean air standards. The federal air quality conformity regulations require that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area must adopt a final Plan meeting all federal air quality standards by December, 2002. Failure to adopt a Plan by that time may result in a cut-off of all federal transportation funding to the Urban Area.

 

The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has identified 14 transportation alternatives as part of the Plan development. It is anticipated that the Transportation Advisory Committee will be asked to review the results of the alternatives analysis and recommend a final set of 3 alternatives on March 13, 2002. At that time the Committee will also be asked to approve a preliminary financing plan for the 2025 Plan.

 

 

 

We have attached several items for your information.  Attachment 1 is the 2025 Transportation Plan Alternatives, which includes a description of the 14 alternatives and related assumptions. Also included is a set of maps showing the location of the highway facilities included in the various alternatives.

 

Attachment 2, Tier 2 Alternatives Evaluation, Performance Measures and Cost Estimates includes the results  of the analysis of the 15 alternatives and related cost estimates.

 

Attachment 3, 2025 Transportation Plan Revenue Forecasts, includes information on revenue forecasts and options for developing new sources of revenue.

 

Attachment 4, the October 22, 2001 Council Memorandum, summarizes the schedule for completing the 2025 Plan.

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

We have identified the following key findings from our review of the 14 alternatives:

 

·        The development of a system of fixed guideway transit corridors, coupled with expansions of local bus systems within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Region will increase transit ridership and reduce overall levels of congestion.

·        The implementation of high occupancy vehicle lanes or high occupancy toll lanes would reduce vehicle miles and hours traveled and reduce levels of congestion.

·        The available data do not allow evaluation of specific impacts of any alternative on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Area.

·        Implementation of transportation alternatives that will reduce congestion and encourage greater use of alternative modes of transportation will exceed reasonable projections of future transportation revenue from current sources. The identification of additional transportation revenues is required.

 

We recommend that the alternatives that include expansion of the local bus systems, development of fixed guideway corridors and implementation of high occupancy vehicle lanes should be pursued in the next stage of analysis.

 

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

 

The regional staff has completed an analysis of 14 alternatives. These alternatives were developed from the evaluation of 62 previous alternatives. All alternatives were evaluated using the Triangle Regional Transportation Model. The Triangle Regional Model projected future travel demand for the region using land use projections for 2025. All alternatives used the same projections of 2025 housing and employment patterns. The Regional Model transportation network also includes land use and transportation data for Wake County.

 

A list of the specific elements of each alternative is included in Attachment 1. Attachment 1 also includes maps showing the location of projects included in each highway alternative.

 

We note that each alternative includes an assumption that an extensive bicycle and sidewalk network will be developed within the region. It is assumed that bikelanes are implemented along principal transportation corridors and that an extensive system of sidewalks is developed.  Details of the bicycle and pedestrian assumptions are included in Attachment 1. Each alternative was also evaluated with the assumption that the region had implemented a transportation demand management program that included the following elements:

 

 

We note that none of the alternatives includes the Chapel Hill Transit fare free policy.

 

We have summarized below each transportation alternative and provided comment. A summary of the impacts of each alternative is included in Table 1 below. We note that these results are for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban area, although some results, such as rail ridership include the ridership on the Triangle Transit Authority Phase I rail system in Wake County. Table 1 also includes a cost estimate for each alternative.

 

2025 Base Network: The 2025 Base Network was developed to create a scenario against which all other scenarios could be compared. This scenario includes only those transportation projects currently under construction or included in the adopted 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program. The 2025 Base Highway network includes completion of the following Chapel Hill projects:

 

·        Weaver Dairy Road: 5 lanes

·         Weaver Dairy Extension: 4 lanes

·         South Columbia: 2 lanes

·         Homestead Road: 3 lanes

·         Estes Drive, N. Greensboro to Airport Rd.: 3 lanes

 

The 2025 Base transit network also assumes that Phase I of the Triangle Transit Authority rail system is operational. The Base scenario assumes that local transit systems will continue to provide all current service and any service improvements anticipated in the 2003 fiscal year.

 

Comment: Without additional transportation investments the analysis of 2025 Base network shows a significant increase in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled. Over 50% of the roadway network in the region would be congested, while transit mode splits ( the proportion of all trips in the region made by transit) for daily and peak trips would remain less than 2%.

 

1.      Base Highway and Moderate Transit: This alternative includes an expansion of the Base network local transit systems (Chapel Hill Transit, DATA and Triangle Transit Authority), while maintaining the roadway network from the Base alternative.

 

Comment: The overall impact of the additional local transit services appears minimal, with an overall increase of approximately 1,000 boardings regionally.  It is unclear why the percent of trips using transit in both the daily and peak periods has increased given the minimal increase in riders. The reductions in vehicle miles and hours traveled and network congestion may be explained by the introduction of an extensive pedestrian and bicycle system.

 

2.      Moderate Highway and Base Transit:  This alternative includes the Base 2025 public transit systems and the expansions of several roadways, including:

 

·        I-40, US 15-501 to I-85:  6 lanes

·        Fordham Boulevard, Manning Drive to NC54: 6 lanes

·        UNC access to Fordham Boulevard: 2 lanes

 

Comment: This alternative reduces vehicles miles and hours traveled slightly, and reduces the percentage of the entire road network congested to 44%. The proportion of daily transit trips falls slightly from the Base network.  Total cost for this alternative is significantly more than the 2025 Base network. We note that the Council has previously raised concerns about the widening of I-40 between US 15-501 and I-85 and has encouraged implementation of high occupancy vehicle lanes.

 

3.      Moderate Highway and Moderate Transit: This alternative includes both an expansion of local transit systems and roadway improvements.

 

Comment: This alternative reduced both vehicle miles and hours traveled and there is a slight increase in the proportion of daily and peak transit trips. We note the cost of this alternative is shown as the same as #2, which may be an error.

 

4.      Moderate Highway, +1 and Moderate Transit: This alternative includes the moderate improvements to public transit and moderate roadway projects, but adds several new roadway projects in Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties. These new roadway projects, include:

 

·        I-40, I-85 to I-540: 8 lanes

·        Jack Bennett Road Extension, Northern Chatham County

 

Comment: The impact of adding these roadway projects reduces vehicle miles and hours traveled and the percent of the roadway network that is congested. The proportion of transit trips remains unchanged from Alternative #3.

 

5.      Moderate Highway, +1, +2 and Moderate Transit: This alternative analyzes the impact of adding several additional roadway projects to Alternative #4.  The following new roadway project is included in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro area:

 

·        Seawell School Rd to Homestead Rd.: new 2 lane roadway

 

Comment: Further roadway improvements result in reductions to the vehicle hours and miles traveled and degree of network congestion. Transit ridership remains largely unchanged.

 

6.      Moderate Highway, +1, +2, Moderate Transit and High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes: This alternative includes all previously analyzed roadway improvements, a moderate transit network and high occupancy vehicle lanes along I-40 from I-85 in Orange County to the Johnson County line in Wake County and along NC 147 from I-85 to I-40.

     

Comment: With the exception of Alternative #14, this alternative results in the lowest projected vehicle miles and hours traveled and degree of network congestion. Transit ridership increases slightly.

 

7.      Moderate Highway, +1,+2, Moderate Transit and High Occupancy Toll Lanes: This alternative includes all previously analyzed roadway improvements, a moderate transit network and high occupancy toll lanes along I-40 from I-85 in Orange County to the Johnson County Line in Wake County and along NC 147 from I-85 to I-40.  High occupancy toll lanes are similar to high occupancy vehicle lanes, providing a separate lane for vehicles with two or more occupants, but also allowing single occupant vehicles to pay a toll to use them during limited periods.

 

Comment: Overall results of the high occupancy toll lanes in this alternative show somewhat less reduction in vehicle miles and hours traveled and network congestion than the high occupancy vehicle lanes in Alternative #6. The total cost of the Alternative 7 is somewhat higher than Alternative # 6. We note that the transportation modeling staff has had some difficulty in modeling the impacts of high occupancy vehicle lanes and high occupancy toll lanes.  We believe additional refinements of the modeling should be implemented to more reasonably reflect the impacts of both high occupancy lanes and toll lanes.

 

8.      Moderate Highway and Intensive Transit: This alternative includes the moderate highway options outlined in Alternative #2 but adds additional local transit routes to the moderate transit included in Alternative #1.

 

Comment: The impact of the additional local transit service in this alternative had very little impact on overall transit use.

 

9.      Moderate Highway, Intense Transit and US-15-501 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection: This alternative includes the highway and local transit options included in Alternative #8 and adds a fixed guideway transit corridor between the University of North Carolina and Duke University, along the alignment recommended in the US 15-501 Major Investment Study. The fixed guideway corridor is connected to the Phase I rail system. This alternative also includes a fixed guideway between the Southpark rail station in the Research Triangle Park and the RDU airport.

 

Comment:  The implementation of a fixed guideway system between Durham and Chapel Hill and from the Southpark transit station to the RDU airport resulted in increased fixed guideway ridership. Local bus bus ridership also increased with the addition of the fixed guideway system. The data presented does not allow a determination of ridership by fixed guideway corridor. If the Phase I rail ridership remains constant at approximately 28,000 daily boardings, the impact of this alternative suggests an increase of only approximately 10,000 riders for the US 15-501 and RDU airport fixed guideway corridors. We note that the US 15-501 Major Investment Study projected approximately 15,000 riders for the US 15-501 fixed guideway corridor.

           

10.  Moderate Highway, Intense Transit and NC 54 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection: This alternative includes the highway and local transit options included in  Alternative #9, and adds a fixed guideway transit corridor between the University of North Carolina and the Southpark rail station in  the Research Triangle Park, along NC54. The alternative also includes a fixed guideway between the Southpark rail station and the RDU airport.

 

Comment:  The impacts of a fixed guideway corridor along NC54 were very similar to the impacts of the US 15-501 corridor. Transit mode shares increased slightly for the NC54 alternative, while vehicle miles and hours traveled fell. Overall roadway network congestion increased slightly compared to Alternative #9 and overall costs were higher.

 

11.   Moderate Highway, Intense Transit and I-40 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection: This alternative includes the highway and local transit options included in  Alternative #9 and adds a fixed guideway transit corridor between the University of North Carolina and the Southpark rail station in  the Research Triangle Park. The alignment for this fixed guideway corridor follows NC54 to I-40 and then follows the I-40 corridor to Southpark station.  The alternative also includes a fixed guideway between the Southpark rail station and the RDU airport.

 

Comment: Overall rail ridership was slightly lower for the I-40 fixed guideway alternative than the NC 54 option. Vehicle miles and hours and network congestion were higher than Alternative #10.

 

12.  Moderate Highway, Intense Transit, US 15-501 and NC 54 Fixed Guideways: This Alternative includes moderate highway improvements, intensive local transit improvements and the implementation of a fixed guideway corridor along both US 15-501 between Durham and Chapel Hill and along NC54, between Chapel Hill and the Research Triangle Park.

     

Comment: The implementation of fixed guideway corridors along both US 15-501 and NC54 resulted in significant increases in rail ridership and local bus ridership. Transit mode shares also increased while the percent of roadway network congestion was lower than that produced by either fixed guideway corridor alone.

 

13.  Moderate Highway, Intense Transit, US 15-501 and NC 54 Fixed Guideways: This alternative is similar to alternative #12, but substitutes moderate local bus improvements for intensive improvements.

 

Comment: While the overall transit impact of this alternative (substituting moderate bus improvements for the intensive improvements included in Alternative #12) was less, it seems that the impact of the moderate local bus improvements is more pronounced than comparisons in other alternatives. It also appears that the intensive local bus network also provides greater support to the fixed guideway systems.

 

14.  Intensive Highway, High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes, Intense Transit and Intense

Fixed Guideway: This alternative includes intensive highway and local bus improvements, high occupancy vehicle lanes along I-40 and NC 147 and the following fixed guideway corridors:

 

·                    US 15-501: Durham to Chapel Hill

·                    NC54: Chapel Hill to the Research Triangle Park

·                    University of North Carolina to Hillsborough

·                    Hillsborough to Durham

·                    Durham to Treyburn

 

Comment: By implementing all highway and local transit improvements and adding several fixed guideway corridors this alternative results in the most dramatic reductions in vehicle miles and hours traveled, highest transit mode shares and lowest percent of roadway network congestion. It also is projected to cost more to implement than any other alternative. Without detailed information on each fixed guideway corridor it is difficult to assess the impacts of those included in this alternative.

 

DETAILED EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

           

Each of the 14 alternatives was analyzed using several criteria. The Table below summarizes the results of this evaluation and compares the performance of the alternatives to one another. For comparison purposes the results of the 1995 conditions and 2025 Base network are included. The complete summary of each alternative is included in Attachment 2.

 

The criteria used for evaluation include:

 

a.   Vehicle Miles Traveled: the sum of daily vehicle miles on the roadway network.

b.      Vehicle Hours Traveled: the sum of daily hours of travel on the roadway network

c.       Average Speed: The average daily operating speed on the roadway network.

d.      Network Congestion: the percentage of the roadway network experiencing traffic volumes.

e.       Transit Mode Daily %: The percentage of all daily trips in the region taken on public transit.

f.        Transit Mode Peak %: The percentage of all peak hour trips in the region taken on public transit.

g.       Local bus riders: Daily ridership on Chapel Hill Transit, Durham Area Transit and Triangle Transit Authority local transit routes.

h.       Rail Riders: Daily boardings on fixed guideway transit, including Phase I rail in Wake County.

i.         Cost (millions): The estimated cost of implementing all transportation improvements in each alternative. This includes capital, operating and maintenance costs.

 

 

Table 1: Regional Impacts

Alternative

a. Vehicle

Miles

Traveled

 

b.Vehicle

Hours

Traveled

 

c.Ave Speed

 

d.Network

Congestion

%

 

e.Transit

Mode

Daily %

f.Transit Mode

Peak

%

g.Local

Bus

Riders

 

h.Rail

Riders

i.Cost

(Millions)

1995 Base*

8,055,830

185,143

45.2

19.33

 

 

25,473

 

 

2025 Base

20,180,440

465,920

33.8

53.3

1.8

1.96

119,560

28,844

1,413

1. Base Highway/Moderate Transit

18,666,503

434,871

33.9

49.8

3.28

2.59

120,530

28,844

1,747

2. Moderate Highway/Base Transit

18,069,279

422,100

33.9

44.4

1.78

1.96

120,311

27,414

2,623

3. Moderate Highway, Moderate Transit

16,133,858

371,608

34.4

41

2.14

2.59

124,055

28,900

2,623

4. . Moderate Highway, +1/ Moderate Transit

15,592,821

365,951

36.2

29.1

2.12

2.59

125,845

29,051

3743

5. Moderate Highway, +1, +2/Moderate Transit

15,515,529

356,876

39.6

17.9

2.12

2.59

126,165

29,089

3,864

6. Moderate Highway, +1, +2/HOV/Moderate Transit

15,104,858

345,307

40.3

12.4

2.13

2.7

126,951

29,385

4,125

Alternative

Vehicle

Miles

Traveled

Vehicle

Hours

Traveled

Ave Speed

Network

Congestion

%

Transit

Mode

Daily %

Transit Mode

Peak

%

Local

Bus

Riders

Rail

Riders

Cost

(Millions)

7. Moderate Highway, +1, +2/HOT/Moderate Transit

15,117,168

348,937

39

15.5

2.11

2.43

126,546

29,173

4,155

8. Moderate Highway/Intensive Transit

15,992,191

357,007

35

33.1

4.35

5.38

130,335

29,884

2,828

9. Moderate Highway/Intensive Transit/US 15501 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection

15,639,841

347,329

35.7

28.3

5.55

7.82

137,973

38,793

3,237

10. Moderate Highway/Intensive Transit/NC 54 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection

15,603,113

347,916

35.7

29.2

6.41

8.44

138,831

38,700

3,253

11. Moderate Highway/Intensive Transit/I-40 Fixed Guideway with Airport Connection

15,651,142

349,137

35.2

31.7

4.86

7

132,977

36,286

3,249

12. Moderate Highway/Intensive Transit/US 15-501 and NC54 Fixed Guideway

15,550,442

332,522

35.7

22.9

7.74

10.26

143,005

51,035

3,662

13. Moderate Highway/Moderate Transit/US 15-501 and NC54 Fixed Guideway

16,014,995

367,084

34.6

34.5

3.09

3.35

128,564

29,957

3,484

14. Intensive Highway with HOV/Intensive Transit and Intensive Fixed Guideway

12,039,045

257,458

44.4

8.9

10.2

18.8

162,995

39,518

7,017

* Not all data are available for the 1995 network

 

Analysis of the 14 alternatives shows that improvements can be made in mobility within the region through the implementation of improvements designed to promote alternative modes of transportation.  The analysis also suggests that those alternatives that focus on promoting alternative modes of transportation can produce similar improvements to regional mobility as those that include extensive roadway improvements, at the same or lower estimated cost. These improvements include expansions of the local bus systems, development of high occupancy vehicle lanes and the implementation of fixed guideway corridors. The results of the alternatives analysis also support the need to implement transportation demand management policies throughout the region and provide an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

 

We recommend that the 3 alternatives to be developed from the evaluation of the 14 alternatives under consideration be composite in nature, incorporating elements of the previously analyzed alternatives and introducing new options where necessary.  We recommend that the 3 alternatives focus on improvements that include transit, fixed guideway and high occupancy vehicle lanes rather than extensive roadway widenings or new construction.

 

2025 FINANCIAL PLAN

 

In addition to assessing the impacts of each transportation alternative the Transportation Advisory Committee must develop and approve a financial plan to fund the projects selected. The adopted 2025 Regional Plan must include a financial plan that will provide adequate funding to implement the recommended improvements.

 

The Transportation Advisory Committee must select a model for projecting future anticipated transportation revenues. The cost of the transportation improvements selected for inclusion in the final Plan must be compared to the total anticipated revenue. If anticipated revenues cannot provide adequate funding for implementation of the Plan, additional revenue sources must be identified.

 

The table below compares the results of using several different revenue forecast models to predict future transportation revenues for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area. These projections include all current federal, state and local funding sources for transportation. A detailed review of the funding options is included in Attachment 3.

 

Table 2: Revenue Forecasting Alternatives

Model

2025 Revenues ($000)

Linear: Assumes revenues will grow an equal amount for equal time period.

$ 4,475,000

Geometric: Assumes revenue growth will correspond to a constant growth rate.

$ 2,500,000

Parabolic: Assumes that revenue growth increases or decreases by a constant amount.

$ 5,016,000

Model

2025 Revenues ($000)

Modified Exponential: A non-linear model that assumes a constant rate of growth.

$ 3,180,000

Logistic: Assumes constant ratio of reciprocals of growth increments.

$ 3,888,000

Gompertz: Assumes a constant ratio of logarithims of growth increments.

$ 3,090,000

 

We note that most of the 14 alternatives evaluated would require additional funding under all but the Linear and Parabolic revenue models. Attachment 3, “2025 Transportation Plan Revenue Forecasts”, also inclues a review of several possible new funding sources for the 2025 Transportation Plan.

 

The Table below summarizes those options:

 

Table 3: Annual Revenue Estimates (1999 Tax Data, Orange and Durham counties)

Sales Tax

½ Percent

1 Percent

 

 

$19,662,000

$39,325,000

 

Motor Fuels

½ Cent

1 Cent

2 Cent

 

$2,047,000

$4,095,000

$8,191,000

Property Tax

1 Cent per $100

3 Cents per $100

5 Cents per $100

 

$2,058,000

$6,174,000

$10,290,000

 

We note that all new taxes to fund the 2025 Plan would need legislative approval. In order to get that approval there will have to be agreement with the Capital Area Urban Area to pursue similar tax revenues in Wake County. 

 

NEXT STEPS

 

It is anticipated that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee will review the results of the analysis of the 14 alternatives on March 13, 2002.  They will also review the financial information at that time. In March or April, 2002 the Committee will be asked to identify 3 alternatives for further detailed analysis. The Committee may choose any of the 14 alternatives already identified or may create hybrid alternatives that incorporate the elements of several different alternatives. The Committee may also choose to add new elements to the 3 alternatives selected for further analysis.

 

We note that the Town Council has requested that the 2025 Regional Plan evaluate possible fixed guideway corridors between the Horace Williams property and the Gateway area  and fixed guideway corridors along NC86 and Franklin Street. These fixed guideway options were not included in any alternatives that have been evaluated.

 

The analysis of the final three alternatives is expected to be completed in May 2002, and the Transportation Advisory Committee is anticipated to adopt a Recommended Plan at that time. Attachment 5 is the October 22, 2001 Council memorandum outlining the schedule for the development of the 2025 Plan.

 

MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

 

Manager’s Recommendation: That the Council adopt the attached resolution providing the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee with the following comments and recommendations on the 14 alternatives evaluated for the 2025 Transportation Plan:

 

1.      Include expanded local bus systems, fixed guideway corridors and high occupancy vehicle/toll lanes in the alternatives to be developed for further evaluation. Extensive roadway improvements should be minimized. We believe that regional mobility can be improved by emphasizing transportation improvements that promote ridesharing/carpooling, public transit, bicycling and walking.

 

2.      Provide more detailed information on the specific impacts of each of the 14 alternatives on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area should be provided and evaluated prior to the development of the next set of alternatives. In order to fully evaluate the impact of any alternative on the Town it is necessary to review detailed information about individual transportation corridors.

 

3.      Provide specific ridership information for each fixed guideway corridor evaluated in the 14 alternatives. In order to determine which proposed fixed guideway corridors provide the best opportunity for attracting ridership, more detailed information is necessary.

 

4.      Refine the Moderate and Intensive Local Bus networks to produce greater differences. Include Chapel Hill fare free policy in all alternatives. The analysis suggests that the there is very little change in ridership between the base 2025 transit, moderate and intensive transit networks. Refinement of the moderate and intensive transit alternatives should result in improvements to regional transit ridership.

 

5.      Include a more refined evaluation of the high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy toll alternatives.  The evaluation of high occupancy vehicle and toll lanes is important to determining whether they should be implemented. The unique nature of both concepts requires a higher level of effort for incorporation into the regional model to ensure realistic results.

 

6.      Incorporate the Council’s request to evaluate following fixed guideway corridors in the Tier 3 alternatives:

 

-Between the proposed fixed guideway station at the Gateway area and the Horace Williams property.

-Along NC 86, between I-40 and Southern Village.

-Along U.S. 15-501/Franklin Street, between I-40 and Carrboro.

 

The implementation of these fixed guideway corridors could further improve regional mobility and should be evaluated.

 

7.      Coordinate the development of a financial plan for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan with the Capital Area Transportation Advisory Committee. Any effort to identify and get approval for additional sources of transportation funding will have to include Wake County. Coordination between the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area and the Greater Raleigh Urban Area is important.

 

8.      Allow more time for local governments to consider the options for additional funding sources prior to endorsement by the Transportation Advisory Committee. The approval of additional sources of transportation funding that may include increases in sales or property taxes will have an impact on local governments. In order to meet the proposed schedule for adopting a 2025 Plan the evaluation of alternatives must continue, but the schedule does allow some time for continued consideration of the financial plan.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      2025 Transportation Plan Alternative Descriptions and Maps (begin new page 1).

2.      Tier 2 Alternatives Performance Evaluation and Cost Estimates (p. 41).

3.      2025 Transportation Plan Revenue Forecasts (p. 43).

4.      October 22, 2001 Council Memorandum (p. 58).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE  DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE  DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO 2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2002-03-04/R-9.1)

 

WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing a 2025 Transportation Plan; and

 

WHEREAS, as part of the development of the 2025 Plan the Transportation Advisory Committee is analyzing alternative transportation scenarios; and

 

WHEREAS, 14 alternative transportation scenarios have been identified and analyzed and;

 

WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the analysis of the 14 alternatives;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council submits the following comments and recommendations to the Transportation Advisory Committee.

 

1.      Include expanded local bus systems, fixed guideway corridors and high occupancy vehicle/toll lanes in the alternatives to be developed for further evaluation. Extensive roadway improvements should be minimized.

2.      Provide more detailed information on the specific impacts of each of the 14 alternatives on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area should be provided and evaluated prior to the development of the next set of alternatives.

3.      Provide specific ridership information for each fixed guideway corridor evaluated in the 14 alternatives.

4.      Refine the Moderate and Intensive Local Bus networks to produce greater differences. Include Chapel Hill fare free policy in all alternatives.

5.      Include a more refined evaluation of the high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy toll alternatives

6.      Incorporate the Council’s request to evaluate following fixed guideway corridors in the Tier 3 alternatives:

 

-Between the proposed fixed guideway station at the Gateway area and the Horace Williams property.

-Along NC 86, between I-40 and Southern Village.

 -Along U.S. 15-501/Franklin Street, between I-40 and Carrboro.

 

7.      Coordinate the development of a financial plan for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan with the Capital Area Transportation Advisory Committee.

8.      Allow more time for local governments to consider the options for additional funding sources prior to endorsement by the Transportation Advisory Committee.

 

This the 4th day of March, 2002.