SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION OF THE

CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000 AT 4:00 P.M.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Council members present were Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins. Council Members Flicka Bateman, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, and Bill Strom were absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1 – Report on Transportation Demand Management and the

Durham County Trip Reduction Program

Presentation by Mary Clayton

 Mary Clayton, of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., summarized the goals of Transportation Demand Management (TDM).  She said the goals were to reduce traffic by offering commuters choices:

·        Public transit

·        Car pools

·        Flex time

·        Telecommuting

·        Bicycling

Ms. Clayton outlined the TDM plan, action and strategy:

What is TDM?

·        TDM is a series of strategies or actions, typically used during the peak travel hours, to increase the efficiency of travel behaviors. Improvements result from: mode choice, time of travel, reduced trips, trip length, and cost or route.

·        TDM “packages” transportation, economic development, public policies/initiatives, alternative modes and employer or business-based activities.

The purpose of TDM

·        To maximize the movement of “people,” not vehicles, within the transportation system.

·        Multi-faceted process

·        Employer focused

·        Alternatives for addressing immediate and longer range problems

Why bother?

·        Growth without some sprawl or similar repercussions, will probably be unattainable until the “forces” become so oppressive or so controlling that choices are limited by circumstance, or the choices are so attractively designed and operated that the use of alternatives becomes “natural” and appealing.

·        Future growth had better be “smart,” and we need to address real choices for real people with real leadership.

Durham County TDM plan objectives:

·        Create an education and awareness program focusing on transportation alternatives

·        Reduce the number and length of commute trips

·        Shift additional commute travel to off-peak hours

·        Encourage walking, cycling, public transit and carpooling as alternatives to driving

·        Promote better integration of land use and transportation planning

·        Improve air quality and reduce the number of ozone alert days

·        Emphasize the need for a stable funding source for a transit expansion program

Proposed TDM actions - Adoption of the commute trip reduction program (CTRP):

·        To include incentives for major employers

·        To promote a reduction of commute trips to work through telecommuting, carpooling, vanpooling, transit subsidies, flexible work scheduling, day care centers, and other strategies

Amendments to local zoning practices and ordinances:

·        To promote pooling and transit use

·        Includes linkages between buildings within and “between” new development

·        Labels them “congestion management program”

Partnership programs with employers and developers:

·        To focus on employer and development needs

·        To find ways to share funding, program start, and elements needed for successful TDM projects

Public sector actions:

·        To facilitate the development and use of transportation alternatives

·        This application of TDM is for commuters, developers and employers

·        This will produce a more livable, sustainable community over the long term

Strategies and programs for consideration and implementation:

·        Strong public education/outreach and marketing campaign supported by local “champions” and led by a designated agency (includes general public marketing, but begins with the building of advocacy teams composed of political, employer, community representatives)

·        New, employer-based contacts and services, which could include surveying and data collection, but will include developing “customized” TDM programs

·        Expanded ridesharing and transit services working with the RTP and NDOT to address needs and immediate priorities

·        Incentives to support TDM include reduced fare transit passes for employers participating in the travel reduction program and possible reductions of minimum parking requirements for employers with an approved travel reduction plan

·        Annual awards or community recognition program (“Green Commute Awards”) for employers and transportation coordinators who exceed expectations

·        Bicycle and pedestrian facilities/improvements

·        Guaranteed ride home programs for ridesharing and transit

·        Regional park and ride programs (collaboratively developed)

·        Study of parking requirements and preferential parking programs

·        More transit-oriented development, especially in the more congested corridors

·        Institutional changes via local guidelines and ordinances with permitting procedures to support TDM

·        Additional and creative funding for transit and other alternative transportation modes

·        Monitoring and assessment of strategies for evaluating “results” within 3 years of program initiation

Additional program or policy considerations:

·        Local advocacy effort

·        Fresh look at services and markets

·        Strong transit component

·        Strong employer support

·        Commute trip reduction program

·        Zoning ordinance amendments

·        Amenities package

·        “Upgrade” of public sector support and incentives

·        Developer roundtable

Transportation Planner David Bonk said the provision for transportation management in Chapel Hill was site-based, rather than employer-based, as in Durham.  He said in Durham County the Trip Reduction Program covered all businesses with 100 or more employees and was phased in over three years.  Mr. Bonk said the Chapel Hill Transportation Demand Management Program applied primarily to new non-residential development or modifications of existing special use permits, with 35 total sites covered by Transportation Management Program (TMP) requirements. He said current data indicated that only 8% of participants had over 100 employees. Mr. Bonk said, other than that, the two programs were very similar.

Mayor Waldorf added that if Chapel Hill wished, it could appoint citizen representation to the Durham Advisory Board.

Council Member Evans asked if the issue of alternative routes was being addressed, especially for those employees working in the Research Triangle Park (RTP).  Mr. Bonk said bike access was limited due to the congestion on NC 54 and the prohibition of bikes on I-40. He said there was Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) service from Chapel Hill to the RTP, but it could be improved upon, and some of the employers in RTP were embarking on vanpooling and carpooling programs. He said, unless these alternatives proved to be time-saving, it would be hard to persuade employees to these alternatives.

Council Member Evans said she was thinking more of providing alternative routes for people to get to work. Ms. Clayton said some of the employers in the RTP had recognized that alternative routes would need to be put into Phase II because changes needed to be made in the existing alternative routes.

Council Member Evans said that one of the major impacts on Chapel Hill was the traffic from Chatham County passing through the Town to access I-40.  She said she was not sure that that kind of issue would be looked upon on a regional basis.

Mayor Waldorf said that the most effective way to reach the people driving through Chapel Hill from Chatham County was through the employers.

Council Member Evans said there were many smaller firms outside of the RTP, with smaller numbers of employees.  Ms. Clayton said they were looking first at the large employers, who employed the largest amount of people, and then would fill in with the smaller employers.  She said that Mark Gorman, a Nortel employee and in charge of the development of the RTP Transportation Demand Management Plan, found, in an initial survey, that there was a pent-up desire for carpooling, and other forms of transportation, rather than for the use of single-occupancy vehicles.

Council Member Wiggins said that Carol Woods, during the winter snowstorm, had sent vans to pick up their employees in other counties, and felt it was a great benefit for the employees.  She said she felt employers were ready to offer benefits of this kind, in order to keep their valued employees, since very few of them lived in Chapel Hill.  Ms. Clayton said the employers across North Carolina were showing interest in vanpooling their employees from the rural areas, and there was a new interest in offering this as a benefit.

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton if the Town employees were ripe now for this kind of transportation benefit.  Mr. Bonk said the foundation for the program was an education program to make Town employees aware of the options available to them through the employees’ newsletter and other sources.  He said a survey has just been completed, but the results have not been compiled yet.  Mr. Bonk said more and more employees of the Town do not live in Chapel Hill, and so they need automobile transportation, rather than in-town transit alternatives.  He said they had tried a bike loaner program, but that became difficult with the turnover of employees. Mr. Bonk said one of the most successful programs was the free bus-pass program.

Council Member Wiggins asked if it would be possible to experiment with vanpooling to the outlying areas.  Mr. Horton said vanpooling had been offered before, and there had not been enough people participating to make the program work.  Mr. Bonk said part of the reason it did not work was that there was not that many people living in close proximity to each other to congregate in one place.  He said the TTA offered vanpooling for employees coming into various companies in Chapel Hill.  Mr. Bonk said it would be an advantage for people at the lower end of the wage scale, but one of the difficulties was that many of the Town employees, for example those working in the Public Works Department, do not have the same work schedule as other employees working for a different employer.  Mr. Horton said he would be interested in trying to make such a program work, by trying to implement it again.

Council Member Ward asked Mr. Bonk why he had indicated that it would work for people at the lower end of the wage scale, as he felt it was something that was intended for everyone equally.  Mr. Bonk said experience throughout the country had found that the transportation choices should be an economic incentive, such as the rising gas prices, which had encouraged people to carpool.

Mayor Waldorf reminded the Council members that it was anticipated that TTA would actually be the agency administering the Durham County/Durham City Transportation Demand Management Program.

Council Member Evans said if some of the companies down-sized and did not employ 100 people, they would then not be covered by the program.

Council Member Brown asked how UNC fit into the program.  Mr. Horton said that UNC spent more money and more time and had more success in this area than any other employer in the community.

Linda Convissor, speaking for UNC, said that as the University built more buildings, they could not possibly build enough parking areas for them, and the University would be working more closely with the Town for alternative methods of transportation for their employees.

Council Member Brown asked how the University would fit into a regional program.  Ms. Convissor said they had not talked about that, but representatives from the University had attended a few of the earlier meetings of the TDM in Durham County, and they were keeping abreast of the program.

Mayor Waldorf asked who ran that kind of a program for the Hospital.  Ms. Convissor said she did not know how the vanpooling and the carpooling was run.

Council Member Evans asked if the McBroom Bus Company was also shuttling people to and from the Hospital.  Mr. Bonk said that McBroom was a private provider, which had a private contract with the Hospital.  He noted that he did not know if the company was still providing this service, adding that the Town’s TMP program did cover several of the University sites outside of the main campus.

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Bonk to make an assessment of the effectiveness of the Chapel Hill program, being site-driven as opposed to Durham’s employer-driven program.  Mr. Horton said Mr. Bonk was doing another survey to try to gauge the effectiveness of the Chapel Hill program.  He said he had been disappointed in the past in the results of the program.  Mr. Bonk added that the Town needed to look at the numbers, as of 1996, which were disappointing but not surprising.  He said about 90% of employees were going to work in single-occupied vehicles.

Council Member Brown added that neither Durham nor Chapel Hill’s programs were compelled. Mr. Horton said they did not have a lot of teeth, but Durham’s imposed a $1,000 penalty.  Ms. Clayton said the looming air quality legislation would have the teeth in the area.  Mr. Horton said there was a provision in Durham’s approach that allowed this program to be extended to existing employers, and Chapel Hill had not found a way to do that.

Council Member Ward asked what kind of teeth the developers involved in the program had come up with.  Ms. Clayton said the biggest one was the voluntary reduction of parking requirements on site, the second was the notion of on-site facilities such as telecommuting centers, and amenities like service centers to encourage people to use the facilities on-site rather than using cars, and on-site day-care centers.  She said they studied some California designs for telecommuting centers, which are very simple to build.

Council Member Brown said there was a dilemma between voluntary and compelled compliance.  She said she remembered the Council trying some of these programs in past years, and there had been some concern in the community.

Mayor Waldorf said the main question for the Council was did the Council want to have a more effective, aggressive effort to promote TDM and did they want the effort to be coordinated with Durham.

Council Member Brown said another question to ask was would this effort be successful.  Ms. Clayton said it had been found that the more aggressive the program was, the better were the results.

Mr. Horton asked if the Council wanted to follow the lead of the Durham program and use the Triangle Transit Authority as the staff.  He said using the Town staff was difficult because other projects coming up caused the Transportation work to get set aside.  Mr. Horton added that it might be advantageous to have a third party for management of a TDM  program.

Council Member Brown said she was not ready to make a decision as to whether there should be a more aggressive effort until more study had gone into the program and more consideration and discussion had been made with the entire Council.

Council Member Wiggins said she agreed there needed to be more discussion, but she did want to see a more aggressive effort made.  She noted she would like to hear from the University how its program had been so successful.  Council Member Wiggins said she would like to have a round-table discussion with developers and employers as to how they could participate in a program that would create more loyalty among employees.  She said she thought it should be done voluntarily rather than be required, and with the idea of the good it would do for the environment and the workforce.

Council Member Ward said he was ready to take a more aggressive approach, and take a critical step toward educating the employers and employees with the several options available.  He added he would like to see a time frame established to use the “carrot” versus “stick” approach, before using the “stick.”

Council Member Brown said she thought the word “aggressive” would mean an ordinance requiring compliance.  She said the Council ought to know what it was talking about, before asking the staff to go ahead.  Council Member Brown said the word “aggressive” needed to be defined.

Mayor Waldorf suggested that “aggressive” could mean that, at a minimum, the Council would take measures to get better results than what were occurring now, without taking mandatory rather than voluntarily measures.

Council Member Evans said offering free transit was aggressive, and she felt it was one way to get guaranteed results.  Council Member Wiggins said that was one way for cars within Chapel Hill, but she was also thinking about the cars coming into Chapel Hill on the roadways.

Mr. Horton said the key thing would be for the staff to have the opportunity to explore what services TTA would provide and at what costs, and bring a report back to the Council for its consideration.

Mayor Waldorf said she would be interested in gathering a round-table of employers, including all the government agents, to consider what should be looked at and what some of their problems were.

Ms. Convissor said the University was faced with employee vacancies because of the parking problems, and whatever the Town could do to level the playing field for employers by addressing the parking situation would be welcomed.

Council Member Brown said she would like to see the approach of a round-table discussion considered first, before the staff attempted to get information about the TTA.

Council Member Wiggins said that a gathering of employers, particularly the smaller businesses, would help them to share in determining where clusters of employees might live.

Mayor Waldorf said she disagreed with Council Member Brown and felt that the gathering of information from TTA would be helpful to further conversations.

Roger Perry, a developer, suggested that in-town property, owned by the Town, could be used as a public/private venture to build housing for employees working for the school system, so they would not have to commute from out of town.  He said places like Rosemary Street should be factored in to an over-all strategic plan in land use and transportation management.

Council Member Evans said it would be helpful if the staff could get information from TTA.

Mr. Horton said the staff would bring a report back to the Council for its consideration.

Ellen Reckhow, a Durham County Commissioner and Co-Chair of Durham’s TDM Committee, said that Durham’s action was already reaping dividends. She said the community was responding very well, and there was universal support of the TDM.   Ms. Reckhow said she was very happy about a multi-jurisdictional Advisory Board, and the Chapel Hill Town Council would be welcome to join in the effort to promote TDM options regionally.  She said that TDM would have a very good impact on traffic congestion, depending upon how far the effort went.

Council Member Ward asked if the land-use ordinances would prevent availability for the solutions that were being discussed relative to TDM.  Mr. Horton said they had been addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, but there was still opportunity to do more before the Plan’s final adoption.

The meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.