SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2001, AT 5:30 P.M.

 

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

 

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

 

Council Member Flicka Bateman was 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, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

 

Item 1 - 15-501 Major Investment Study, Phase II

 

·        Introduction and presentation by the Manager.

 

Transportation Planner David Bonk said that the purpose of tonight's work session was to review the analysis and conclusions of the 15-501 Major Investment Study.  He reminded Council members that this planning process had started in the early 1990s when the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) developed and adopted a Regional Rail Plan that included several phases of development of a fixed guideway system to serve the Triangle area.  Mr. Bonk explained Phase I, from Durham to Raleigh, was being implemented and that Phase II, which had identified a corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill, will be the next phase of development.  He explained that funding requirements include a major investment study, and that the 15/501 corridor was included as part of that and the TTA study.

 

Mr. Bonk noted that the Phase I report released in 1998 included a recommendation that further analysis of the fixed guideway corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill be completed.  In 1999, he said, the Town of Chapel Hill, the City of Durham, TTA, NCDOT, Duke University, and the University of North Carolina developed the scope of work for the Phase II report.  Mr. Bonk explained that this scope of work had two major goals: to identify a corridor and to narrow the range; and, if possible, identify a single technology for the corridor between Durham and Chapel Hill.  He said that the process was initiated with the Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in mind, and with an eye toward entering into the environmental impact process required by the federal government. 

 

Mr. Bonk pointed out that Attachment #4 in tonight’s materials was a copy of the Phase II draft report.  He noted that a revised copy of chapter seven had been put at Council members' places.  Mr. Bonk pointed out that an Oversight Committee, made up of representatives of the bodies that participated in the study process, had reviewed the draft and adopted two recommendations.  The Oversight Committee had recommended protecting the corridor shown in the report that, he said.

 

Regarding technology, Mr. Bonk Said, the Committee had concluded that none of the information was conclusive enough to determine any one technology by itself, although they thought that busway and bus rapid transit showed the most promise and should be analyzed further in the environmental impact process.  Mr. Bonk stated that planners now have to repeat and fine-tune all that they have done over the past five years as they begin the EIS process.

 

Mayor Waldorf remarked that the Policy Committee had felt that these data suggest that diesel multiple units (DMUs) were off the table.  She asked Mr. Bonk if he agreed with that, and he said that the numbers certainly suggested that DMUs are competitive with other alternatives.  Mr. Bonk suggested that Council members look at the information encapsulated in Attachment #3, a summary of the critical data in the larger report on which the Policy Oversight Committee based their recommendations. 

 

Mr. Bonk stated that DMUs were still being looked at in order to see if there would be any benefit to keeping those that already are there.   He then reviewed that chart in Attachment #3, explained that the light rail listed was non-electric, the four-bus alternatives involved a separate corridor for buses, and the bus and mixed traffic section involved combinations of on-street and separate guideway operations for a bus system between Duke and UNC.  Mr. Bonk noted that the cost information included the capital and operating costs for both the diesel and the electric version of a train of this type operating in this corridor.   

 

Mr. Bonk said that his staff had tried to identify issues for the Council to consider while they were thinking about preparing comments for the Transportation Advisory Committee on October 22^nd.  He said that answers he could not provide tonight would come back to the Council on October 22^nd.  Mr. Bonk recommended that the Policy Oversight Committee give a more thorough review to the Preliminary Alternatives Matrix.  He said that there had been only one opportunity to run each of the alternatives through the model because of time and financial constraints, and pointed out that the modeling process requires several runs.  Mr. Bonk referred to the range of new riders (310 to 2,700), and explained that FTA requires a 6-8,000 new rider minimum before it would look at a system like this.  He said that the low number was probably inaccurate; earlier figures had overestimated how many people the system could carry in the future.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that the idea that ridership would increase over twenty years by a factor of 4.5 seemed inconceivable to her.  Mr. Bonk agreed that it had been overstated.  He said that changing that would yield a more competitive new rider number.  Mr. Bonk said that the original figures assumed that the local community would be willing to triple service hours and almost triple the number of vehicles serving the community.  Town Manager Cal Horton added that there were areas of the community where it would not be physically possible to provide that service.

 

Council Member Strom asked how the difference between ridership of the local system and riders on the proposed system were being counted.  He asked whether it is counted as two trips when a person changes buses.  Mr. Bonk explained that those are called "unlinked" trips, and that this table includes "linked" trips.  Council Member Strom commented that this makes it challenging.

 

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Bonk to repeat what he had said about the need to increase to a certain percentage the Town’s existing bus system.  Mr. Bonk repeated what he had said about the federal process requiring the community to project their existing transit system over twenty-five years.

 

Council Member Strom asked how planners account for the fact that ridership would dramatically increase if some of the options were built out.  Mr. Bonk replied that the only regional system that exists in that scenario is the TTA bus system.  Council Member Strom asked if there had been any thought given to linking the Chapel Hill Transit System.  Mr. Bonk replied that under both fixed guideway scenarios, planners had developed a related feeder bus system.

 

Mr. Bonk explained that the study had not analyzed the impact of this system on congested corridors, adding that it probably should do so.  Regarding capital and operating cost estimates, he noted that costs associated with the "no build" scenario had not been represented in the report.  Mr. Bonk pointed out that such figures would give policymakers a better financial comparison between having a fixed guideway system and not having one.  Regarding the proposed transit corridor on the UNC campus, Mr. Bonk said that HNTB, Inc., the consultants, had not completed its study on using Manning Drive as a fixed guideway corridor.  He added that the study should be completed within the next two weeks.

 

Council Member Jim Ward inquired about UNC's expressed desire to have an additional entrance into the University and Hospital.  Mr. Bonk said that the HNTB analysis would test alternatives with and without that new road to see what impacts a new road might have on Manning Drive and surrounding facilities.

 

Regarding the number of boardings per station, Mr. Bonk explained there needs to be some refinement of the way the model is serving those stations.  He said that some stations, such as Meadowmont, were exhibiting very low boardings, adding that Meadowmont's large size puts it at a disadvantage when analyzing transit activity.  Mr. Bonk also pointed out that the DeBose property's average household income was skewed and should be changed.

 

Council Member Ward questioned whether annual income should be an important factor at all.  Mr. Bonk explained that "unfortunately" the state of the art of modeling puts a high premium on income, based on defendable studies of who rides public transit.  He added, though, that Chapel Hill is not a typical community, which makes it challenging when using these models.   Council Member Ward asked if the number could be tweaked to reflect reality.  Mr. Bonk said that they already had done that, but income still needs to be addressed in the model.

 

Regarding electric versus diesel light rail, Mr. Bonk said that planners had believed that the cost would be 20-30% higher for light rail.  But the numbers in the matrix, he said, indicted an 8-9% higher cost.  Mr. Bonk recommended continuing to evaluate the potential for a light rail system, because of its flexibility and because it could potentially allow for a different corridor on the UNC campus. 

 

Council Member Foy asked for clarification of the last paragraph on Chapter 3, page 4 (Euclid Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Line).  Mr. Bonk explained that a trolley bus is an electrified bus, which is unique but not really appropriate and probably not an option worth pursuing.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Bonk to display the maps and show Council members the location of the corridors.  She said that the most important thing the Committee had achieved was to identify a corridor, running from Ninth Street to the UNC campus, which is feasible for bus rapid transit, buses and mixed traffic, or lighter rail.  Mayor Waldorf suggested that Council members make decisions over the next year to protect that corridor.  Mr. Bonk indicated the routes on the map.

 

Council Member Ward inquired about the Gateway stop, which he said he thought was an important one.  Mr. Bonk agreed, adding that ridership numbers support the view that it is an important stop.

 

Council Member Ward, commenting that he had not realized that the Glenwood School would be relocated, asked what had been communicated to the schools about that and what the timeframe would be.  Mr. Bonk replied that the original assumption three years ago was that the school was a prime candidate for relocation.  However, he said, they had been informed last year that the school would remain.  Mr. Bonk said that issues of whether to divert the corridor would be dealt with in the next phase.

 

Mayor pro tem Pavão asked how the boulevard would be crossed.  Mr. Bonk explained that the bus would go over a bridge.

 

Council Member Evans asked if the transit corridor could include a bikeway corridor.  Mr. Bonk said that it would depend on the technology. 

 

Council Member Strom asked if there would be an opportunity for another station at the bend of 15/501 heading south.  Mr. Bonk replied that they could look at that when they begin the next study and analyze all of their assumptions about corridors and stations.

 

Council Member Evans asked if planners had considered running the system down through trenches rather than elevating it.  Mr. Bonk replied that they could look at that idea.

 

Council Member Brown referred to an article by transit planner John Gardner, and asked Mr. Bonk if his group had looked at having the local transit system provide service from Meadowmont and The Friday Center to the University and Town.  Mr. Bonk replied that the preliminary phase of the study did include an option to stop the fixed guideway at Meadowmont and allow local buses to provide the service that she described.  He said, though, that the operational slowness of that corridor due to congestion limited the ability of the system to attract riders.  Noting that Meadowmont had originally been described as "transit-friendly," Council Member Brown asked if such a plan might be possible in the future.   Mr. Bonk replied that the traffic volumes being projected for NC 54 and Highway 15/501 for the year 2025 are "quite significant" since they will be the major arteries leading out of Town.  "Plus all that pass-through traffic," Mayor Waldorf pointed out.

 

Council Member Strom noted that UNC had mentioned 22,000 parking spaces when presenting its Development Plan for Horace Williams.  He suggested that planners keep in mind the question of how those riders will link up with the system.

 

Council Member Ward inquired about details of the "relocation costs" in Attachment #3.  Mr. Bonk replied that the consultant would answers questions such as those at the next Council meeting.

 

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Bonk to retrieve the data that was presented to the Council about six years ago and compare it to that which he was presenting tonight.  She also asked him to comment on a recent article in the paper the Chapel Hill News entitled, "Local Mass Transit Too Costly."  Mr. Bonk said that he was not familiar with the article.

 

Mayor Waldorf explained that the article focused on the cost per new rider figure and the range per rider required by the FTA.  Mr. Bonk pointed out that the FTA does consider new rider totals and cost per new rider, but he noted that this is not the only criterion the FTA looks at.  He said that land use and total ridership are almost as important, and a combination of factors will determine whether a local community has a chance to move forward in the process.   Mr. Bonk remarked that those other factors are competitive for Chapel Hill.

 

Council Member Foy asked Mr. Bonk to look into the Meadowmont Special Use Permit and verify that the Town can reserve the corridor for the future.  He also asked if there was some action the Town needed to take if it wants to reserve the corridor.  Mayor Waldorf said that she intended to ask the Manager and Attorney what the Council needed to do to accomplish that.  Mr. Horton replied that the Council would need to adopt a resolution and then, as proposals came in for development, work with applicants to reserve that space, in a manner similar to Meadowmont.  Mayor Waldorf added that the City of Durham intends to do this and that the Durham County Commissioners would have to do so as well.

 

Council Member Foy asked what the corridor might look like on Manning Drive.  Mr. Bonk said that since there were no options for widening Manning Drive the study had looked at various ways to use the existing four-lane road.  These included dedicating two of the lanes for a bus, as well as identifying the two outside lanes as bus lanes that could also be used by vehicles, Mr. Bonk said.  Mr. Horton pointed out that there had been no agreement yet with the University on how that corridor might be used.  Mayor Waldorf added that University representatives on the Policy Committee had even resisted studying the use of Manning Drive as a busway corridor, but had finally agreed to let that be studied.

 

Council Member Evans asked to see a map showing how much right-of-way the Town owned and how much it would have to acquire.  Mr. Bonk said he would ask the consultant for that information.

 

Council Member Brown recommended informing the Glenwood School of any possible action the Town might take.

 

Council Member Ward noted that options in Austin and Cincinnati, included in the report, showed projected benefits.  He asked if Chapel Hill would get those benefits as well.  Mr. Bonk replied that such projections would be part of the next study.

 

Mayor Waldorf asked, regarding the wording of the second bullet in the proposed resolution in the packet, whether DMUs need to be included there.  She argued that since the study verifies that this kind of rail technology is not suitable for this particular corridor it should be eliminated from consideration.  Mayor Waldorf stated that this would help the Town and University, as they continue to focus on point of entry into the campus, because having DMUs as an option leaves the University with the obligation to keep that transit corridor reserved.  If DMUs are excluded, she said, then some other place in that swath of land could be designated as a transit corridor for lighter rail or a busway, and everyone would have more flexibility.

 

Council Member Evans agreed, adding that it seems logical and financially wise to narrow the options down.  Mr. Horton asked if federal rules would allow this, and Mr. Bonk replied that because of Phase I someone at the federal level might question why Phase II had not evaluated extending the system that is already in place.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that there still could be a local understanding that this is not what planers intend to do.

 

Council Member Brown remarked that federal officials should understand financial constraints.  Mr. Bonk said that that the argument could be made to them that this alternative should not be studied further.

 

Mayor Waldorf commented that even though this particular study had been done, and a corridor had been identified, and at least a couple of technologies appear to be feasible, a "preliminary engineering/draft EIS," must be prepared by TTA before the Town can qualify for federal funding.

 

Council Member Brown, referring to an article about the Phase I EIS, asked Mr. Bonk to comment on that.  Mr. Bonk pointed out that the TTA Phase I study had not gone through the process of a preliminary major investment study before that corridor was selected.

 

Council Member Ward suggested finding out what could be done to take DMUs off the table and move the study along without that option.

 

The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.