Agenda - 12-08-2011 - Attachment 2

Browse Search

etasla _ ~ development benefits by enhancing .and focusing growth within LRT corridors. LRT enhances. opportunities for transit oriented. development (TOD), and the resulting development can achieve rental rate premiums and higher land values over non-light rail served properties. Impressive levels of development have been constructed along LRT lines in many examples across the nation., As demonstrated by the dollars of investment with LRT corridors such as the Charlotte Blue Line, developers are interested in constructing TOD at LRT stations, as they see the value in the transportation advantage afforded by LRT. Further, in support of planned growth management initiatives, LRT's proven ability to focus growth would, in the long run, have a more substantial impact on mobility because the land use impacts will result in more choices. ~zc1~• "' ." '~ _,_ ..' . '~_' _~l _ Local and regional stakeholders place a high. level of importance on economic deve opment potential and focusing growth within the proposed transit corridor through TOD. LRT has consistently been proven to bolster economic development and focus growth. These potential development dollars are .not insignificant. The LRT Alternative alone can fully address the stated Purpose and Need for afixed- guideway investment in the Durham-Orange Corridor; it can enhance mobility, expand transit options between Durham and Chapel H311, serve populations with high propensity for transit use, and foster compact development. For these reasons, the project team's recommendation is to carry forward the LRT Alternative as the LPA. The LRT Alternative is recommended for advancement with alignment options A3, C1 and C2, and D3 and. the associated station locations for the following reasons: s Alignment option A3: As the preferred alignment option, supported by Town of Chapel staff and UNC &UNC Hospitals, this alignment and a future extension of the A3 option would mitigate the constraint of the extended walking distances to existing major employment and student centers. Alignment options GI and C2: Alignment option. C1_is the preferred alignment because ifi serves Meadowmont Village, an existing community that was designed to be a TOD, Long-term plans for fixed-guideway service within Meadowmont Village are also evidenced by the dedication of right-of-way, which would result in fewer private property acquisitions for alignment option Cl relative to alignment option C2. In addition, it should be noted that the ridership potential of Woodmont relies on potential development rather than on an existing community as in the case of Meadowmont. Although the alignment option C1 is recommended, the crossing. of wetlands and US Army Carps of Engineer (USAGE) owned property to the east of Meadowmont Village warrants additional coordination with the USAGE and continued dialogue with. community stakeholders to fully vet this issue. There#ore, the project team also recommends advancing alignment option C2 through to the Preliminary Engineering {PE)/N'ational Environmental Policy Act {NEPA) phase in order to provide an opportunity for continued study. Alignment option D3: The potential for development for alignment.. option D3 and the surrounding land uses is, in the opinion- of the project team, a very significant factor for the recommendation of D3 above and beyond the constraints cited in Table. 3-24 of the Detailed Evaluation of Alternatives Technical Report. Figure ES-1 illustrates the recommended LPA.