Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
5 <br />CORRIDOR STUDY <br />1. The LPA notes the environmental issues associated with the C-1 and C-2 <br />alignments in the NC 54 corridor and through the Jordan Lake federal lands of <br />Little Creek Bottomland, page 3-28 thru 35 of "Volume 7: Detailed Definitions of <br />Alternatives Technical Reporl". 15-501 would not traverse federal lands in <br />Orange County and improve the risk assessment of the feasibility of LRT or BRT. <br />Can 15-501 be included as a locally preferred alternative? <br />2. The AA notes the higher acquisition of properties for BRT High and Low versus <br />LRT on page 3-25 and 27. If BRT can be designed within the scheduled or <br />current expansion of existing road corridors of 15-501 and/or NC 54 as either <br />HOV, dedicated bus way, mixed traffic or bus on shoulder (BOSS) why is BRT <br />reported as having higher properly impacts? <br />3. The September 3, 2010 `white paper' from TTA regarding the Triangle Regional <br />Transit Program and the Durham-Orange Corridor notes that "The Town <br />requested that Alignment 3 (i.e. 15-501) be considered since (a) over 10 years <br />elapsed since the adopted alignment was initially selected, and (b) <br />redevelopment along the US15-501 corridor within Chapel Hill has become a <br />higher priority for the Town. Orange County agrees with this assessment that <br />economic development within Orange County has been greatly accented in <br />recent years (after 2035 LRTP decisions were made) because sales tax <br />distribution is based more on point of sale versus population based. Therefore <br />the revenue sharing for other sales tax receipts as well as a potential % cent <br />mobility sales tax has new relevance and revenue based on location. Since <br />revenue sources for regional mobility are county based and initiated, the return <br />on mass transit investment needs to be linked to economic development tax <br />base return within the same county. <br />4. Investments have been made along the NC 54 corridor in anticipation of fixed <br />route service. BRT can service that same investment and match investment with <br />the land use density that is proposed or exists in the corridor. Is greater than 25 <br />dwelling units per acre proposed to support LRT in Hwy 54? BRT high has also <br />shown to positively affect land use patterns. <br />5. The NC 54 Leigh Village Alignment (C-1 or C-2) parallels in large part I-40 <br />thereby limiting access (from population or employment) from one side. In <br />addition, that alignment traverses a wide environmental area where no access is <br />possible. The efficiency and investment is therein decreased as evidenced by <br />the higher levels of ridership from Gateway to Alston from the AA. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />