Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> the benefits of this corridor because it is within the broader `study area' <br /> although it was not studied for a specific route or ridership potential. <br /> c. NC 54 corridor which would service the high commuter traffic pattern into <br /> UNC from south Durham and western Wake. NC 54 is being studied for <br /> expansion in the timeframe of the OCTP. New lanes should be dedicated <br /> for dedicated bus ways. The BRT corridor would extend to 1-40 and/or <br /> NC751 which would correct overcapacity traffic conditions that LRT would <br /> not correct or service. <br /> This is more of an opinion than a question. The statement "NC 54 is being studied <br /> for expansion in the timeframe of the OCTP. New lanes should be dedicated for <br /> dedicated bus ways." would need to be evaluated for reasonableness and <br /> feasibility by NCDOT staff. <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 1: Detailed Definitions of <br /> Alternatives Technical Report". 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 /> The Fordham Blvd approach to UNC was studied in 1998 as part of the Major <br /> Investment Study for the 15-501 corridor stretching from Durham to Chapel Hill, <br /> and then re-evaluated again in 2010 through the white paper that has been <br /> circulated multiple times since then. In both 1998 and 2010, the Fordham Blvd <br /> alignment was found lacking as a location for a major transit corridor compared <br /> to the NC 54 corridor to address the purpose and need of the project. It was <br /> dropped from detailed study in 2010 after this assessment. <br /> A directive to complete detailed study on 15-501/Fordham Blvd as an additional <br /> alternative is a directive to go back to the beginning of the Alternatives Analysis <br /> process and start over. <br /> Triangle Transit would be required by Federal Law to repeat the steps with local <br /> governments and citizens through public involvement that as a region we have <br /> completed over the last 18-21 months. It should be noted that Orange County <br /> staff were represented at virtually every TCC meeting, every TAC meeting, and <br /> every Triangle Transit board meeting during that period, and were also present at <br /> many of the public meetings for both the AA and NC 54 study. Until the last two <br /> or three weeks (in early 2012), Orange County staff did not make any comments <br /> with respect to the inclusion of 15-501 in the analysis, even during the time in <br /> which the Chapel Hill town manager actively pursued the question in 2010. <br /> Page 6 of 13 <br />