Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
AtftachmentB ' <br /> ~ <br /> Triangle Regional hansitYhogram '^N <br /> ' <br /> KDu rha00­0 range Counties <br /> Six nOnidoro in Oudhomn and Orange counties vvena evaluated and the rwouUo can be GS3O in <br /> TabieES.2. A summary of the findings fo1|ovva the table. <br /> Conclusions <br /> Results of the analysis indicate that Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 (from UNC Hospitals to <br /> A|G0Qn Avenue), 5 (8n[n UNC Hospitals to Gateway) and 0 (from Gateway toAlston Avenue) are <br /> the overall highest performers (note that Alternatives 5 and 5 are subsets of A|LS[not|xe 4). <br /> Primary discriminators between the alternatives include nnobi|itv, snoio-economics and cost- <br /> effectiveness, as dioouaaod here: <br /> ° <br /> Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 have the highest daily rail trip eodmn@t8S on a per nni|m <br /> bGSiS. with 394 and 398 n8i/ trips per rDi|8 respectively. This primarily reflects the high <br /> employment at ONC and UNC Hoapito|a' Duke University and Duke Medical Center, and, <br /> downtown Durham. Several Significant nniumd-Uom developments also exist or are planned <br /> within the corridor. <br /> � <br /> Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 8. both of which terminate at Alston Avmnue, are the most <br /> effective at reaching transit-dependent populations. <br /> ° The jurisdictions in the region have adopted strong policies supportive of transit-oriented <br /> development in the p|8DDad transit Cn[[idnrS. This is o direct naSu|t of the ongoing <br /> comprehensive planning process that incorporates the LRTP into the comprehensive plans <br /> for the niUSS, t0VvRS. and COunUoa in the region. The analysis Of the land use plans and <br /> policies and Zoning by Right |||uatreta that the pO1mndo| for higher densities of population, <br /> households, and -employment is relatively strong in all of the proposed corridor alternatives. |i <br /> then bmoonnea the issue of identifying the best performing corridors. In an effort to summarize <br /> the economic and demographic hsctnns. n Flm|otivm Future Density/Growth (ROFG) Factor was <br /> formulated and normalized on a per mile basis. /n this analysis, DO O /Ga[avvey to Alston <br /> Avenue) has the highest factor of the Durham-Orange corridors. The regional oorridor. O{l 2 <br /> (Duke Medical to Downtown Raleigh) also performs vve||' but in just under DO 0 and slightly <br /> Uettarthon DO 4 (UN[} Hospitals toAlston Avenue). <br /> � <br /> From a cost perspective, Durham-Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 are na|oUva|y more expensive <br /> to build compared to other corridors ($68K8 per mile and $80yW per mile respectively). This is <br /> because these corridors are primarily on new alignment that requires more right-of-way <br /> acquisition and infrastructure improvements than alternative corridors that use existing <br /> railroad right-of-way (e.g.. Durham-Orange Alternatives 1 and 2). <br /> Although they are higher on o capital cost per mile basis than other corridors, Durham- <br /> Orange Alternatives 4 and 5 perform better in terms of coat effectiveness due to their strong <br /> ridership. The capital 0001 per transit trip for Durham-Orange Alternative 4 and 5 is <br /> approximately $55 and $53 per transit trip, respectively. <br /> Durham-Orange Alternative 4 is the combination of Durham-Orange Alternatives 5 and 0, and <br /> hence, advancing this longer corridor o||owo for the most optima} starter !ine analysis for <br /> submission for Federal funding. <br /> Transitional Analysis E3'7 DRAFT <br /> 9124110 <br />