Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> 1 • Life cycle energy use impact of LRT <br /> 2 <br /> 3 Macro assumptions <br /> 4 • Projected price of gasoline in travel demand models <br /> 5 • Projected median income in 17 miles corridor year-by-year <br /> 6 • Projected interest rates by maturity in financial planning <br /> 7 • Copy of application to Fitch for the credit assessment process in advance of a formal <br /> 8 credit rating pertaining to DO-LRT funding. <br /> 9 • Projected population growth in 17 miles corridor year-by-year <br /> 10 • Projected employment growth in 17 miles corridor year-by-year <br /> 11 • Projected inflation during building of LRT — details of inflation cost adjustment of budget <br /> 12 • Year-by-year projections of sales tax income—with detailed assumptions about sales <br /> 13 tax calculations — including population growth for Durham and Orange counties. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Financial <br /> 16 • Year-by-year cost of building LRT (not current $ but actual dollars - including inflation) <br /> 17 • Year-by-year cost of building BRT (not current $ but actual dollars - including inflation) <br /> 18 • Financial budget year-by-year LRT with clear statement of assumptions/projections <br /> 19 • Financial budget year-by-year BRT with clear statement of assumptions/projections, <br /> 20 • Year-by-year sources of funding during construction - assumptions clearly stated. <br /> 21 Details of the financial plan —amount and anticipated borrowing, Federal, state and local <br /> 22 funding. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Travel prediction models <br /> 25 A study equivalent to the Light Rail reported in Appendix K2 of the DEIS for a Bus Rapid Transit <br /> 26 (BRT) alternative— as opposed to the `no-build' alternative which is described in the appendix. <br /> 27 The BRT should be calibrated with the same inputs as LRT. Peak and off-peak assumptions <br /> 28 about frequency and capacity of BRT should be comparable to existing BRT systems already in <br /> 29 operation. Assumptions made about BRT versus LRT should be clearly stated. In addition: <br /> 30 • cost of building BRT along 17 miles corridor <br /> 31 • number of years required to build BRT <br /> 32 • Federal and local funding sources for BRT <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Station-by-station information of the following: <br /> 35 • Zero-vehicle households within walk access of station <br /> 36 • Assumptions about propensity to use LRT by demographic and income group and <br /> 37 comparison of these assumptions to experience in other cities with LRT <br /> 38 • Low-income households within walk access of station, current and projected <br /> 39 • Morning peak boardings and deboardings <br /> 40 • Evening peak boardings and deboardings <br /> 41 • Assumptions made about population growth <br /> 42 • Distribution of residential units, by type (e.g. single family) and price, current and <br /> 43 projected <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Ridership <br /> 46 • capacity utilization of LRT average during peak and off-peak <br /> 47 • capacity utilization of BRT average during peak and off-peak <br /> 48 <br /> 49 Operating costs <br />