Browse
Search
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2010's
>
2017
>
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - Work Session
>
Agenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/26/2017 4:06:16 PM
Creation date
4/26/2017 3:11:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
4/27/2017
Meeting Type
Work Session
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
1
Document Relationships
2017-153 Co. Mgr. - GoTriangle - Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Contracts and Agreements\General Contracts and Agreements\2010's\2017
Minutes 04-27-2017
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2010's\2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
208
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
167 <br /> Clogged roadways already prevent efficient travel times of both private cars and buses, and this <br /> will only worsen with an increased population in the area.46 <br /> Like increased bus service, BRT falls far short of meeting the Purpose and Need of the <br /> project. Triangle Transit ruled out BRT largely because of its inability to meet the economic <br /> development and compact growth elements of the project's Purpose and Need.47 While <br /> proponents of BRT tout its flexibility and ability to respond to growth and development, this <br /> characteristic is precisely why BRT is less effective in driving compact land use patterns. Light <br /> rail outcompetes BRT in passenger capacity,partially because cars can be added to trains, and <br /> additional trains can be added to the entire light rail system with minimal impact so as to easily <br /> increase passenger capacity. Finally, commuter rail or heavy rail was appropriately rejected as a <br /> feasible option for the D-O corridor. Such vehicles are incapable of stopping quickly enough <br /> between closely-spaced stations, such as are needed on Duke and UNC campuses and in <br /> downtown Durham. <br /> In contrast to other options, the D-O LRT project is a fixed transportation system which <br /> will drive smart, compact development while decreasing the numbers of cars on the road and <br /> enhancing public transportation accessibility. As the Alternatives Analysis succinctly <br /> summarized, after extensive evaluation of other modes of transportation, "the [light rail <br /> alternative] alone can fully address the stated Purpose and Need for a fixed-guideway <br /> investment in the Durham-Orange Corridor."48 Ridership forecasts of the NEPA Preferred <br /> Alternative demonstrate that light rail will provide a substantial reduction in automobile trips; by <br /> 2040, the preferred alternative will account for more than 23,000 trips per average weekday.4° <br /> These forecasts are supported by the ridership rates of the Charlotte Lynx system where daily <br /> ridership exceeded 2020 forecast levels within three years of its initial operations "and now <br /> averages about 15,000 trips per day."50 The DEIS also projects that the light rail system will <br /> yield 23 million fewer vehicle miles traveled annually by year 2040.51 We agree with and <br /> support GoTriangle's determination that light rail is the best mode of public transportation for <br /> meeting the transportation and development needs of the D-O Corridor. <br /> B. The NEPA Preferred Alternative is the Superior Alignment for the D-OLRT Project <br /> We urge GoTriangle to proceed with the currently identified NEPA Preferred Alternative. <br /> We agree with and applaud the DEIS's observation that"[t]he NEPA Preferred Alternative <br /> would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect, <br /> 46 Id. at 1-18. <br /> 47 E.g. Alternatives Analysis at 5-88, 5-113 ;DEIS at 1-16. <br /> 48 Alternatives Analysis at 5-113. <br /> 49 DEIS at 3-14. <br /> 5°Alternatives Analysis at 5-86. <br /> 51 DEIS at 4-252; id. at Table 4.13-1: Comparison of Estimated Annual VMT for the Triangle Region (2040) (in <br /> millions of miles). <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.