Agenda - 04-27-2017 - 1 - Consideration of the Final Draft Durham – Orange Light Rail Cost Sharing Agreement and Final Draft Orange County Transit Plan

Browse Search

172 IV. GoTriangle Should Continue to Collaborate with Low-Income and Minority Communities Who May be Impacted Although there is wide community support for enhanced public transit options in the D-O Corridor and for light rail in particular,75 the D-O LRT project has the potential to disproportionately burden certain low-income and minority communities in Durham. While the Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical area is economically robust, the DEIS notes that the census tracts within the D-O Corridor have a 19 percent lower median household income than the combined median household income in Durham and Orange counties on the whole.76 More than thirteen percent of households within the Corridor do not have an available vehicle, and 42.6 percent of households in the Corridor have only one vehicle.77 Moreover, Durham has a history of proposed transportation projects having a disproportionate impact on people of color and low-income communities.78 GoTriangle must be mindful of these disparities and the historical backdrop in continuing to proactively engage communities that will be affected by the D-O LRT project. We are pleased by GoTriangle's thoughtful efforts to date in informing and collaborating with affected communities. The DEIS identifies access to proposed stations is a primary concern voiced by low-income and racial minority communities in the area.79 The DEIS also highlights concerns about affordable housing, business displacements, and inequitable distribution of sales tax revenues from the area.80 While the DEIS identifies responses to each of these concerns, we hope GoTriangle continues to collaborate and develop additional means of mitigating these concerns, as required by Executive Order 12898.81 We are pleased that Durham County and the City of Durham have set goals of having "15 percent housing within a 1/2 mile of each station be affordable to people at or below 60 percent of the median area income."82 However, we encourage GoTriangle to work with local leaders to develop more hard-and-fast policies and mechanisms to keep housing affordable. Such measures should include methods to help current residents in the affected areas remain in their homes and not be priced-out of their residences. Additionally, the DEIS should be clearer and more consistent about the potential problem of 75 E.g. Jensen,supra note 26,at 2. 76 DEIS at 1-8. 77 Id. at 1-5. 78 See id. at 5-30;Removal of Los Primos Supermarket—Analyzing and Identfing Alternatives,FED.HIGHWAY ADMIN. (last updated Feb.4,2013), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmentaljustice/ej_and_nepa/case_studies/case04.cfm; Case Studies: East-West Expressway Environmental Impact Study, FED.HIGHWAY ADMIN. (last updated Aug.29,2011). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental justice/case_studies/case3.cfm. 79 DEIS at 5-18. 80 IJ at Table 5.3-1:El Community Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions/Response. 81 Exec.Order No. 12,898,59 Fed.Reg. 7629(Feb. 11, 1994). 82 DEIS at Table 5.3-1:EJ Community Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions/Response;id. at 5-31;see N.C.GEN.STAT. § 136-252(b)(3)(d) (requiring recipients of state public transportation grant money to develop strategies"to provide replacement housing for low-income residents displaced by transit development. . . for the purpose of increasing the s tock of affordable housing to at least fifteen percent(15%) [near the transit development] to be affordable to families with income less than sixty percent(60%)of area median income.") . 14