Minutes 04-18-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

15 GoTriangle found over $1 billion to fund LRT, but failed to find $30 million to fund the north- south BRT. She said the new plan adds additional debt, putting the County at risk in many areas, and when the LRT is completed most people will still need cars. She implored the Commissioners to say no to LRT, and to create a better plan. Del Snow said she is against light rail. She said every single developer of dense housing, in the focus areas, built there based on the promise of connectivity through extensive bus service. She said those who moved into these properties on the MLK transit corridor did so based on the promise of comprehensive BRT. She said the BRT corridor provides the spectrum of diversity needed along a transit line, and is within the walk radius of at least six mobile home parks, two subsidized housing developments, middle class neighborhoods, luxury apartments, shopping, student housing, etc. She supports stopping the LRT, and exclusively pursuing the BRT. Julie McClintock said she supported the original light rail project years ago. She said this is a momentous decision before the Board that could tie up significant Country resources for years to come. She reviewed the following comments: I am Julie McClintock and I've lived in Chapel Hill since 1970. I served on the Chapel Hill Town Council for 12 years. I supported this rail project when it ran between Raleigh, RTP, Durham and Chapel Hill. The plan made sense then! The burden is on this body to ask questions and understand the consequences of the proposed plan. Orange County did not prepare the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or the GoTriangle Plan, therefore you need to test the conclusions. We've heard many claims and counter claims about the light rail benefits and detriments. What does the very substantial GoTriangle EIS conclude about the issues now debated? I've based my summary on a detailed review by John Morris, which I've entered into the record. • Energy Use: The EIS concludes there is less than a one tenth of one percent reduction, a meaningless number. So if the EIS is correct, it will take 37 years for the tiny annual energy savings to total the energy used for construction of the project. • Air Quality: The EIS provides no basis to claim that light rail will improve air quality. There are no data, calculations, or modeling related to significant air quality parameters in the region or in the rail corridor. Note: there is nothing about this plan that promotes smart growth; the proposal encourages linear growth line strung out over forests, wetlands near a water supply watershed. • Traffic Congestion: The EIS does not present any evidence that light rail will reduce traffic congestion on major regional roads including 15-501 or any other thoroughfare. • Affordable Housing: Light rail will create a powerful economic force that threatens affordable housing near the project route. "Gentrification, and more specifically a reduction in affordable housing, is a potential effect of the project because of likely upward pressure on land values and commercial rents that may occur in station areas." Quote from EIS