City Council

May 19, 2015

COUNCILMINUTES

TheCityCouncilofthe CityofRaleighmetinLunchWorkSessiononTuesday, May 19, 2015at11:30a.m.inConferenceRoom305oftheRaleighMunicipalBuilding,AveryC.UpchurchGovernmentComplex,222WestHargettStreet,Raleigh,NorthCarolina,withthefollowingpresent.

MayorNancyMcFarlane

MayorProTernJohnOdom

CouncilorMary-AnnBaldwin

CouncilorKayC.Crowder

Councilor Bonner Gaylord (Absent and Excused)

Councilor Wayne K. Maiorano

Councilor Russ Stephenson

CouncilorEugeneWeeks

MayorMcFarlanecalledthemeetingtoorderandthefollowingitem wasdiscussed.

WAKE TRANSIT INVESTMENT STRATEGY UPDATE – INFORMATION RECEIVED

CityManagerRuffinHallgaveabriefreviewontheitem indicating no Council action is required at this time.

Transportation Planning Manager Eric Lamb used a PowerPoint presentation to illustrate his report before the Council, the outline of which is as follows:

Purpose

The Wake County Transit Investment Strategy process will establish a vision for a future transit network that reflects the values and priorities of the community.

Process Update

  • Technical Coordinating
  • Financial, Routing, Technology
  • Advisory Committee Meetings
  • December 2014 – Introduction
  • January 2015 – Wake Concepts
  • April 2015 – Alternative Choices

Advisory Committee Alternatives

High Ridership / High Coverage
Infra cost / Ops budget remaining / Infra cost / Ops budget remaining
2012 Plan (LRT + CRT) / $2.3B / $2M / n/a / n/a
Light Rail Only / $1.5B / $36M / n/a / n/a
Commuter Rail Only / $1.3B / $40M / $1.3B / $40M
Urban Freq. Service / Urban Freq. Service + Commuter Extensions
Rapid Rail Transit / $1.4B / $38M / $2.2B / $24M
Bus Rapid Transit (Majority Fixed BRT) / $0.5B / $70M / $0.5B / $70M
Low Infrastructure (Corridor Based BRT) / $0.1B / $85M / $0.1B / $85M
Advisory Committee preferences in BOLD

4 Scenarios Released to Public

  • Expanded Transit Choices Report
  • Frames Alternatives within which community values are explored:
  • Ridership vs. Coverage
  • Infrastructure vs. Service
  • Final plan will be developed based public feedback received this summer

Core Design Retreat

  • 4-day retreat in April
  • Key technological staff from Wake County, GoTriangle, CAMPO, Cary, & Raleigh
  • Lead by Jarrett Walker & Kimley-Horn Associates
  • Developed the 4 scenarios

−Guided by financial, operational, & technical assumptions developed and vetted by Technical Core Team

−Collaborative environment lead to ease in solving multi-jurisdictional challenges

−Scenarios frame a space of possible future transit systems

Mr. Lamb noted the Town of Cary, RDU Airport Authority, and Triangle Transit also cooperated in the study. He stated Raleigh’s and Cary’s combined population makes up approximate 60 percent of Wake County’s population; however, the transit plan must have county-wide appeal. He indicated the study covers a 10-year period.

Ms. Baldwin questioned whether the City’s current model is the 80% coverage and 20% ridership with Transit Manager David Eatman responding in the affirmative.

Discussion took place regarding future parking facilities for mainline and park-and-ride facilities as well as possible public comment on the plan with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb pointing out public comments and requests will vary based on community makeup.

Senior Transit Planner Tim Bender talked about the technological options of the Transit Investment Strategy using a PowerPoint presentation outlined as follows:

Rapid Rail Transit

  • FRA compliant to operate in freight rail corridor
  • Will operate as a hybrid blend of light rail and commuter rail

−1-2+ mile station spacing

−45 mph average speed

Bus Rapid Transit

  • Dedicated guideway or mixed traffic as needed
  • ½ to 1 mile station spacing
  • Scalable infrastructure
  • 20 mph average speed

Service Changes – GoRaleigh

  • Existing Span

−WD: 12-20 hrs all routes

−SAT: 12-19 hrs most

−SUN: 11-12 hrs some

  • Proposed Span

−17-20 hrs all routes every day

  • Existing Frequency

−Peak-based on weekdays

−Limited off-peak and weekend service

  • Proposed Frequency

−All day, every day

Key Points about Alternatives

  • Routes shown in alternatives are not set in stone
  • Downtown Raleigh alignments/details to be determined
  • Coverage scenarios assume 30-minutes headways on most routes (unless currently at 15-minute service)

The presentation included illustrations of sample rail and bus transit facilities and vehicles, graphs illustrating coverage and ridership scenarios for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Rapid Rail Transit (RRT), as well as projected capital, operating, and total expenditures, and the estimated number of people and jobs that would have access to transit.

Mayor McFarlane questioned where Rail Rapid Transit was used with Planner Bender responding the cities of Denver, Colorado, Austin, Texas, as well as parts of Florida use Rail Rapid Transit with Transit Manager Eatman and Transportation Planning Manager Lamb pointing out Toronto, Canada also uses Rail Rapid Transit.

Mr. Stephenson talked about the State of Virginia’s commuter rail lines noting some of their passenger cars have double-deck seating similar to those in the PowerPoint photographs.

Ms. Baldwin questioned whether Rail Rapid Transit could use existing rail corridors with Planner Bender responding in the affirmative and Transportation Planning Manager Lamb pointing out dedicated parallel lines can also be constructed.

Discussion took place regarding how additional rail lines may be accommodated in narrow corridors.

Mayor McFarlane pointed out both the Virginia and Denver lines operate as part of a system that also uses light rail and questioned whether there were any communities that use Rail Rapid Transit only.

Mr. Stephenson questioned how the North Carolina Railroad would be cooperating in this project with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb responding discussions are on-going; however, any new tracks constructed can be used by both commuter and freight lines.

Discussion took place regardingongoing negotiations with Triangle Transit Authority as part of the processas well as discussions with North Carolina Railroad and possible use constraints on facilities due to joint uses by freight lines and Amtrak.

Transportation Planning Manager Lamb talked about BRT noting New Bern Avenue and portions of Capital Boulevard were good examples of BRT corridors.

Mrs. Crowder questioned how and where the buses would be accessible with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb responding the City currently utilizes a hub-and-spoke system; however, the new system will add additional cross-town routes.

Mrs. Crowder talked about the Avent Ferry Road route noting North Carolina State University operates several routes in this area and expressed concern regarding access for regular commuter service with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb responding by reminding Council members the proposed BRT routes are tentative. Discussion took place regarding frequency and passenger access under BRT coverage and ridership scenarios.

Transportation Planning Manager Lamb talked further about the plan and using the following highlights:

Assumptions & Unknowns

  • 10-year Plan Horizon

−What can be accomplished?

−Identifying priorities beyond horizon

  • Need for financial assistance to pay for supplemental infrastructure (sidewalks)
  • How will Wake connect with rest of region?

−Durham and Orange Counties

−Johnston County

Raleigh Feedback

  • Scenario preferences
  • Changes to City planning documents to reflect WTP update

−Comprehensive Plan Update

−5-year Raleigh Transit Plan

Public Outreach

  • May 20 – GoRaleigh Operations Facility, 6:00 p.m.
  • May & June: Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Knightdale, Apex, Morrisville, Rolesville and more
  • July: Wake County Library tour
  • Updated Survey:

Working Schedule

MayRelease the Expanded Transit Choice Report & Four Scenarios

May-Aug.Public Surveys

May-Aug.Public Outreach on Expanded Transit Choices Report

Aug.-Sept.Evaluate Feedback and Prepare Final Recommended Plan

OctoberPresent Final Recommended Plan

Ms. Baldwin requested clarification that no federal or state funds were figured into the various scenarios with Transit Manager Eatman responding some federal funds were projected with approximately 21% federal funding for RRT and 35% funding for BRT.

Mr. Odom talked about the need to construct additional sidewalks and questioned the distance a rider would have to walk to the nearest bus or train stop with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb responding a rider would have to walk approximately ¼ to ½ mile to the nearest bus or train stop. Mr. Lamb went on to point out NCDOT is looking at the possibility of expanding passenger rail service to Raleigh from as far as Alamance County.

Mayor McFarlane questioned whether the possibility of light rail was discussed with Transportation Planning Manager Lamb responding in the affirmative; however, when the choices were placed before the committee the vote was greater than 90% against light rail based on the cost alone. Mr. Maiorano requested clarification that light rail was not totally out of the picture with Transit Manager Eatman indicating that was correct; that the current plan was to determine which system would best lead to eventually tie in to light rail.

Mr. Maiorano talked about efforts to change public opinion regarding the use of mass transit.

Discussion took place regarding Durham and Orange Counties’ tying in to the system regarding service to Research Triangle Park with Ms. Baldwin pointing out this plan covers only 10 years; that it is more difficult to look further out.

City Manager Hall reminded the Council there will be 2 additional Consent Agenda items at the Council’s 1:00 p.m. regular session meeting and that the UDO remapping recommendations will appear as a Special Item.

ADJOURNMENT

Therebeingnofurtherbusiness,Mayor McFarlane announced the meeting adjournedat12:35p.m.

Ralph L. Puccini

AssistantDeputyClerk

1