True Costs

January 30, 2019

Dear Mayor and Town Council Members,

I am writing today to support the petition from Mayor Hemminger and Council Member Parker to send a letter to asking GoTriangle to make important clarifications and corrections in their TOD Guidebook.

Reading GoTriangle’s recent responses on the subject, we’d like to offer several observations:

  • It is overly simplistic to paint this document as simply a way to present “one possible future”. While that may be true in with regards to the Development Concepts, the fact of the matter is that the financial forecasts, which are based on overly aggressive projections,  are  being used as ‘the’ economic barometer to justify this project by  GoTriangle, elected officials on its board and other community leaders.
  • Answers to questions 4 – 7 about the relationship between the TOD guidebook, the market study and various growth trends clouds the issues by trying to apply town-wide growth projections to the relatively small acreage contained in the station areas. For instance, the yearly average of 80 homes represents just the housing being proposed for the station areas and does not reflect expected growth in the 6 focus areas, the Blue Hill district and other areas of town.
  • The question about inclusion of taxable development on UNC or UNC Healthcare properties isn’t fully answered.  We suggest that council ask for additional information as follows:
    • At the BOCC meeting last Tuesday night, GoTriangle explained that Eastowne is included in the $1.4 – $1.9 billion totals but not in the Development Concept summaries.  (2:29:30 on the meeting video).
    • A further explanation of the 1.1 million SF Development Concept for the Hamilton Road station area which is predominantly UNC and UNC Health property.
    • Dollar amounts associated with any and all taxable development proposed for non-taxable sites.

Finally, we’d like to share a couple of other pieces of information we gleaned from the Board of County Commissioner’s discussion of the Guidebook last week and hearing last night’s Assembly of Government’s meeting:

  • There has been no consideration of cost. “Net” numbers do not include costs associated with the project and projected growth. The following are some of the costs that either Orange County or Chapel Hill is being asked to cover: costs associated with the infrastructure projects, costs of service for new development, and costs associated with upkeep of the station areas, which the Town is being asked to take on per the Collaborative Agreement.
  • Organic growth and already approved growth may also inflate these numbers. The projected net, accumulated revenue for Orange County in this report is $200 – $270 million over 40 years.  It appears that the $200 – $271 million in net revenues to Orange County includes the entire redevelopment density and dollars for Glen Lennox and other projects that are already underway.  On one hand, it is good to know there will be more revenue but on the other hand, Commissioner McKee questioned whether it is accurate to attribute organic and already approved growth to this project?
  • The system will create more traffic, not less. Data in the report on Transportation Modes shows that between 70-80% of all new transit riders will arrive at stations by car.  At the Gateway Station and along Highway this translates to 192,500 and 191,000 vehicle trips respectively, assuming that riders park to ride.  If riders are dropped off and picked up at the stations, these numbers will be higher.  Overall, it means more vehicles on already congested roads and failing intersections.
  • Chapel Hill Transit is in need of additional support. In his presentation last night, Brian Litchfield alluded to the funding gap that exists for the NS BRT and explained that Chapel Hill Transit has just 1,000 bus service hours left in the County Bus plan to deploy.

We’ve learned that with the design changes the project is a lot more expensive. Is the upcoming renegotiation of the cost-sharing agreement an opportunity for the Town to negotiate for some of the “additional” dedicated transit tax generated by Wegman’s and newly taxable service                       items?

Thank you for insisting on accurate information from GoTriangle.  It is critical to good decision-making and vital to good governance.

Sincerely

Julie McClintock

 

 

 

 

Top