By Bonnie Hauser
I’m fascinated by the enthusiastic support that many of our elected officials have for Durham Orange Light 
Rail (DOLRT). County leaders have already committed nearly $2 billion of local sales taxes and fees to the $3.3 billion project and are preparing to commit more. Do they understand the growing risks and concerns surrounding the project, which will burden their constituents for decades?
DOLRT is the last remnant of a 20-year-old plan to connect the Triangle using light rail. The other light rail segments were abandoned years ago. The current plan has regional connections via commuter rail and high-speed bus corridors, but since DOLRT ties up our funds for decades, they’re essentially unfunded.
The latest problems came when Duke and Durham businesses revealed concerns that they’ve been discussing with GoTriangle for years. GoTriangle responded by taking the project underground with a tunnel and underground station along Pettigrew Street. That added unexpected costs and risk, on top of the funding gap of $88 million left for private investors to fill.
Rather than figure this out, a few Durham and Orange elected officials have doubled down. They are justifying exploding DOLRT costs with exaggerated claims about revenue from transit-oriented development (TOD), and ignoring critics who fear they are mortgaging the city’s future. The exaggerations are a convenient distraction from rising costs, declining ridership, slower trains and GoTriangle’s own reports that DOLRT won’t improve congestion or emissions.
While DOLRT economics are crumbling, funding gaps are increasing for Chapel Hill Transit and Orange Public Transit. Critical bus corridors are not funded. There’s not even enough money to provide demand services for our growing senior population. We need to fill these service gaps if we are serious about public transit.
Most recently, in a secret meeting, GoTriangle along with some Durham and Orange officials discussed ways to fill a possible $500+ million gap in new costs for the project. That includes $260 million to cover the new Pettigrew Street tunnel, project contingency and shortfalls/delays in securing private financing. On top of that, the FTA may ask GoTriangle for a plan to access 10% of the project costs to cover unforeseen cost overruns. That’s $250 million more.
GoTriangle needs to fill these funding gaps by April 30 or lose $190 million of state funding. It looks like Orange and Durham taxpayers will be asked to ante up even more money for DOLRT.
Last summer Orange County commissioners asserted that they wouldn’t spend more than $149.5 million for DOLRT, plus their share of interest. Will they keep that promise? What about the debt and operating costs, which are not capped and present additional risks to Orange County? It’s complicated — hopefully they’ll engage independent counsel from Davenport, the firm that’s helped decipher the numbers in the past.
This is not the first time we’ve been in a DOLRT crisis. In 2017, the project changed suddenly and drastically, at great expense. The latest round of issues could have been avoided had GoTriangle been forthcoming about the situation with Duke and Durham business owners. We’re now relying on our county commissioners to stick to their guns, and not risk our schools, services and local economy for a project that has been out of control for some time. They might even use this opportunity to expand transportation services that we truly need.
We’ll know more on February 19 when GoTriangle presents the next version of the DOLRT plan to the Orange County Commissioners.
Bonnie Hauser is a leader in a Durham-Orange Coalition, Affordable Transit for All, which is seeking regional transportation for the Triangle.
Terri
/ February 4, 2019“County leaders have already committed nearly $2 billion of local sales taxes and fees to the $3.3 billion project and are preparing to commit more.” That simply is not true. The fact is that in 2012 county voters made the decision to tax themselves for this project. As a result of that tax:
–bus transportation between Orange County and Durham has been greatly expanded
–the Chapel Hill BRT plans have been developed and submitted to the feds for additional funding
–Plans for the Hillsborough Amtrak station have been developed and partially funded
And yes, some of the money was used to continue the planning for the LRT line between Durham and Chapel Hill.
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 4, 2019Terri – It helps to see how much misinformation is being fed to you, Here are the facts.,
the local funding commitment for Orange and Durham counties is somewhere between $1.8 and $1.9 billion for capital and interest on debt. That assumes the state comes up with $190 million and private investors provide $88. It doesn’t count Pettigrew or other changes. The OC commitment is $149.5 in capital plus about 20% of $800 million in debt. They are being asked to commit more.
The 2012 bus expansion was trivial and cut by 25% in the 2017 plan.
The local portion of MLK BRT was NOT submitted the feds for funding, The local portion, was funded in the 2012 plan and is now about $12 million short.
Bus service is so limited on the Northern county routes, they only have handful of riders, and there’s no money for demand services for seniors and disabled residents,
Nearly $100 million for new buses, shelters and other needs that are not funded by the plan. That means people who rely on buses will continue to wait in the rain while others drive to light rail to get them onto campus. Unless we want to commit property taxes on top of the transit taxes,
In 2012, voters asked for public transportation – not this boondoggle.
Here’s where opinions count. Should the comissioners commit more funds or funding sources to this project. IMO – absolutely not
Terri
/ February 4, 2019Bonnie–you are circulating your own misinformation. The bus routes have been extended, the BRT project shows up on the federal funding list so they have obviously developed and submitted a plan. If there is limited service in the northern county routes, it means there is not sufficient demand to justify the expense.
In 2012 as one of the voters, I voted for both public transportation and light rail. While I am willing to question the current plan, I do not consider it a boondoggle. The commissioners capped the spending last year. I have no reason to believe they plan to change that decision.
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 4, 2019Terri
Please see the CHTC meeting on MLK BRT – item 5 Additional questions from Council. https://chapelhill.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3838442&GUID=913FECA8-4404-458A-A486-EFF5EA2AE2C3&Options=&Search=
If you’re not following the plans, cuts to bus expansion, service challenges, the DOLRT tunnel and funding shortfalls, the private GoT meeting, and more, I dont have time to explain. The transit plan is on line. Its all in there.
Lets let some others respond to the column. If you have questions, please ask. No need to insult me- its not personal.
Alex Cabanes
/ February 4, 2019Beyond the wasteful cost-inefficiency, rail is also at significant risk of technological obsolescence as autonomous vehicles and shared-ride services like Uber, Lyft, and Google’s Waymo continue to evolve. The impact of new technology on public transit is unknown but could be hugely disruptive, potentially substantially reducing demand for traditional public transit. That’s why we need a plan which is adaptable to whatever the future may bring.
Practically speaking, that means concrete (not steel rail) guideways with rubber-tired vehicles than can evolve as the technology does.
Bus rapid transit guideways substantially reduces the risk of obsolescence, since concrete can accommodate the potential autonomous transit vehicles of the future.
https://opportunityurbanism.org/2019/01/metros-big-plan-spends-too-much-on-light-rail-but-moves-in-the-right-direction/
Plurimus
/ February 4, 2019Hi Terri,
You are incorrect that the citizens voted for light rail. They voted for transit. In contrast, GoTriangle light rail is an economic development initiative mostly for Durham and not purely transit.
The majority of the economic development goes to Durham because most of the stops in Chapel Hill are on University (tax exempt) property. Light rail as Bonnie correctly points out is consuming the overwhelming majority of that tax with small crumbs going to existing transit. To just put it in perspective The DTH recently reported Chapel Hill Transit is 700K short of needed bus revenue. In 2018, GoTriangle spent 56 Million dollars on light rail. In light of that I had to chuckle at your statement that demand for extending bus services didn’t justify the expense.
I believe these economic realities are the reason why the proponents of light rail are now waving fantastical revenue projections contained in the so called TOD guidebook. These projections are pure fantasy because they include more tax exempt university property and assume density that would not be permitted under current zoning. The Chapel Hill Town Council has said as much in a letter to GoTriangle. Worse yet, GoTriangle is asking the counties to “backstop” private donations in an effort to meet their funding shortfall. This should scare people, because it amounts to load guarantees form the taxpayers. This information came from a presentation that Commissioner Marcoplos posted on the county list server, if you haven’t read it you really should (and turn on and pay attention to the notes pages)
I have made the argument before and it is still true that transportation is going through a period of technological and social disruption. Many of the innovations will come to pass before GoTriangle light rail is completed or shortly thereafter, this will put the long term financing (some say 2060 or later) necessitated by the +2.3billion at risk of being squandered. The financing also terms also take interest payments out past the useful life of much of the equipment. No one will tell you what the cost to maintain this line is, but if experience is any guide taxpayer subsidies of $6.00 *per ride* will be necessary to keep costs competitive. All this points to taxpayers being “upside down” on the investment for decades with zero flexibility to adapt to change.
While I know from previous discussion on this topic that you are a supporter of public transit as am I, however it seems like you need to take a closer look at the facts and the value of pursuing this economic development charade rather than supporting true public transit improvements that are flexible enough to navigate the coming changes.
Julie McClintock
/ February 4, 2019I think Bonnie is correct on her numbers and I applaud her for putting out her assessment of the current situation. It is true the Commissioners passed a resolution saying they would not spend one penny more than the 149.5 million they have committed toward the light rail project. (That includes interest on the debt).
But here’s the problem, even if you have loved the idea of light rail in our community. There is no way that Gotriangle can reach their budget without borrowing more to pay for the recent addition of 500 million more dollars. It’s likely that the loans will be secured by borrowing against the value added in buildings at the station stops. But if you look into the GoTriangle Guidebook, you find that they’ve greatly exaggerated the profits to be made there. Chapel Hill Town Council thought so too and sent a letter requesting corrections last week. Remember those station stops are mostly owned by UNC, hence not taxable.
The tremendous risk ahead is that Orange County will agree to backstop the new loans, and if all does not go according to plan, we will become an unhealthy bankrupt county. I am very worried.
Tom Englund
/ February 5, 2019Thanks, Bonnie, for your diligence in monitoring the situation. Your tireless work reveals the real situation with DOLRT, GoTriangle, and municipal leaders. Those of us who rely on your tireless daily work are grateful.
As a resident of Durham County, I am just one of very many that hope the Orange side of the equation will follow through on the commitment to cap the funds that will be made available. Our leaders in Durham and Durham County have repeatedly voted against the better judgement of their own advisory commissions and planning department to plow forward with DOLRT. In so doing, they ignore the deleterious effect of the project on their current constituents in order to attract more population and development, demanding that current residents ante-up to pay for an already outdated and dysfunctional train that will cost every taxpayer an enormous amount of money, though very few will ever step foot on the train
Every step of the way in planning for DOLRT has been paved with skullduggery and slimy politics.
Most recently, an African American family that lived on the same land for about 150 years, purchased by their ancestor who was a freed slave, was romanced by Go Triangle into cooperatively selling their property for the ROMF. They were promised they’d be wealthy from the sale. One member of the family spoke at a public meeting saying the “sale” had taken place months ago, and that they had not yet received a cent in payment. Mayor Schewel suggested that they should “take one for the team”.
Yep, DOLRT is a boondoggle, that is certain. The public “servants” have all the real information proving that fact. The real question is this: Why to they insist on moving forward anyway? What are they personally getting out of it?
Tom Englund
/ February 5, 2019Bonnie, I don’t think anyone has spent as much time gathering information and data on DOLRT as you have. Thanks for your work. Those who differ from you and question your information are pre-loaded and underinformed.
Thanks for all of your daily work.
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 5, 2019Thanks Tom – and others. Very gracious.
Its unfortunate that DOLRT’s most vocal supporters have chosen to deliberately distort, misinform and spin this boondoggle, and there’s no forum to constructively sort through the realities and risks.
I do have a correction to one of my posts – just to keep the facts straight. MLK BRT is short $6-$10 million not $12.5. They need a total of $12-$16 million in order to apply for federal funding. They get $6 million from the transit tax
.
Terri
/ February 6, 2019I am thankful to community leaders who have a vision for the future. Certainly, we all deserve a financially secure present, but we also owe it to our children and grandchildren to take actions today that ensure their well being. I suspect I am the only one in this conversation who is (or was until December) actually a daily transit user. To the rest of you this is a financial (or political) issue. I have personally benefitted from the vision of UNC students to make transit fare free, the cooperative agreements that have produced regular bus routes between UNC and Duke, and the intergovernmental vision and cooperation to create and oversee GoTriangle.
I continue to support the vision of GoTriangle–for increased transit, not just light rail–to develop the options to get out of single passenger vehicles and commute between the two current high traffic destinations and all stops in between. Yes, I have concerns over the finances of this initiative, but I trust the range of elected officials who are providing oversight of this project more than I trust anyone outside the project.
The ‘vision’ I hear from opponents to this project will do nothing but isolate Orange County. Intra-county transit is important but its not visionary. I find it ironic that people who are complaining that light rail between Duke and UNC won’t serve the community and yet they vocally and frequently advocate for BRT down MLK to Southern Village (the current NS route).
Planning a project the scope of light rail in the face of rapidly changing land uses during an intense population growth period is a Herculean task. Based on my experience of planning a relatively short hiking trail, I don’t think anyone who isn’t in the trenches can understand the twists and turns encountered and the flexibility required to respond to those twists and turns.
I have no problem with citizens challenging governmental decisions. In fact, I think it is our responsibility. But I do object to anyone who is on the outside of a project of this scale thinking they know more than the project staff and oversight officials on every aspect of the project. It’s comes across to me as an accusation of corruption which I categorically challenge based on my familiarity with the individuals and the units involved in this project. They may make mistakes and they may benefit from hearing from outsiders, but they are not corrupt.
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 6, 2019Terri – once again – you don’t understand our vision for genuine regional transit -which is going to take a lot more than a smattering of bus service and an out-of-control light rail project.
I for one, am thrilled to live in a community where our citizens are truly expert in technology, governance and finance, and are willing to help electeds sort through complex issues. That’s assuming they are willing to be confused with the facts.
In the case of DOLRT, the project is large, complicated and risky – and the governance isn’t working. Corruption is a far cry from inept. We do not believe anyone is making money on this (although they may be keeping future campaign donors happy).
So please reel in your accusations, personal attacks, and rhetoric – and give it a rest. The facts are clear. DOLRT is a misfit for the region, and the costs (and governance) is out of control. Many of us are holding hope that support is growing for excellent local and regional transportation, including amongst our local elected officials.
Terri
/ February 6, 2019Bonnie, your facts are not clear or the project wouldn’t be going forward. And I haven’t seen any vision for regional transit beyond the GoTriangle plan. If you and your cohorts have a separate plan, post it, discuss it, advocate for it. And while you’re at it, please share your credentials as a transportation planner and your budget for moving your plan forward.
Nancy
/ February 6, 2019I recall Alex Cabanes presenting a plan, complete with maps, to Chapel Hill Town Council (maybe in 2017?) about a regional transit plan that would offer bus service to Chapel Hill from the more affordable towns around us for less than the cost of light rail. Alex, is that available online anywhere? Or do you recall the date you presented it to Town Council? If so, I can post the video of your presentation.
Plurimus
/ February 6, 2019I am always amazed at the canard that Chapel Hill Transit is “free”. Its not. I have not used GoTriangle regularly but I have used transit in other places regularly both nationally and internationally. That also has nothing to do with whether our transit money is being used responsibly.
Terri you clearly have not looked that the proposed alternatives if you think the suggestions do not extend outside the county.
As far as being visionary goes; how is it visionary that the most expensive transit plan bypasses most of the areas under development in Chapel Hill? How about bypassing Meadowmont which was sold to the town as TOD in the first place?
Are only accredited “transit planners” welcome to this conversation? How about people who understand technology and or finance? How about people who are being left behind by virtue of the LRT sucking up all of the know transit taxes?
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 6, 2019Plurimus. – you forgot the park n ride fees on top of the LRT fees. Maybe we should offer to build UNC a parking deck. We could save a fortune!
There are no facts to support proceeding with DOLRT. It doesn’t fit our land use plans, won’t help with emissions or congestion, and it’s so expensive that it has defunded most of the other key segments.
Here’s the basics of alternative regional plan that
Alex presented to council plus services that have lost funding to DOLRT.
1. Abandon DOLRT and replace with BRT possibly rerouted down 15-501 and/or along Franklin Street.
2. Bring up the Wake-Durham commuter rail and extend it to Hillsborough (and points west) where it can connect with
3. the NC 86 bus that goes south to become MLK BRT to Southern Village and on to Pittsboro
3. Add bus/BRT from Chapel Hill to RTP
4. Add local service to connect the Ch Hill 2020 areas, Carrboro and HB.
5. Add demand services for seniors and vulnerable residents.
6. Add the HB reverse circulator and 54 W service that’s in the plan but not funded.
All doable for what we’re spending on DOLRT and flexible enough to adapt/change routes to respond to changing demand.
People, including transit planners, do what they are told. It takes leadership to say we want transportation that connects us regionally, fits our land use plans, and brings transportation services to our transit dependent communities.
Instead we have politicians that say we want LRT so let’s tell people that it connects us regionally and connects affordable housing – even though it’s not even remotely true.
Captain Obvious
/ February 6, 2019The light rail money pit is so infuriating.
The most glaring fatal flaw, among many, is that it doesn’t connect to RDU airport or anywhere in Wake County.
So much money for so little benefit.
Terri
/ February 7, 2019Please read Pluribus. I said fare-free. Thanks to the students our fare free system allows everyone to ride. I was working on a digital literacy project in Durham a few years ago and wanted to make sure the centers were located on the bus line. I was assured that the (financially) poor people of Durham would be excluded if we assumed they could ride the bus. It was just too expensive for them.
One of the lessons I’ve learned around trail building is that without understanding the technical challenges as well as the property challenges, you could end up planning a route that looks good on paper but won’t work in practice. The Meadowmont issue is a perfect example. The land for the route and the station should have been acquired and the surrounding land should have had easements in place with notices to everyone who purchased land around it afterwards. Had that been done, it would have changed the way Meadowmont was built and would have ensured the route that serves the most people. However, if you recall Meadowmont used to be a farm, not a population center. The planners screwed up by not having foresight. So yes, I think it is absolutely mandatory that people planning projects like this have both academic and *practical* experience.
Running light rail down 15-501 has been nixed multiple times. All these other alternatives may be great ideas on paper, but they look much more expensive than what is currently in the works. Where is the cost analysis?
Plurimus
/ February 7, 2019Hi Terri,
Thank you for your response.
1) CHT is subsidized by both the taxpayers and student tuition. That cost sharing is brilliant and has worked to make CHT the best most actively ridden system in the state, per capita. However, CHT has a flaw that suspends service when the students are not around to ride, making it unreliable for the transit dependent. They have recently begun to change that but in my opinion a much greater bang for the buck could be achieved by funding CHT to operate even when the students are not here.
2) Your Meadowmont example illustrates exactly why the “professionals” are inadequate. GoTriangle failed to early on to secure the items you point out they also failed to properly negotiate with the Corps of Engineers. GoTriangle’s poor planning is evident in other areas as well such as the numerous dangerous at grade crossing, the closure of Blackwell street and the noise/vibration at Duke Hospital eye surgery. Add is the ROMF debacle locating an industrial facility in a residential area next to a school. These issues have all been known for literally years while GoTriangle has allowed them to fester. These serious issues and GoTriangles ridged thinking are now causing eleventh hour panic over additional unplanned costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
3) GoTriangles ineptitude is further magnified by the complete lack of oversight by local government. The elected officials on the MPO and GoTriangle boards are well known cheerleaders. Rather than being skeptical, asking questions and pointing out the obvious misses, they prefer to unconditionally promote the plan with half baked TOD guidebooks and social media feeds. Most recently they have been less than forthcoming with important information, choosing instead to hold closed meetings where serious financial discussions are being held. I feel they are stuck in their own informational feedback loop.
4) What is being advocated by the Smart Transit folks is not light rail but bus rapid transit. A solution (if well designed) could provide the same benefit as light rail at less cost and have added flexibility serving more people. Autonomous busses are already being deployed around the world, BRT fixed guideways could easily be shared with other autonomous vehicles gaining efficiencies without causing traffic problems that would occur with human piloted vehicles. GoTriangle’s thinking is ridged and stuck in the 20th century showing a lack of innovative thinking and adaptability.
I think all taxpayers are asking for is an eyes wide open cost/benefit without all the sophistry and a clear acknowledgement of all the shortcuts GoTriangle is taking, because those shortcuts are going to cost a lot more later. Given the disruption that is clear in transportation; is this inflexible 19th century fixed guideway that we will be paying for into the middle of the 21st century really worth more than 3.5 Billion dollars? I think the debate is being avoided by the proponents of light rail and that is disturbing.
Terri
/ February 7, 2019I’m not sure where you got the idea that CHT suspends service when UNC is on break for students. Neither of the routes I rode were ever suspended in my 18 years of daily ridership.
I just read that supporters are rallying tonight in Durham and calling on Duke to stop interfering with this project. Not all taxpayers share your belief. I do agree though that GoTriangle owes us all a detailed cost effective analysis and that the Orange County representatives need to more actively reflect Earl McKee’s skepticism from when he was the OC rep.
Plurimus
/ February 7, 2019Terri,
I got the information here:
http://news.unchealthcare.org/empnews/2017/oct-12/chapel-hill-transit-fall-break-schedule
and here:
https://move.unc.edu/news/2015/12/10/holiday-transit-schedule/
Plurimus
/ February 7, 2019Teri I tried posting this earlier and it did not show up. My apologies if it shows up twice:
https://gochapelhill.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/chapel-hill-transit-cht-spring-break-bus-schedule/
http://news.unchealthcare.org/empnews/2017/oct-12/chapel-hill-transit-fall-break-schedule
https://gochapelhill.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/chapel-hill-transit-releases-summer-break-schedule/
Pluribus
/ February 7, 2019Hey They are Plurimus, I am Pluribus. No relation.
People can express opposition to the Light Rail plan directly by email to president@duke.edu
Nancy
/ February 7, 2019Sorry about the delay, Plurimus. If a comment includes more than one link, it sits in a queue waiting to be approved. I’m just checking the queue now and saw your comments with links lingering there.
Terri
/ February 8, 2019Pluribus–those are 3 lines that were created just for students. It makes sense to stop those when students are away. I believe the University pays extra for those lines. The U bus is the campus circulator. The NU goes out to the off campus parking lot. I’m not familiar with A.
Terri
/ February 8, 2019There are 3 major areas of financial concern on this project based on an update presentation from GoTriangle back in 2017. Tammy Grubb from the N&O provided this update information. This information is fact–not speculation.
1. According to the timeline, $57.6M (state funding shortfall) had to be in place by December.
–Durham agreed that pay the shortage.
2. $102.5M is expected to be in place from a capital campaign by the end of this month. The slide says $15M has been raised.
–The $15M comes in the form of land donations from UNC and NCCU.
3. The feds will require at a 10% contingency account.
–This money has not been raised. The requirement will most likely be 30% by the end of the project.
Clearly there a substantial financial difficulties. The conversation would be easier and less contentious if we stuck to worrying about these facts, rather than raising all kinds of speculative concerns.
Plurimus
/ February 8, 2019Terri,
But……students are not the sole riders. There are people who work on campus and go to the clinics while the students are away, no? My point stands.
Plurimus
/ February 8, 2019Nancy
No worries. We seem to have gone off on a tangent here about CHT.
The larger point remains. We are spending huge dollars on what many feel is a white elephant. Costs keep growing and there are still many barnacles on the current plan. The people building it and the people charged with oversight are far less than transparent and seem to have blinders on.
I predict the fallout is going to be ugly when this thing blows up.
The subject line of this blog post is painfully accurate.
Terri Buckner
/ February 8, 2019No, your point does not stand. There are plenty of routes to and from campus and the hospitals without the 3 student routes. The NS route serves the same route as the NU. Multiple routes can get you around campus without the U (I almost never use that line). The A-Limited is nothing more than additional buses on the A line to serve the heavy student population. The additional buses aren’t needed when school is out of session.
There are plenty of things you can criticize the town and the University about. You don’t need to make things up.
Plurimus
/ February 8, 2019Terri,
I typed “…CHT has a flaw that suspends service when the students are not around to ride”
You typed: “I’m not sure where you got the idea that CHT suspends service when UNC is on break for students.”
I showed you where I got the information. The information describes reduced service during student breaks.
Now you accuse me of “made up” information.
I can’t help you any further.
Bonnie Hauser
/ February 8, 2019couple of comments.
Sadly – the students on campus circulator buses were included in the ridership numbers submitted to the FTA. They also used September numbers when ridership is highest.
Terri on your accounting – you left out the $81 million for Pettigrew and $100 million in what i consider hard contigency. That’s a $260 mm gap plus they need a plan to show access to another $250 million just in case
Plurimus
/ February 8, 2019BTW, I just noticed the post regarding yesterdays lightly attended support rally: https://www.affordabletransitforall.com/rally-at-pettigrew/
Sorry for so many links Nancy. It is hard to get counter opinions out. It should be noted that the N&O is rejecting letters to the editor that are critical of GoTriangles light rail plans.