Charlotte City Council
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update
I.
Subject:
Overview of the LRTP
Action: For information only
II.
Subject:
Charlotte Roadway Projects Nominated for the 2040 LRTP
Action: For information only
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
David Howard, John Autry, Michael Barnes, Warren Cooksey, Patsy
Kinsey
3:30 pm – 5:00 pm
ATTACHMENTS
Agenda package
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee chair Howard called the meeting to order at 3:30 and asked everyone in the room to
introduce themselves.
I.
Overview of the LRTP
Hall: This is the process related to your LRTP and is very important not only to long range
planning, but also funding. This is the only topic today, but it’s in two sections. Nick Landa
from Planning is going to talk about the MUMPO process and the establishment of criteria, and
Norm Steinman is going to discuss what that really means for the City of Charlotte. Mr.
Steinman will also talk about some of the preliminary understandings of how the new mobility
fund would work from the state.
Mr. Landa began the presentation with slide 2.
Howard: I want to be sure everyone is clear about how the LRTP is set up. The LRTP is where
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 2 of 8
you lump every project that you want to get done over 20 years. There is a plan over the LRTP,
right?
Landa: Yes. The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is the universe of projects that
could be built as we wished if this region had all the money in the world. There is no horizon on
the CTP, but it’s closer to a 50-year plan.
Howard: There are three levels: CTP, LRTP and TIP, and they all have to be approved by the
state.
Mr. Cooksey joined the meeting at 3:44.
Howard: I just wanted to say that this is important because this is how projects get on the list
(see slide 9).
Kinsey: Where do these projects go after the Committee ranks them?
Landa: Ultimately, the MPO Board will approve a ranked list with funding tied to that list. It’s a
fiscally constrained project list that will be broken up by horizon year.
Kinsey: I just wanted to know who makes the final call.
Landa: The MPO Board makes the final call on the project list.
Howard: They make the final call on the list. The Funding call is made by the state.
Landa: There are a few things going on. The first four years of the TIP are considered existing
and committed, so those are real dollars and those projects will go forward and be constructed.
The outer years of the TIP that Mr. Howard is referring to, we would take projects that are
ranked in our LRTP, submit them to the state based on our priorities, and hopefully they would
rank well and move into the first four years of the TIP. When we were developing the data
driven criteria in Tier 1, we wanted to make sure that aligned with the criteria the state uses to
rank projects for the TIP. We are conscious of that and are trying to remain competitive
statewide.
Mr. Landa continued the presentation with slide 10.
Kinsey: This has been a mystery as long as I've been on Council.
Landa: There are a lot of moving parts.
Cooksey: How much of this can the City Council affect?
Howard: Actually, we had to vote on the criteria (see slide 9).
Cooksey: What is Environmental Justice?
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 3 of 8
Landa: Environmental Justice includes low income and minority communities that are identified
by the federal government. As the MPO does transportation planning, it needs to be conscious
of impacts to those specific neighborhoods.
Cooksey: Environmental is an interesting name for that.
Landa: It’s also referred to as Title VI.
Cooksey: What are Community Resource Impacts?
Landa: That would be impacts to schools, parks, churches, etc.The City of Charlotte is the lead
planning agency for the MPO. It represents 60% of the population of the entire MPO, making
Charlotte very important in the planning the MPO does.
Barnes: Are the LRTP candidate projects ranked yet?
Landa: The ranking is underway. The MPO approved the ranking criteria in March, so the Tier
ranking, which is the data driven ranking process, is currently underway. The Ranking
Committee has meetings scheduled in June and July.
Barnes: When will we get this back with rankings?
Landa: Hopefully, the Tier 1 ranking will be completed in June. Tier 2 will likely be July.
II.
Overview of the LRTP
Hall: I think the complication in understanding the MPO processes is the way the interactions
occur between the MPOs, the state, Division 10, NCDOT and the federal government. Part of it
is that the rules change. If the Committee is interested we can explain further at some point in
the future.
Kinsey: Can you show it visually?
Hall: We have done that before and can give it a shot at a future Committee meeting.
Landa: The Planning department is working on some graphics that will that show the different
plans and how they interact, and we hope to post on the website in the near future.
Howard: The most confusing part is the source that can be used for different projects and why.
How to get on the list makes sense, but how they get off the list is confusing.
Mr. Steinman began the presentation with slide 2.
Autry: Would the I-277 loop be considered (see slide 5)?
Steinman: Yes, but only parts of it were nominated. We nominated the reconstruction of the
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 4 of 8
interchange of the John Belk Freeway and a portion of I-277 leading to US 74. The entire loop
doesn't need to be rebuilt; just sections of it need work.
Barnes: As we look to increase capacity on the asphalt, is there any measurement being done
with respect to air quality?
Steinman: Yes. It’s done two different ways. It’s always done for the entire accumulation of
projects, and individually for projects as part of their environmental impact statement.
Barnes: So, would there be any expectation as we increase the number of lanes and miles of
asphalt in the region that air quality would get better?
Steinman: The reason that air quality is getting better is because motor vehicle engines are
getting cleaner.
Barnes: About seven years ago when we had this conversation, we talked about the fact that
construction equipment was contributing more to air quality problems than cars.
Steinman: Yes.
Barnes: So, cars are getting cleaner.
Steinman: Cars, trucks and busses are getting cleaner.
Barnes: Once we return to a time when construction is as heavy as it was nine years ago,
hopefully construction equipment will have gotten better. How are we preparing to deal with the
ramifications of the true polluters, such as bull dozers?
Steinman: There are three sources of emissions. The first is power plants and the federal
government and the state have regulated those because those are called point sources (they
know where the smoke stacks are). The second source is motor vehicles. Originally cars, now
trucks and busses have had requirements to run on cleaner fuels with cleaner engines. There are
proposals by the current federal administration to continue reduction of emissions for motor
vehicles for another 10 or 15 years. The third source is somewhat unregulated and includes
lawn mowers, construction equipment, barbecue grills, etc.
Barnes: Are you saying that there isn't a plan?
Steinman: The answer to your question is that there is a plan for the smoke stacks and motor
vehicles.
Barnes: But not lawn mowers, bull dozers and barbecue grills?
David McDonald (CATS): There are standards that are being brought into play for those offroad sources of emissions. But the construction equipment lasts so long that it does take a
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 5 of 8
longer time for it to be removed. Through the MPO’s CMAQ funding, the Mecklenburg County
air quality group has a series of projects to do engine upgrades to reduce emissions for off-road
vehicles.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 7.
Howard: Can I assume the TAP and the Loop Study are part of the LRTP (see slide 8)?
Steinman: No, you can’t.
Howard: Why wouldn’t all those projects be in the LRTP?
Steinman: The LRTP should be the compilation of all the projects regardless of whether or not
they are going to be federally funded, funded by the state or local governments within the area.
In that way, the LRTP could be an accumulation of all types of projects.
Howard: All of those projects are part of the CTP, right?
Steinman: The only difference is the CTP is partly a diagnostic review and party a definition of
improvements to be made, so it’s not really related to dollars.
Howard: It just seems like they should all live in one document somewhere.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 9.
Cooksey: What was in the LRTP for 2035 for Rea Road from Colony Road to Highway 51?
Steinman: We put that in as a locally funded project.
Cooksey: Okay.
Steinman: We are concentrating on those that we think have a chance for state or federal
funding.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 11.
Howard: Do we know which Divisions we'll be teamed up with (see slide 13)?
Steinman: Division 8.
Cooksey: While the Governor’s proposal significantly changes how funding decisions are made,
does it change how transportation funding is done within the existing geographies?
Steinman: Yes, because if you look at the first one (see slide 13) it says there will be one
decision making group.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 6 of 8
Cooksey: Does the bill redraw the Divisions or change any of the current pairings that exist
between Divisions and regions.
Steinman: It changes the pairing we just described for the regional allocation.
Cooksey: That’s what I wanted to be clear about. Thank you.
Howard: So, the region allocations have nothing to do with an urbanized area?
Pleasant: Just for clarity, those Division pairs are the exact same Division pairs as we have in
the equity formula.
Cooksey: A Division pair is a region, correct?
Steinman: Yes.
Cooksey: So, none of the geography is changing, only formulas for each layer?
Pleasant: Instead of everything being divided across equity formulae, 40% is taken off the top
for statewide funds.
Howard: So, everyone lost 40% of what they were getting, but they may get it back through the
statewide project.
Steinman: Right. You can think of getting it back in larger projects, and the ability to develop
criteria or recommendation for smaller projects has probably been reduced.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 13.
Howard: How are the Divisions’ funding criteria different now (see slide 13)?
Steinman: At the present time in the sub regional category, 30 % of the decision making is
allocated to the NCDOT, 30 % to the Division Engineer, and 40 % to the MPOs or RPOs. So,
overall there is a shift towards more data driven and more decision making by the NCDOT.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 14.
Barnes: When do we expect this new approach to be applied?
Steinman: This is currently in the General Assembly, and the expectation is that this will be
voted on before July 1. If it makes it as legislation, projects that are scheduled to be let by July
of 2015 would not be affected by this formula.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 15.
Howard: Have we heard about criteria for statewide projects?
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 7 of 8
Steinman: There is a listing, but they have not yet decided which specific criteria are going to be
used.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 16.
Pleasant: I believe the cap on the Statewide number is $300 million per project (see slide 16).
Howard: Do all the statewide (first bullet, slide 16) projects fit under that number?
Steinman: Not I-77 south. I-77 north fits with the P3 proposal that is currently active.
Mr. Steinman continued the presentation with slide 16.
Barnes: For years, the Charlotte Department of Transportation has been highly regarded across
the state. Were any of you consulted about the policy change prior to the rollout?
Steinman: The criteria used by the NCDOT starting in the previous administration had little to
do with place making, complete streets and urban features of projects. When we talk about data
driven, we are not using an equity formula. Part of what is being recommended there is that
there shouldn’t be any projects with many lanes and few vehicles in one area of the state as
compared to projects where there are more lanes and many vehicles in another area of the state.
Barnes: I asked the question because if there were opportunity to fine tune it, it would be great
if you guys had been given a chance to chime in. Did they talk to anyone that you are aware of?
Steinman: They reached out once they defined the draft to representatives of some local
governments, MPOs and RPOs.
Pleasant: Over a long period of time, we had pleaded the case that we were getting less money
than we needed. One of the things we believe is that having a statewide pool of money that goes
from big project to big project, none of the Divisions had enough money through equity to take
on the big projects.
Ms. Kinsey left the meeting at 4:30.
Barnes: I’m not saying this is a bad idea. What I’m wondering is, do we need to send a letter or
some message indicating that the following tweaks would be a good idea to incorporate?
Steinman: Chairman Howard has received that from the MPO because there were six specific
recommendations to try to make this more aligned with federal policy; for example, as to what’s
the purview of the MPOs and some other minor adjustments.
Barnes: What happened with it?
Pleasant: We've been actively involved in the Metropolitan Mayor’s Coalition discussion too.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for May 13, 2013
Page 8 of 8
We are asking for some federal dollars to be taken out of the formula, because those are dollars
that come straight to urban areas. There is a state allocation and we’re not sure how that
matches up to the federal allocation criteria.
Barnes: So, do you think any of the issues that Mr. Howard sent from you guys were evaluated
or considered?
Steinman: This very week there is a conference of the North Carolina Association of MPOs in
Winston Salem. There will be staff there from the NCDOT, and I’m expecting there will be
further discussions/negotiations as to some legislation specifics.
Howard: I think Mr. Barnes just wants to know if we responded to that list. I don’t remember to
be honest.
Cook: This all came out after the MPO meeting.
Howard: We’ll find out and report back.
Barnes: That will be great, because here's what will happen. The Governor will say they never
heard from Charlotte. I’m just trying to make sure we are heard if we have concerns about the
strategy.
Steinman: I think what we’re trying to do is to work through the right venue.
Mr. Steinman concluded the presentation with slide 17.
Howard: What’s next?
Steinman: This will come back to you.
Howard: The next meeting is May 23, and we’ll be talking about the MOU.
Barnes: Some time ago, I asked Barry Moose if Louis Mitchell can join us. Can we invite him?
Hall: We talked about that and its scheduling. It's still on our docket of things to bring in.
The meeting adjourned at 4:37.
Transportation & Planning Committee
Monday, May 13, 2013
3:30 – 5:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Staff Resource:
David Howard, Chair
Michael Barnes, Vice Chair
John Autry
Warren Cooksey
Patsy Kinsey
Ruffin Hall, Assistant City Manager
AGENDA
• 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update
o Overview of the LRTP – 30 minutes
Staff Resource: Nick Landa, Planning
Staff will present an overview of the Long Range Transportation Plan, including the
purpose, process update and significant milestones.
Action: For information only
Attachment: 1. 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Update.pdf
o
Charlotte Roadway Projects Nominated for the 2040 LRTP – 30 minutes
Staff Resource: Norm Steinman, Transportation
Staff will describe the roadway projects nominated for possible inclusion in the LRTP,
currently being updated by MUMPO. Staff will also explain the reasons for the nomination
of specific types of roadway projects. Finally, staff will discuss the potential effects of the
Strategic Mobility Formula on the funding and prioritization of roadway projects in North
Carolina.
Action: For information only
Attachment: 2. Charlotte Roadway Projects Nominated for 2040 LRTP.pdf
3. 2040 LRTP Candidate Projects List.pdf
Next Scheduled Meeting: Thursday, May 23, 2013 – 12:00 p.m.
Future Topics – MUMPO Memorandum of Understanding, Park Woodlawn Area Plan, Fire Response
Time and Road Design
Distribution:
Mayor & City Council
Transportation Cabinet
Ron Carlee, City Manager
Nick Landa
Leadership Team
Norm Steinman
5/9/2013
2040
Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP)
Update
Transportation and Planning Committee
May 13, 2013
Presentation Overview
Purpose of the LRTP
LRTP Overview
Process for 2040 LRTP Update
Significant Milestones
City of Charlotte LRTP Candidate Projects
1
5/9/2013
Purpose of LRTP
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) document
 MPO is a federally designated transportation planning organization
 City of Charlotte is the lead planning agency for the MPO
What is the significance of the document?
 Long-term vision of regional priorities and investment
 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects drawn from
the LRTP
 Requires MPO action
City of Charlotte candidate projects have been submitted for
evaluation to be included in the 2040 LRTP
LRTP Overview
Required by federal planning regulations
Updated every four years
 Current LRTP adopted in March 2010
 2040 LRTP must be approved by March 2014
Defines policies, programs & projects to be implemented
 Minimum 20 year horizon
Must be financially feasible
Air quality conformity determination required
2
5/9/2013
LRTP Update Process
• Two committees created to guide process
 Advisory Committee (~25 technical staff from MPO planning
area)
 Steering Committee (5 core staff)
 Monthly committee meetings since July 2012
• Major tasks underway to date:
 Goals & Objectives
 Ranking Criteria
 Candidate Project Ranking
 Financial Plan Assumptions
 Public Involvement
Goals & Objectives
• Reviewed 2035 LRTP goals and objectives
• Stakeholder & public comment process
• Goals & Objectives endorsed by the MPO





Provide a transportation system for all modes
Promote equitable transportation options
Encourage linkages between transportation and land use
Support economic competitiveness
Maximize movement of people and goods
3
5/9/2013
Roadway Ranking
Methodology
• Consultant contracted to assist with process
2035 methodology evaluated
Peer MPO’s reviewed (national and NC)
New 2-tiered criteria developed
• MPO workshop held in January to review criteria
• Ranking criteria approved by the MPO
Approved Roadway
Ranking Process
•Approximately 275 roadway
candidate projects received
Tier 1:
Evaluate the
Need
•All projects will be evaluated
using the Tier 1 criteria
Tier 2:
Measure the
Sustainability
•Projects that score well will be
carried to Tier 2 for evaluation
•Committee established to
oversee ranking process
4
5/9/2013
Approved Roadway
Ranking Process
Tier 1 Criteria
•Tier 1 criteria is
quantitative
Congestion
Safety
•Tier 2 criteria is
quantitative and qualitative
Accessibility to Employment
Tier 2 Criteria
•Ranking Committee’s role:
Environmental Justice Impacts
 Help determine cutoff for
projects that will advance to
Tier 2
 Participate in Tier 2
evaluation process
Natural Resource Impacts
Historic Resource Impacts
Community Resource Impacts
System Connectivity
Benefit Cost Ratio
Financial Plan Assumptions
• Derived from NCDOT Program Development Branch
– State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Unit
• Based on ten-year average of programmed dollars
(FY 14-23)
• Excludes toll revenue, local funds, public-private
funds
• Expected Annual Revenues by NCDOT Division:
 MPO portion of Division 10 - $86 million/year
 MPO portion of Division 12 - $24 million/year
5
5/9/2013
Financial Plan Assumptions
• Assumptions will have to made for:
 Mobility Fund
 STP-Direct Attributable
 Bridge Replacements
 Growth rate over horizon of Plan
• Assumptions will be used to apply fiscal
constraint to ranked project list
• MPO action anticipated at May 22, 2013
meeting
Proposed Timeline
Anticipated MPO Actions:
May 2013
 Financial assumptions endorsed
September 2013
 Approve fiscally constrained project list
March 2014
 Final 2040 LRTP approval, and conformity
determination
6
5/9/2013
2040 LRTP Update
Questions?
Nick Landa
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department
nlanda@charlottenc.gov
7
5/9/2013
Charlotte Roadway Projects Nominated
for 2040 LRTP
Transportation and Planning Committee
May 13, 2013
Norm Steinman, AICP
Charlotte DOT
Purposes of Presentation
• Explain types of major roadway projects
nominated for federal or state funding in
MUMPO’s 2040 LRTP
• Describe potential likelihood of federal or state
funding for major roadway projects in 2040 LRTP
• Discuss potential effects of NC Governor’s
Strategic Mobility Formula on funding for major
roadway projects
1
5/9/2013
Types of Projects NOT Nominated
for Roadway Funding
• Intersections
• Road Conversions
• Farm to Market Roads
• Stand-alone Pedestrian & Bicycle Projects
• Transit
2
5/9/2013
List of Major Roadway Projects
Nominated for 2040 LRTP
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
Airport Entrance Road
Scott Futrell Dr.
Wilkinson Blvd.
new location
Alexanderana Road
Mount Holly-Huntersville
Road, SR2004
Margaret Wallace Rd.
Old Statesville Road,
NC115
Sam Newell Rd.
new location
Annalexa Ln.
Williams Pond Ln.
widening
Arequipa Dr. / Northeast
Parkway
Ballantyne Commons Parkway
widening
Types of Roadway Projects
Nominated for State and Federal
Funding
• Major Thoroughfares
• Freeways & Expressways
3
5/9/2013
Reasons for Nominations
• Ability to compete for
limited federal or state
funding
• Alignment with MUMPO’s
roadway ranking criteria:
1. Congestion
2. Safety
3. Access to Employment
Project Source
LRTP 2035 Unfunded
TAP
Area Plans and Loop Study
4
5/9/2013
Project Source
TAP
Area Plans & Loop Study
Revenues Available for 2035 LRTP Cover
Only 30% of Nominated Projects’ Costs
5
5/9/2013
MUMPO’s Roadway Ranking
Process for 2040 LRTP
Total
candidate
projects
submitted
~275
Tier 1:
Evaluate the
Need
Projects
anticipated
to be moved
into Tier 2
~70-80
Tier 2:
Measure the
Sustainability
Projects
expected to
be funded
~30-50
Alignment with Governor’s
Proposed Funding Plan (Strategic
Mobility Formula)
• Highway Fund
Maintenance & Operations
• Highway Trust Fund – Several funding programs
combined for construction
– 40% Statewide
– 30% Regional
– 30% Divisions
6
5/9/2013
Governor’s Proposed Funding
Categories and Prioritization
Criteria
• Statewide – 100% allocated by formula
potential criteria: congestion,
economic competitiveness, & cost.
• Regional – 7 regions to receive funds per capita:
70% “data driven”
30% MPOs/RPOs/Divisions in Region
• Divisions – Equal shares to 14 divisions:
50% “data driven”
50% MPOs/RPOs/Division
Governor’s Proposed Allocation of
Decision-Making
Statewide Tier of
Projects
Regional Tier of
Projects
Interstates (Freeways)
Some 2 & 3 digit US & NC
Routes
Other US & NC Routes
Division Tier of
Projects
7
5/9/2013
Proposed NC Funding Allocations
over 10 Years
Funding (in Billions)
$7.0
$6.0
$5.0
$4.0
Funding (in Billions)
$3.0
$2.0
$1.0
$Statewide
Regional
Division
Effects of Proposed Funding
Allocations on Projects in
Mecklenburg County
• Statewide – unknown, could give priority to I-77,
US 74, and I-485. Could benefit
from local funding support.
• Regional - $900 million over 10 years or $90
million per year to Divisions 8 and 10.
• Division - $320 million over 10 years or $32
million per year to Division 10
8
5/9/2013
Possible Effects of Governor’s
Recommendation
• Categories of Projects Likely to Receive Priority:
– HOT Lanes??
– Other Local Funding Support??
• Categories of Projects Not Likely To Be Funded:
–
–
–
–
Future Congestion (Major Thoroughfares)
Incomplete FTM Roads
Intersections
Minor (smaller) Roadway Projects
Proposed Timeline for 2040 LRTP
Anticipated MPO Actions:
May 2013
 Accept Tier 1 to Tier 2 results
September 2013
 Approve fiscally constrained project list
March 2014
 Final 2040 LRTP approval, and conformity
determination
9
5/9/2013
Questions?
Norm Steinman, AICP
nsteinman@charlottenc.gov
http://charmeck.org
10
2040 LRTP Candidate Projects
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
Airport Entrance Road
Scott Futrell Dr.
Wilkinson Blvd.
new location
Alexanderana Road
Old Statesville Road, NC115
widening
Arequipa Dr. / Northeast Parkway
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road,
SR2004
Margaret Wallace Rd.
Sam Newell Rd.
new location
Ballantyne Commons Parkway
Annalexa Ln.
Williams Pond Ln.
widening
Billy Graham Parkway
Josh Birmingham Pkwy.
I-85
widening
Billy Graham Parkway/Morris Field
Drive
Billy Graham Parkway/West
Boulevard
Brookshire Boulevard
Billy Graham Parkway/Morris
Field Drive
Billy Graham Parkway/NC 160
(West Blvd.)
Idaho Dr.
I-85
interchange improvement/grade
separation
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
Brookshire Freeway
I-77
Beatties Ford Rd. NB Ramps
widening
Clanton Road Extension
West Blvd.
Wilkinson Blvd. (US 29-74)
new location
Eastern Circumferential Road
Idlewild Rd.
Independence Boulevard
new location
Eastern Circumferential Road
Hanberry Blvd.
Rocky River Rd.
new location
Eastern Circumferential Road
Pence Rd. (existing)
Albemarle Rd.
new location
Eastern Circumferential Road
Rocky River Rd.
Pence Rd. (existing)
new location
Eastern Circumferential Road
Albemarle Rd.
Lawyers Rd.
new location
Eastfield Road
Prosperity Church Rd.
MUMPO boundary
widening
Eastfield Road
Alexanderana Rd.
Prosperity Church Rd.
widening
Fred D. Alexander Boulevard
Brookshire Blvd. (NC 16)
Sunset Rd.
new location
Freedom Drive / Mt. Holly Road
Toddville Rd.
Tom Sadler Rd.
widening
Garden Parkway
I-485
MUMPO boundary
new location
2040 LRTP Candidate Projects
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
Harris Boulevard
I-485
Mt Holly-Huntersville Rd.
widening
Harris Boulevard
N. Tryon St. (US 29)
Univ. City Blvd. (NC 49)
widening
Harris Boulevard
University City Blvd. (NC 49)
The Plaza
widening
Harris Boulevard
Reames Rd.
I-485
widening
Harrisburg Road
Eastern Circumferential
I-485
widening
Harrisburg Road
I-485
MUMPO boundary
widening
I-277 (Belk Freeway)/I-77
I-277 (Belk Freeway)/I-77
I-277 (Belk Fwy.) reconfiguration
McDowell St.
Independence Blvd.
I-277 (Brookshire Freeway)
reconfiguration
I-277 (Brookshire Freeway)/I-77
I-77
Independence Blvd.
I-277 (Brookshire Freeway)/I-77
I-485
I-77
Independence Blvd.
interchange improvement/grade
separation
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
I-485 Crossing
Johnston-Oehler Rd.
Jimmy Oehler Rd.
new location
I-485 Crossing
Breezewood Dr.
Ridge Rd.
new location
I-485/I-77
I-485/I-77
I-485/Oakdale Road
I-485/Oakdale Road
I-77 North
I-277 (Brookshire Frwy.)
NC 150
interchange improvement/grade
separation
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
I-77 reconfiguration
I-277 (Belk Frwy.)
I-277 (Brookshire Fwy.)
I-77 South
Woodlawn Rd.
I-485
interchange improvement/grade
separation
interchange improvement/grade
separation
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
2040 LRTP Candidate Projects
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
I-77 South
I-277 (Belk Fwy.)
Woodlawn Road
widening
I-85 / Billy Graham Parkway
I-85 / Billy Graham Parkway
IBM Drive-N. Tryon Street Connector
IBM Dr.
N. Tryon St.
interchange improvement/grade
separation
new location
Independence Boulevard
Village Lake Dr.
Krefeld Dr.
widening
Independence Boulevard
Krefeld Dr.
Hayden Way
widening
Independence Boulevard
Hayden Way
NC 51
widening
Independence Boulevard
NC 51
I-485
widening
Independence Boulevard
Conference Dr.
Village Lake Dr.
widening
Independence Pointe Parkway
Crownpointe Executive Drive
Sam Newell Road
new location
Krefeld Drive Extension
McAlpine Creek
Sardis Rd. North
new location
Krefeld Drive/Independence Pointe
Parkway
Mallard Creek Road
Crownpoint Exec. Dr.
Sam Newell Rd.
new location
Prosperity Church Rd.
I-485
widening
McKee Road
Weddington Rd.
Pleasant Plains Rd.
widening
Mount Holly North Loop
Mt. Holly-Huntersville Rd.
MPO Boundary
new location
Mount Holly Road
Rhyne Rd.
Belmeade Dr.
widening
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road
Mount Holly-Huntersville
Rd./NC16
Mount Holly Rd.
Couloak Dr.
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road
Beatties Ford Rd.
Alexanderana Rd.
widening
2040 LRTP Candidate Projects
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
Mount Holly-Huntersville Road
Oakdale Rd.
Beatties Ford Rd.
widening
N. Tryon Street
Dalton Ave.
23rd St.
widening
N. Tryon Street
Old Concord Rd.
Tom Hunter Rd.
widening
Nations Ford Road
Westinghouse Boulevard
South Carolina state line
widening
North Univ. Research Park Bridge
Louis Rose Pl.
Doug Mayes Pl.
new location
Odell School Road
I-485
MUMPO boundary
widening
Old Concord Road
W.T. Harris Blvd. East
University City Blvd.
widening
Old Dowd Rd./Norfolk Southern RR
Old Statesville Road
Old Dowd Rd/ Norfolk Southern
RR
Harris Blvd.
I-485
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
Orr Road
General Industrial Dr.
Newell-Hickory Grove Rd.
widening
Pineville-Matthews Road
I-485
Rea Rd.
widening
Pleasant Plains Road
McKee Rd.
Old Monroe Rd.
widening
Pleasant Plains Road
Weddington Road
Potter Road
widening
S. Tryon Street
I-77
Yorkmont Rd.
widening
S. Tryon Street
I-485
Steele Creek Rd.
widening
Statesville Road
Sunset Rd.
Harris Blvd.
widening
Statesville Road (US021)
W T Harris Boulevard, NC024
Gilead Road, SR2136
widening
Steele Creek Road
I-485
York Rd. (NC 49)
widening
2040 LRTP Candidate Projects
Project Name
Project Limit From
Project Limit To
Improvement Type
Steele Creek Road
York Road (NC 49)
widening
University City Boulevard
N. Tryon St. (US 29)
MUMPO boundary/South
Carolina state line
John Kirk
University City Boulevard
John Kirk
I-485
widening
University East Drive
Back Creek Dr.
Newell-Hickory Grove Rd.
new location
Weddington Road/ I-485 Interchange
Plantation Road
McKee Road
West Boulevard Extension
Steele Creek Rd.
I-485
interchange improvement/grade
separation
widening
West Boulevard Relocation
Airport Dr.
Steele Creek Rd.
new location
Whitehall-Arrowood Connector
Whitehall Park Dr.
W. Arrowood Rd.
new location
Wilkinson Boulevard
Moore's Chapel Rd.
MUMPO boundary
widening
Wilkinson Boulevard
Little Rock Rd.
I-485
widening
Wilkinson Boulevard/Billy Graham
Parkway
Wilkinson Blvd./Billy Graham
Pkwy.(US 29/74)
widening
interchange improvement/grade
separation