Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for May 29, 2007
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occupancy Toll/Managed Lane Study
Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG)
Committee Information:
Present: Chairman Pat Mumford, Michael Barnes, Nancy Carter, Susan Burgess
Discussion Summary:
Chairman Mumford brought the meeting to order. Before the first agenda item, Norm Steinmann
presented a slide that gave a history of how cities added transportation capacity in the 1940s1980s; the methods all involved adding vehicle capacity. Only in the 1990s were methods such
as sidewalks and public transit considered. Tim Gibbs’s presentation on HOV/HOT/Managed
Lanes was about a new method for adding “person capacity” on the interstate and, along with
USDG, is one of the planning concepts currently used by City staff.
Councilmember Barnes informed Norm that it’s always helpful to have photos and visual
examples of some of the terms they refer to.
Councilmember Carter asked if “context based design” meant taking into account the social
movements of people. Norm said that that concept means that the road designs are made with
input from the people who travel on the street and not just by the road designer. The street
designs are also more in keeping with the land uses of adjacent parcels. Councilmember Carter
said that the staff should check out the writings of Terry Cruz, who writes about “informal
planning” which takes the public input process a step further.
Mr. Steinmann concluded his introductory comments and introduced Tim Gibbs to talk about
HOV/HOT/Managed Lane study that’s about to be conducted by a series of local planning
organizations. An agenda item on the full Council’s agenda for that night contained an item
requesting approval of funds to support the study.
Councilmember Carter asked if there is any limitation by using the federal system of charging
folks to make revenue on people using federal roads. Jim Humphrey clarified and asked if there
were any prohibitions on tolling federal roads. Mr. Steinmann said no, and, in fact, the federal
government is trying to convince local governments to use various means, including tolls, as
ways to fight congestion. Mr. Gibbs said that that initiative is very pricey however.
Councilmember Barnes said he doesn’t see very many people driving with multiple people in
their car. Secondly, he wanted to know if establishing special lanes will involve adding lanes or
converting lanes. He referenced the HOV lane on I-77 that was added, but said that that was
impossible to do on I-485 which would instead require converting lanes. Mr. Gibbs said there’s
been a study that says that there are more multiple-occupancy vehicles on I-77 since the
inception of the HOV lane. Councilmember Barnes asked what the motivation for that was. Mr.
Gibbs said that the study was done before there was a significant gas price hike, so that most of it
is probably due to the availability of the HOV lane. Councilmember Barnes then asked Mr.
Gibbs for the gross number of increase, not just the percentage.
Chairman Mumford reminded that it’s not just HOV lanes that are part of this concept; managed
lanes can be used by individual travelers if they’re willing to pay the toll. Norm Steinmann
answered Councilmember Barnes previous questions and said that this effort would probably not
involve converting lanes. The study will investigate multiple types of managed lanes, not merely
HOV lanes.
Jim Schumacher reminded that additional lanes could be a benefit to our transit system; buses
could travel in them.
Tim Gibbs continued talking about the study, which will cost about $525,000. Half of that figure
will be covered by NCDOT; the rest vast majority of the rest will come from MUMPO. The
MUMPO amount will be covered using federal planning funds allocated to them. Since Charlotte
is the host of the lead planning agency for the MUMPO, Council’s required to disperse the funds
for the study.
Chairman Mumford asked to move on to the second agenda item. Norm Steinmann and Tracy
Newsome jointly gave a presentation on USDG (included as an attachment in the agenda). Mr.
Steinmann stated that he hoped the Council would endorse the guidelines soon.
Ms. Newsome began the presentation by reviewing the contents of the USDG document which
included a review of Charlotte’s street design practices in the past, a discussion on the challenge
of designing streets for multiple users, and a wealth of information on how to apply the
guidelines. In the USDG, “all modes” will be considered equally; the guidelines will not be
exclusively focused on motorists like the old philosophy.
Chairman Mumford asked “who is expected to read the entire 300 page [USDG] document?
People who are engaged in development and what to understand our expectations better?” Mr.
Steinmann said anyone’s who’s interested, but particularly people in the business who design
and build streets for us but also for private clients.
Councilmember Carter asked if they were going to circulate the document to the Universities
who are producing our new architects and so forth. Mr. Steinmann said yes. He said there’s a lot
of change at the professional level in the planning industry, but very little of that change has
reached the textbooks yet.
Ms. Newsome said that after “multiple waves” of collecting information, rolling it into their
analysis, presenting to stakeholders, revising, and so forth, the stakeholders had four remaining
concerns at their last session, brought up mainly by developers: block length, planting strip
width, cost implications, environmental implications. There’s been intensive staff review of these
items and some revisions have been made.
Councilmember Barnes asked why the public’s concerns weren’t listed. Mr. Steinmann said
because there isn’t any, they’ve seen what the USDG are meant to do and they’ve bought in.
Councilmember Barnes said that the reason the public aren’t concerned is because “they don’t
have enough industry specific knowledge” to raise concerns. Mr. Humphrey said there are
additional times for public involvement before the USDG are approved.
Curt Walton said that one idea they’ll hear about in the coming months is how we resolve
conflicting policies. One example in the USDG is the conflict between adding sidewalks and, for
storm water purposes, limiting the amount of impervious surfaces. Since the last time the
Committee heard about this topic, staff has spent a lot of time trying to identify where the USDG
might conflict with other policies and how to reconcile that. Ms. Newsome has said that their
public discussions and the staff’s policy alignment discussion have resulted in some revisions to
the documents. There was also some cost analyses done on taking the USDG, the Post
Construction Controls Ordinance, and the GDP-Environmental Chapter altogether.
Mr. Steinmann said that the USDG will be the tool needed to create the streets outlined in the
Transportation Action Plan (TAP). There are 23 policies in the TAP that refer to the USDG. The
PPT presentation took the USDG references from the TAP and gave visual examples of their
application.
As Mr. Steinmann presented a photo of a “complete street”, which is in keeping with
“multimodal”, Councilmember Carter commented that “there’s no parking.” Norm said that
that’s part of context based solutions; the street in question didn’t need parking.
Referring to one possible feature of a complete street, Councilmember Carter asked if pedestrian
refuges are “regulated” by State law. Mr. Steinmann said the islands are regulated by State law,
but we have flexibility of how to design them, and it’s in the interest of all involved to design
them in a way that the State’s sign is not the only thing that makes the noticeable. He added that
there are the “three Es” to make things like that work: educating the public about using them;
enforcing the rules surrounding them; and engineering them in a way that increases their
functionality.
Councilmember Barnes asked if creating pedestrian refuges in areas where there’s not a
crosswalk is encouraging illegal behavior. Norm Steinmann said they may be sending a mixed
message; that is a debate going on in his industry. Councilmember Barnes said, as a lawyer, he
questions whether those things place some liability on the City and whether staff has talked to
attorneys about this issue.
Chairman Mumford asked if we had a “mid-block ordinance or policy” guiding the placement of
such pedestrian refuges. Ms. Newsome said that a committee did a study and formulated some
guidelines, which they’ve been applying for a year and half. They will review those and try to
bring them more in line with the USDG. Chairman Mumford reiterated Councilmember Barnes
desire to get some answers from the City’s attorneys.
Danny Pleasant tried to assuage some of Committee’s concerns by stating that in most states, and
probably in North Carolina, the law says that there’s a virtual crosswalk wherever a cross street
comes in contact with another street. The picture in question, of the pedestrian island on a busy
street with no clear crosswalk, has a crosswalk according to that law.
Chairman Mumford gave some comments on his preferences, as a cyclist, for the design of bike
lanes. It’s better to have them, but at some areas they’re confusing. Cyclists also have to “trust
the motorists” to be aware of the cyclists in the lane. He suggested making the bike lane
markings more pronounced.
Mr. Steinmann gave a few examples of state controlled streets where NCDOT agreed to
incorporate USDG concepts. Souther at UNCC and N. Tryon St. are examples of such
cooperation. Mr. Humphrey said that the context sensitive solution for N. Tryon St. is to keep it
at four lanes, but that depends on Council’s ability to get the additional roads built through the
development process so that there will be a complete grid and not all traffic will be funneled onto
N. Tryon.
Curt Walton asked Norm Steinmann what the standard ROW width was on N. Tryon St. Mr.
Steinmann said it’s 100 feet. The plan he just referenced will require a larger setback to
accommodate the median and the planting strip, probably 150 foot from building front to
building front.
Councilmember Carter asked if we have any priority given to bike lane projects that can connect
to other bike lanes. Mr. Steinmann said yes. The main problem with implementing more bike
lanes is that there isn’t enough width on most streets to merely restripe them to add additional
bike lanes. Chairman Mumford reminded that he asked Mr. Orr from the Airport if he was going
to add a bike lane to a road near that facility. Mr. Orr said that the FAA said they were
uncomfortable with that. Chairman Mumford asked, therefore, if there were any additional level
of government that may prevent bike projects. Mr. Humphrey said CDOT would look into that.
When reviewing the picture of some changes made to the intersection of South Blvd. and
Woodlawn, Chairman Mumford said that those changes have been working quite nicely. He said
that the traffic slows down and the pedestrians have refuges to make the walk safer.
Ms. Newsome talked about TAP policies requiring new development to construct traffic calming
devices in keeping with the USDG guidelines. Mr. Carter asked with regard to speed control like
speed humps in new developments, do those have to be run through Doreen Szymanski? Mr.
Steinmann said no, they can use the design of the streets themselves to slow traffic down. She
then asked if there’s public involvement similar to what’s required when speed humps, etc. are
retrofitted into older neighborhoods. Mr. Steinmann said no, but that there’s been public
involvement with the USDG and the public hasn’t expressed objections. Councilmember Carter
said it seemed like we’re “stepping back” in regard to the level of public participation. Ms.
Newsome said that this was an area in which the stakeholders do not have any outstanding
concerns.
Councilmember Barnes asked if the USDG have been approved. Mr. Steinmann said no. Mr.
Barnes then asked if the USDG are being implemented. The answer is yes. Councilmember
Barnes then said that there’s another area where standards have been required without Council
approval, and it’s been a bit controversial. He warned Mr. Steinmann to expect some criticism
about that. Mr. Steinmann said that they have not yet “directly effected” any private development
and that all of the implementation of the guidelines so far has been on public projects. Mr.
Walton said that notes pointing out the discrepancies between the USDG and other guidelines
like the Post Construction Controls Ordinance are included in zoning petitions.
Mr. Barnes then asked if we’d yet named the TAP. He suggested “SmartTrack Charlotte” or
“Smart Street Charlotte”
Mr. Steinmann mentioned that with all these USDG requirements, the Right-of-Way required for
new streets will have to be wider. That issue will be brought back before Council later this year.
Currently they have the “dimensionless diagram”. Chairman Mumford asked if that meant
paying for the additional ROW. Mr. Steinmann said yes, or to make trade-offs in order to retrofit
streets. Chairman Mumford then asked “so the hope is new development will follow the new
guidelines so we won’t have to acquire additional property”. Mr. Steinmann said yes.
Mr. Steinmann informed the Committee that the most important slide contained a chart listing
block length recommendations, which CDOT, Planning, and other departments have reached
agreement on despite earlier disagreements. That concept is a key idea for USDG. There needs to
be more blocks where there’s going to be more users.
Chairman Mumford asked “there’s a preference for 400 feet in ‘station areas’, but a maximum of
600 feet which there must be a compelling reason to use?” Mr. Steinmann said yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked about existing streets in station areas, and suggested that if
anything is moved to meet the guidelines, we need to be careful about naming so we don’t
confuse people. Mr. Steinmann mentioned that the good things about center city where most of
the station areas are is that we have the 400x400 block size, which we’re going to play defense
and hang on to because they have a lot of capacity. They’d like to add more if possible. In other
centers, like South Park for example, where we want to create more of a mixture of land uses,
that’s where we want to add more blocks as well.
Chairman Mumford said that instead of redesigning every project that’s submitted, that Staff
should formulate some clarification on when the 600 ft. maximum would be allowed. If that’s
clarified on the front end, it prevents Council from having to step in later and resolve conflicts
that may arise.
Councilmember Carter asked “who is the ultimate arbiter” to make the decision on whether a
proposal can go from the preferred block length to the maximum length. Mr. Steinmann said that
that will probably be the subdivision administrator with the review team that looks over zoning
petitions. These recommendations will soon be inserted in area plans, so developers will know
what the expectations are. Up until now we haven’t talked about creating a position called
“USDG Administrator” who would have the authority to unilaterally make that decision. Danny
Pleasant said that the decisions that are made are made by “the last place it lands” so many
subdivisions and so forth would be with Planning because they control the rezoning process.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess just asked if CDOT was suggesting that nonresidential development in
wedges get some sort of density bonus.” Mr. Steinmann said that those have been the
expectations since the GDP were approved. With a willing petitioner, Staff could create the
driveways to almost function like streets in those sorts of commercial developments. However,
these will require public streets.
On another topic, Mayor Pro Tem Burgess said that there needs to be a requirement to actually
plant a tree in the planting strip, and that that concept be on a parallel path through the
Environment Committee. Ms. Newsome said there is language that requires trees be planted in
the strip. Mr. Steinmann said it’s up to the Council to decide who will be required to plant the
tree, the City or the developer. The City will plant trees on City-built projects. Ms. Burgess
thinks the developer should plant tree in their projects.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked if they’re going to give recommendations on types of trees to
plant. Mr. Steinmann said yes, and Curt Walton added that that info is already in the tree
ordinance. Ms. Newsome said that their document will include a list that gives recommendations
for trees for each width of planting strip.
Chairman Mumford asked about the trees in the planting strips, do they become the City’s
responsibility to maintain because they’re in our ROW. Mr. Steinmann said, usually, yes.
At this point Mr. Steinmann laid out the remaining concerns of the developers. He addressed the
concern that these guidelines would require too much additional cost. They’ve conducted several
studies to try and determine the cost per lot of a subdivision developed using the USDG. The
first study conducted two years ago determined that the cost would be $2,900/lot. A more
detailed study revised that figure to $1,900/lot. A third study is underway that would consider the
cost with both the USDG and Post Construction Control Ordinance applied.
Chairman Mumford said that the more relevant measure would be percentage, since some
subdivisions will have $400,000 homes while others will have $110,000 homes. Mr. Steinmann
said they did review whether or not there’s correlation between the number of streets that’s
actually been built in a subdivision and the cost of the houses in that subdivision and that so far
they’ve found no correlation. Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked “then who’s eating the cost?” Mr.
Steinmann said that there are so many more factors that affect the cost of the house that it’s
impossible to determine what the strongest determinant of house cost is. Chairman Mumford said
that we need to be careful with numbers and how we use them, and sensitive to the fact that
$1,900 may price some people out. Mr. Steinmann said that in addition to that, we have to be
careful not to give the impression that every lot will have a $1,900 additional cost.
Chairman Mumford also said that a form that gave an estimate of what the appraised value of a
house in a subdivision with wide planting strips and other USDG components is compared to a
similar house in a neighborhood without those things would also be helpful. Such a form would
show people that there aren’t just upfront capital costs, but added value. Mr. Steinmann said he
agreed, but that’s it’s easier to calculate the additional cost than it is to calculate the additional
value. They’ve looked at the research and there’s none that helps them in this area.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked if we know what Davidson and Huntersville are doing. Mr.
Steinmann said they’ve been doing these things for 5 to 7 years. Mayor Pro Tem Burgess added
that some cities have stricter requirements on the housing stock; Monroe does not allow vinyl
siding.
Mr. Steinmann asked the Committee whether there should be additional public input, maybe a
public meeting sponsored by the Transportation Committee. If so, and if that’s held in July, the
Committee could endorse the guidelines in July or August.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess said she liked the idea of involving the public, and the idea of the
Committee convening it. Councilmember Carter asked if there would at least be an effort to
include the stakeholders, even though they’ve been dispersed. Chairman Mumford said input is
good, but this has been a long process and we run the risk of having the people we open it up to
giving us mixed signals that we won’t know what to do with. He suggested that we set this up as
“here’s the document” not “here’s a blank page” because we’ve got to give them an appropriate
expectation. Jim Humphrey clarified that, in the past, meetings have been held where Staff is the
primary presenter but that they let people know that the Council will consider their input. Or they
could have the Committee “host” a meeting.
Councilmember Carter asked if they could hold a meeting in election season. Mr. Walton said
the Committee could. Or they could do it as they do area plans, where the USDG is an agenda
item opened for public comment. Chairman Mumford directed Staff to come back with some
suggestions on how this public meeting could be held.
Councilmember Carter suggested that we make this a topic of an episode of Queen City Limits
TV program.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked what the meeting schedule is for July. Mr. Walton said there isn’t
one. If they wanted to make a recommendation in July, there’d have to be a special meeting
scheduled
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess asked about rubber sidewalks around tree roots. Jim Humphrey said
that Vivian Coleman has been looking into it and has provided a response. He continued by
saying that CDOT is looking for areas to try out that new material. If it works they could use it in
trouble spots where the sidewalk is prone to cracking.
Chairman Mumford adjourned the meeting.