Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 26, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Dixie River Road and Shopton Road West Thoroughfare Plan Amendment
(Staff Resource: Tim Gibbs)
II.
State Transportation Issues – (Information only)
(Staff Resource: Jim Humphrey)
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Council members Pat Mumford, Warren Turner, Susan Burgess, Nancy
Carter
3:15 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
5.)
Agenda
Map of amended Dixie River Rd. and Shopton Rd. West thoroughfare plan
Findings and Recommendations of Blue Ribbon Commission on transportation
“Unique Mobility Needs of the Charlotte Urban Area”
“State and Local Transportation Planning and Funding – Proposed Schedule”
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 26, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Subject – Dixie River Rd. and Shopton Rd. West Plan Amendment
Tim Gibbs, Transportation Planner for Charlotte Department of Transportation, gave a review of
the highlights of the project: funding for improvement approved in the 2004 City bond
referendum; public meetings held to inform the public that two three-legged intersections would
be constructed; public input suggested an alternative plan would work better. He informed the
committee that the new alignment will be recommended to MUMPO by the TCC, and that public
comments on the new alignment will accepted on July 14th.
Mike Davis from CDOT gave arguments in favor of the new alignment. He mentioned that
because it gives access to three different properties likely to be developed, it is in keeping with
the economic development plan for that area. The new alignment leaves more space between
intersections, and therefore is safer. Finally, the new alignment is further away from I-485. The
old alignment nearly abutted the I-485 ROW, which may have had a negative impact on both
safety and State funding. Jim Humphrey pointed out that the current road is deteriorating due to
construction in the vicinity, and that the new intersections will improve travel there.
Despite CDOTs explanation, Council Member Carter expressed concern over the impact the new
route would have on the property belonging to Mr. McKee.
Council Member Burgess wondered why the new route, which looks shorter on the map, is not
cheaper to build, and whether the State is contributing in the cost of the project. Jim Humphrey
explained that the costs will be about the same since the part of Dixie River Rd. not designated
as “new” on the map will need to be renovated as part of the project, and that the State is
donating planning costs. He outlined the costs as being roughly $8-$10 million for the entire
project, $5 million of which comes from a previous bond issuance, $200,000 from the State, and
$5 million from the next bond. Though not contributing to this specific project, the Airport will
help fund improvements to roads in the general area since they’re committed to improving
nearby roads that feed into their area.
Council Member Turner inquired as to how having two intersections within a short distance of
each other is better than the roads current configuration or the original plan. Mike Davis and Jim
Humphrey indicated that the new configuration would eliminate a dangerous curve the currently
exists, and that they both felt the new configuration fits in well with the development that’s
occurring in the area.
At this point, Council Member Burgess wondered why the Committee wasn’t being given a
choice between multiple options. Council Member Mumford reminded her that they had heard
other options in full Council. Mr. Walton then reminded the Committee that this was the plan
recommended by TCC, and Mr. Humphrey added that the TCC had heard the reservations of the
affected property owner, Mr. McKee, and were satisfied that the City had done its best to
minimize effects.
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 26, 2006
Page 3
Council Member Carter expressed concerned that the proposed new configuration would
compress traffic onto Hwy. 160. Jim Humphrey indicated that the traffic studies indicate that the
traffic patterns do not lead to that.
Council Member Turner stated that he thinks the new plan puts the least burden on the
developers, and that he still doesn’t see how this will relieve congestion. Council Member
Mumford responded that he doesn’t see how this benefits Pappas (the largest developer in the
area) any more than the original plan.
Debra Campbell responded that the map the Committee was viewing does not show many of the
surface streets in the area, and that if those could be seen it would be clearer how the new plan
helps alleviate congestion.
Council Member Carter made a motion that the Committee pass the new plan amendment with
the proviso that the full Council gets more complete information before making the final
decision. Turner and Burgess both seconded. The motion was passed, Council Member Turner
opposed.
II. Subject – State Transportation Issues
Jim Humphrey began his presentation with a summary of what it contained, followed by a
reminder of the City’s approach to transportation. He pointed out that the City seeks to
responded to transportation issues in a multi-modal way, and that the City’s transportation and
land use plans in addition to the Centers and Corridors combine to form a fairly comprehensive
approach to transportation.
He pointed out that the City counts on investment from the State to implement these plans. 50%
of transportation funding comes from the Federal government, and an additional 25% from the
State. However, the distribution system is convoluted and complex. He posited that the current
NC “equity formula” can’t fund all our area’s demand, and that some projects will therefore go
unfunded unless other revenue is discovered. Beyond forecasts, highway loops that have already
been authorized by the General Assembly are being underfunded, as is maintenance.
Joint planning and better coordination are needed to minimize these obstacles, but that’s difficult
to do when the road people are in Raleigh.
Humphrey went on to present a series of recommendations that he feels the City should pressure
the state to adopt:
1. Statewide multi-modal plan
2. Refocus state funding, including eliminating the equity formula and distributing based on
need
3. Supporting transit, and pressuring the State to find a dedicated funding source for their
matching dollars
4. Multi-modal treatment of State roads
5. Regional planning and funding, including the strengthening of partnerships
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 26, 2006
Page 4
6. Maintenance, funding it as a top priority
7. Decentralize NCDOT, which would ease things administratively, but also possibly lead
to State goals being more in-tuned with local goals
8. Enhance communication, including the creation of a technical advisory group to the
Board of Transportation
Council Member Turner asked how we make the case to Raleigh that making improvements here
benefit the entire state and not just Charlotte. He also asked if Charlotte was doing as well as
other places. Jim Humphrey added that others struggle with the equity formula as well.
Council Member Mumford expressed skepticism with the approach Jim Humphrey was
suggesting, saying that no city feels as though they get enough money, and that Charlotte may
not be in a position to express dissatisfaction with the current funding approach since we’re the
only city that gets mass transit dollars from it.
Council Member Turner indicated that he felt like Charlotte was being punished since the equity
formula doesn’t give the city any extra even though it’s got three major interstates running
through it.
Council Member Carter indicated that the NCLM is advocating for legislation that would
combine roads and water/sewer for funding purposes. Council Member Burgess pointed out that
the legislation would see one bond referendum for both matters. Council Member Mumford
reminded that the bond would be $1 billion dollars, but that that won’t solve the problem.
Council Member Burgess asked how much the City’s received from the ¢.5 sales tax. She also
asked what’s the probability that the Federal government will approve the new mass transit
corridor, and whether the success of the South Corridor would help?
Jim Humphrey said the City has collected about $60 million, and that the Federal government’s
selection process is straight-up competition.
Council Member Mumford indicated that the State funding was more at risk, and that it might be
taken away to make up for the State’s shortfall. He then indicated that he thinks the State is
getting several hundred million dollars less from the Federal government and that that’s leading
some folks to consider tolls. Council Member Burgess indicated that as she understands it,
federal law prohibits such alternatives. Council Member Mumford responded that it’s State law
that prohibits, but that the point is that any alternative raises questions.
Council Member Turned inquired if there was a funding model anywhere that’s good. He also
asked if other State’s owned their own quarries and, if not, how can they afford to do some of the
things they do. Norm Steinman responded that South Carolina borrows against its own future,
but they won’t be able to fund maintenance with that.
Norm Steinman proposed a schedule of activities to deal with this issue, including a series of
presentations and preliminary recommendations culminating in the Committee drafting
legislation to present to the full Council. He pointed out that the Committee doesn’t necessarily
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 26, 2006
Page 5
have to do all the work themselves, but can look to other high-growth states and piggy back off
the work of advocacy groups like NC Go! and the Surface Transportation Policy Project.
Committee members indicated that they were okay with the schedule he presented.
Council Member Burgess asked about the status of the Garvee bonds. Jim Humphrey indicated
that theState is finishing up the process of establishing the criteria on who qualifies. Finally,
Council Member Burgess asked what part of the plan, politically, would be appropriate for her to
focus on in her upcoming capacity as President of the NCLM? Norm Steinman and Jim
Humphrey indicated that they thought she should research California’s approach.
The committee adjourned at 4:30 pm.
Transportation Committee
Monday, June 26; 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Pat Mumford, Chair
Warren Turner, Vice Chair
Michael Barnes
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Staff Resource:
Curt Walton
Agenda
I.
Dixie River Road and Shopton Road West Thoroughfare Plan Amendment - (Action
Requested)
(Staff Resource: Tim Gibbs)
City staff recently completed a public input process in the Dixie River Road/Shopton Road West
area to more precisely determine the location of the new Dixie River Road/Steele Creek Road
intersection and the relocation of Shopton Road West. Subsequently, City staff is also requesting
that MUMPO amend its Thoroughfare Plan to show a new route for Dixie River Road north of
Steele Creek Road that intersects existing Dixie River Road west of Interstate 485. Therefore,
Councilman Mumford, as Council’s MUMPO representative, will need a directed vote.
II.
State Transportation Issues – (Information Only)
(Staff Resource: Jim Humphrey)
In March 2004, a Blue Ribbon Commission was appointed to study solutions to North Carolina’s
urban transportation needs. Staff will present to the Committee the information the City presented
to the Commission. The Commission’s recommendations, presented to the North Carolina General
Assembly in December 2005, are attached.
Next Meeting:
The next Transportation Committee meeting is scheduled for August 28, 2006 at 3:00 pm. Since
the Committee approved that schedule, the City Manager and City Attorney annual performance
evaluations have been scheduled for that date and time. Staff will poll the Committee members for
your availability for an August meeting at another time.
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Ron Tober
Pamela A. Syfert,
Brenda Freeze
Leadership Team
Jim Humphrey
Boyd Cauble
Debra Campbell
Attachment 1
BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION
TO STUDY NORTH CAROLINA'S
URBAN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
Final Report
REPORT TO THE
2006 SESSION OF THE
2005 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF NORTH CAROLINA
Attachment 1
Findings and Recommendations
Findings
North Carolina's urban areas face many transportation challenges that need to be
addressed in order for our State to be successful in the future. After hearing information
from several sources across the State, the Commission finds:
•
Population growth in North Carolina is the third fastest east of the Mississippi.
•
The North Carolina Department of Transportation reports that vehicle miles
traveled is increasing at about 1.4 times the population growth rate. As a result, if
population doubles or goes up by 100%, demand on highways goes up almost
140%.
•
Longer, cross county commutes are more common. In some cases, more than half
of a county’s commuters exit the county each day to work – examples are Stokes
County to Forsyth County (Winston-Salem) and Franklin County to Wake County
(Raleigh). These daily commuting flows highlight the critical importance that
urban counties possess as the economic engines of the State. Improving urban
mobility is essential for the State's continued economic growth and development.
•
Charlotte is now the second-most congested mid-sized city in the country, behind
only Austin, Texas, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s annual
Urban Mobility report. The Triangle had the nation’s second-largest increase in
commute times over the past decade according to US Census data.
•
Currently, North Carolina's urban areas enjoy high ratings on destination and
company growth lists, but these high rankings will erode without transportation
improvements. Businesses considering locating or expanding in the State rank
mobility as their fourth most important issue.
•
Swift and efficient evacuation routes are a concern in response to weather
emergencies and homeland security. The financial, research and innovation and
power generation/fuel refining assets in North Carolina urban areas may be high
threat targets.
•
Resources fall short of transportation needs by billions of dollars. The State
reports an expected 25-year transportation funding shortfall in excess of $30
billion. The shortfall in the Triangle region alone is expected to approach $8
billion over the next 20 years.
•
North Carolina is a federal transportation fund "donor" state. Even under the
recently enacted federal "SAFETEA-LU" transportation legislation, the State
Attachment 1
sends more in transportation funds to Washington than it receives in return, for
both highways and transit.
•
The current State highway funding allocation formula is not designed to target
resources to those urban and rural areas with critical mobility needs. In addition,
several vital transportation priorities – such as Interstate reconstruction in both
rural and urban areas – currently have no dedicated funding sources.
•
The State has utilized the State Highway Trust Fund for purposes other than
transportation, leaving transportation needs unmet.
•
GARVEE bonds are a financing tool in use in other states that have provided
significant acceleration of federal funding resources.
•
Toll roads have become a vital means of financing highway expansion in areas
across the nation. Orange Co., California has created a 51-mile toll system –
nearly $4 billion worth of freeways – that saves time for 300,000 motorists each
day while serving as a catalyst for economic growth along the toll road corridor.
•
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes – such as the FasTrak express lanes in the
median of I-15 in San Diego – are providing additional funding resources, added
travel options, and an efficient use of existing freeway capacity in growing areas.
•
“Junior freeways” – with lower design standards than Interstates – are providing
signal-free, uninterrupted mobility along several key arterials in San Diego and
other areas with reduced right-of-way and construction costs.
•
Multimodal considerations are becoming more paramount across the State and
nation, from a commuting, recreation, and overall quality-of-life perspective.
•
Several regions are in violation of air quality standards for ozone and fine
particulate matter, including portions of the Charlotte, Triad, and Hickory areas.
Blue Ribbon Commission
on Urban Mobility
Unique Mobility Needs of the
Charlotte Urban Area
June 26, 2006
Jim G Humphrey, PE
Key Business Executive
Charlotte Department of Transportation
Issues to Discuss
• The Charlotte Region & North Carolina’s
Economy
• Growing & Changing
• The Transportation/Land Use Link
• Funding Needs & Challenges
• NCDOT Policy & Practice Needs
• Eight Recommendations
• Results of other groups
• Where do we go from here?
The Charlotte Region
One of North Carolina’s Key Economic Centers
North
Carolina
Charlotte 8 hr.
Non-Attainment
Region
Region as
% of State
2000
Population
8.0 million1
1.6 million
20%
2000
Employment
4.9 million2
0.9 million
18%
1
2
Source: US Census Bureau
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis
One of NC’s Fastest Growing
Regions
Charlotte 8 hr. Non-Attainment Region
Year
Population
# of
Employees
Person Trips per
Day
2000
1.6 million
0.9 million
5.2 million
2030
3.1 million
1.7 million
10.0 million
•94% population growth
•89% employment growth
Charlotte
Vital to NC Economy
• Southeast’s Largest Distribution Center
• Second Largest Financial Center in USA
• Largest Urban Area Between Atlanta and
Washington DC
• Headquarters to 7 Fortune 500 Companies
• 13.7% of State Income Tax
Charlotte’s Population Growth
2000 – 2030
600,000 Æ 950,000
Like adding another…
– St. Louis (348,000) or
– Pittsburgh (335,000) or
– Cincinnati (331,000)
Crossroads of Commerce
6 of NC’s 13
Intermodal
Terminals
located in
Charlotte
Regional Travel
Destination
In 2000…
• 960,000 trips per day
from surrounding
counties
• One in three jobs held
by commuters from
adjacent counties
By 2030…
an additional 1.2 million
trips per day will cross
Mecklenburg County
line
Transportation Legacy
Transportation –
past, present and
future – contributes
to our successful
growth
Transportation/Land Use Integration
Centers and Corridors Plan
1994
Region
Approves
Land Use
Vision
System Plan
2025 Integrated Transit/ Land
Use Plan
Goals
• Support Centers and
Corridors Land Use Vision
• Provide Choices in Mode
of Travel
• Develop a Regional Transit
System
• Support Economic Growth
and Sustainable
Development
Transit Funding Needs
2002 – 2025
Capital Investment
– Costs estimated at $2.9 billion (inflated $)
– Funding:
Federal
$1,624 million (56%)
State
$ 754 million (26%)
Local/Sales Tax
$ 522 million (18%)
Operating Costs
– Net Cost estimated at $3.1 billion (inflated $)
– Funding:
Local/Sales Tax
$1,984 million (64%)
Local/Other
$ 651 million (21%)
State
$ 465 million (15%)
Corridor New Starts Projects
2002 – 2025
Charlotte System Plan assumes NCDOT and CATS will
remain equal partners in sharing non-federal costs
NCDOT Share
Capital $754 M ($34 M/yr)
Operating $465 M ($21 M/yr)
Additional New Starts needs for TTA and PART
Charlotte Multimodal Station
CATS & NCDOT partnership
• AMTRAK station
• Intercity rail and bus
• Commuter rail
• Regional bus
• Local bus
Planning includes opportunities for urban
mixed use development
How the Money Flows
3% Hwy
Use Tax
18.4¢ gas tax
24.4 ¢ diesel tax
24.5¢ fuel tax
25%
NC Highway
Trust Fund
Federal
Funds
STP
Interstate Maint.
Intrastates
Nat’l Hwy System Secondary Rds
Bridges
others
Loops
Transit
CMAQ
Equity Formula
Funding Regions
75%
NC Highway
Fund
Maintenance
Admin/Operations
Transit & Bridges
Roadway Funding Needs
2005 – 2030
Needs
Unfunded
$6.5 Billion
$3.5 Billion
Charlotte $3.5 Billion
$2.0 Billion
Region
(MUMPO)
Equity Formula Can’t Handle
the Need
I-77 @ Nations Ford Rd
$48 million per
year in Equity
Funding
…will not get
us there in
time
VMT & Funding Gap
Insufficient
Funding
Loops are Over-Programmed
• 12 additional projects were made eligible for Urban
Loop funding during the 2003 legislative Session
• When completed, $14 billion (estimated) will have
been spent on Loop projects
• It is anticipated to be 2038 before all of the Loops are
built
Roadway Maintenance
Protecting the Investment
Powell Bill Funding
35,000,000
30,000,000
($)
25,000,000
Fund
Balance
Revenue
20,000,000
15,000,000
Actual
Need
10,000,000
5,000,000
0
*
05
FY
04
FY
03
FY
02
FY
01
FY
00
FY
99
FY
98
FY
97
FY
96
FY
95
FY
• Chronically under
funded
• Spiraling Costs
• Deteriorated
infrastructure
requires costly
reconstruction
• Powell Bill
Formula
Outdated
Fiscal Year
Integrating Transportation and
Land Use
Proper integration can
preserve the mobility
function of the road –
reducing the need to fund
more bypasses & loops
Multi-Modal System Planning
Context Sensitive Design
The Right Design for the Right Location
Regional Collaboration…
…Regional Solutions
Air Quality
Toughest Regional Challenge
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Statewide Multi-Modal Plan
• Increase Transportation Funding
• Support goals of:
– Safety
– High use facilities
– Non-highway facilities
– Maintenance
• Must involve local transportation professionals &
stakeholders
Recommendation 2
Refocus State Funding
• Base Funding on Needs
• Eliminate Equity Formula
• Focus Current State Dollars on:
– Maintenance
– Match Federal Road & Transit Dollars
– Statewide Tier Priorities
– State & Regional Planning
Funding Alignment
Facilities
Current
Statewide
$36.2 B
Regional
$16.5 B
Sub-Regional
$31.0 B
Option
State
State
Regional
Local
Local
Recommendation 3
Support Transit
• Continue 50% share of Non-Federal
project cost for New Starts projects
• Support special projects like Multi-modal
Station and passenger rail enhancements
• Seek a dependable funding source for
state match
Recommendation 4
Multi-Modal Treatment of State Roads
• Partner in developing rapid transit
projects on state roads
• Include pedestrian and bicycle
modes
• Address urban design standards
Multi-Modal Integration into State Roads
Recommendation 5
Regional Planning & Funding
• Authorize Regional Entities to:
– Perform Regional Planning
– Coordinate Transportation and Land Use
– Submit Regional Projects for TIP Funding
– Jointly Fund Regional Projects
• Strengthen Partnerships
– MPOs, RPOs, Cities, Transit Providers, NCDOT
• Authorize New Local Funding Options
Recommendation 6
Maintenance
•
•
•
•
Fund as Top Priority
Standards for Various Road Types
Treat City and State Roads Uniformly
Modify Funding to % Gas Cost
Recommendation 7
Decentralize NCDOT
• Locate Programming and All Elements of Project
Implementation in Economic Centers
• Benefits
– Alignment with Local Goals
– Multi-Modal Approach
– Accessibility to Citizens, Developers, Local
Governments, and others
– Quicker Economic Development Response
– Enhance NCDOT Staff Familiarity with Local Areas
Recommendation 8
Enhance Communication
• Staff and Technology
• Newsletters, E-Mail
• Create Technical Advisory Group
to Board of Transportation
Additional Thoughts…
If we must keep the Equity Formula…
• Revise funding regions to coincide with
Air Quality Conformity areas
• Eliminate language creating windfall $$
• Remove Interstates & U.S. Highways
• Remove Interstate Maintenance
• Remove STP-DA
Additional Thoughts…
Address non-transportation transfers
from Highway Trust Fund
Summary Recommendations
1. Support goals of Statewide
Multi-Modal Plan
2. Refocus State Funding
3. Support Transit
4. Multi-modal treatment of
State Roads
5. Regional planning &
funding
6. Maintenance
7. Decentralize NCDOT
8. Enhance Communication
Council’s Legislative Funding
Strategy - 2005
• Phase out transfer of trust fund
revenue to general fund
• Request NCDOT to create funding
pool to fund highest level statewide
highways. Funding would be
subtracted prior to Equity formula
distribution
• Authorize addition local revenue
options for maintenance and
infrastructure
Council’s Legislative Funding
Strategy cont’d
• Phase out 25% Intrastate equity
formula
• Redefine funding regions
• Address air quality conformity
funding needs – including transit
enhancements
Recommendations of Commissions
Urban Mobility Commission Report
• Identify new funding for transportation
– Suspend transfers from HTF
– Expand authority for toll and HOT lanes
– Seek legislative authorizations for new
infrastructure revenue options at local
level
• Garvee bonds
• Create interstate maintenance fund
not subject to current funding
distribution formula
Recommendations of Commissions
Highway Trust Fund Study Committee
• Complete projects in original highway
trust fund
• Seek revenues to close $30B funding gap
• Recognize need for change – more
projects eligible for HTF
• Provide balanced transportation system
• Greater role for local government to plan
and finance local improvements
Recommendations of Groups
NC Go!
Short Term
• Pass $1B bond and stop diversion from
HTF
Intermediate
• Permit local option funding solutions –
empower citizens to use local resources
and allow tolling of urban loops
• Align NC’s highway use tax with
surrounding states
Recommendations of Groups
NC Go!
Long-Term
• Reform transportation financing
system
– Develop sustainable funding model
– Alternatives to the gas tax – such as
fees for vehicle miles traveled
Other Groups Talking about this
issue…
•
•
•
•
Metropolitan Coalition
Statewide Chambers of Commerce
Charlotte Chamber
Raleigh Chamber
Where do we go from here?
1. Review schedule and
session topics (handout)
2. Consider outside
assistance from Surface
Transportation Policy
Project
3. December deadline?
Schedule and Recommendations
• August – What might we change after
understanding federal/state process?
• September – What might we change after
understanding the MUMPO process?
• October – What might we change after
understanding what other states, regions
and cities are doing?
• November – Presentation of
recommendations to be considered
• December - Approval
Thank You
Charlotte Department of Transportation
June 26, 2006
www.CharMeck.org
State & Local Transportation Planning & Funding – Proposed Schedule
•
June 26th (CDOT – Jim Humphrey)
o Present Blue Ribbon Commission recommendations and recommendation
from other NC legislative or advocacy groups
o Present draft schedule to Transportation Committee
o Summary of recommendations to date
•
August ? (CDOT – Norm Steinman & Andy Grzymski & Ann Canby)
o CDOT and Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) presentation on
Federal and State transportation planning and funding
ƒ Explain the $$$ flow - USDOT (FHWA, FTA), MPO’s
ƒ Explain how federal transportation planning law works in US and how
it is working in North Carolina
ƒ NCDOT Divisions and Funding Areas – geographic areas
ƒ Explain how equity formula works
ƒ Summary of recommendations to date
•
September 25th (CDOT – Norm Steinman & Tim Gibbs)
o CDOT Presentation on MUMPO
ƒ Explain how MPOs are supposed to work and how MUMPO works
ƒ Explain funding challenges and funding gap - what projects are outside
the 25-year funding window under current projected funding?
ƒ Maintenance challenges
ƒ Summary of recommendations to date
•
October 23rd (Ann Canby from STPP)
o Provide brief refresher of federal and state programming and funding
o What are other states, regions and cities doing to fund their transportation plans
and investments?
o How does North Carolina rate against these other states?
o How does the Charlotte region rate against its competitor cities?
o What are North Carolina and Charlotte region not doing that others are doing?
o What should change to make North Carolina and Charlotte more competitive?
o Summary of recommendations to date
•
November 27th (Norm Steinman & Ann Canby)
o Present preliminary recommendations for the state and region for Committee
Discussion
•
December ? (Norm Steinman & Ann Canby)
o Submit Draft Report – Committee recommendations, timetable and
recommended Strategy for implementation