Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for June 9, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy
Connectivity Policy: Initiatives 1 & 2
Air Quality – Attainment and Conformity Implications
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Michael Barnes, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Sidewalk Policy Continued 6.9.08.ppt
Letter from Judith Bratton (Murrayhill Road resident)
Connectivity Policy: New Policies 1 & 2.ppt
Preview of Ozone Attainment Update.ppt
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone in the room to
introduce themselves)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: Thank you everyone for being here today. We are turning
back to the subject from the last meeting - Sidewalk Retrofit Policy.
Vivian Coleman: The Committee asked us to come back and talk about more examples
other than the Murrayhill Road example. There are four classifications of sidewalks and
today we will primarily talk about Tier 3. (Begins reviewing and describing the
“Sidewalk Policy Continued 6.9.08” presentation attached)
Norm Steinman: The vast majority of the time the route that we look at is less than ½
mile long. [referencing the “Tier 3 Analysis Recommendation” slide]
Coleman: That’s correct. That list continues to evolve as we hear from more residents
over time. As we rank projects they move throughout the ranking. So now we would
like to go through some examples and show you how the Tier 3 works and get feedback
from the Committee on this. Remington Street example - Remington Street is the street
in red. The dashed, black line is the ¼ mile radius from each school property. We
calculate what percentage of this street lies within the boundary, which comes out to 92%
of the street. So, it exceeds the 30% thus it becomes a Tier 3 traffic volume such that it
is between 1,000 and 3,000 cars per day. So, we have to consider how we get these
children to the school from Remington Street. The logical connection is the green dotted
line. These examples are all ficticous at this point because have not done the full analysis
as they haven’t ranked high enough yet to be programmed. We are just showing how we
would apply the policy. Next example is Westbury Road and Crosby Road. This is near
Cotswold Shopping Center. If we were to do the analysis you would see that 74% of
Westbury Road and 100% of Crosby Road lies within the boundary. For this project we
look at the blue line, which is an existing sidewalk, and the red line would be where we
propose a sidewalk. The green dotted line would be a connection to Sharon Amity Road
for shopping purposes. So, the green line plus the red line would become the network
and the blue line that exists would bring the network into the school. Does that make
sense so far?
Foxx: Any questions? Let’s keep going.
Coleman: The Coulwood Drive example is a real project. Everything in red will become
a very large network. This connects Coulwood Middle and Paw Creek Elementary. We
have 2 buffer zones because there are 2 schools. All these exceed the 30% boundary.
Another example here is Sommerdale Lane, near Shamrock Road. We are looking at 2
schools in this example. Roughly 50% of Sommerdale Lane lies within the buffer zone.
We would carry an additional sidewalk network, shown in green, and those streets will
carry less than 1,000 cars per day. You really are looking at a lot of options that could
come of this. Staff will make recommendations in the different projects. Tier 3 can be
complex, but we try to choose the most logical solution.
Council Member Michael Barnes: Why would the other option, shown in green, not be
the best option for Sommerdale Lane?
Coleman: It may very well be. It has not been fully analyzed by staff. Until we get out
there and see where the parks may be, where the children are walking, transit and
shopping…
Council Member Susan Burgess: What school is that?
Coleman: Our Lord of Assumption
Burgess: Do you know if that school is open? I think it is closed.
Coleman: I do not know. We would check first. We update the schools each year to
make sure the school is running. Now, Murrayhill Road example is what we brought to
you last week. Staff’s analysis in looking at how children are getting to the school and
how others are walking is to extend the network down western Wedgewood Road.
If they didn’t have this network from Murrayhill Road children would have to cross
Seneca Road twice to get into the front entrance of the school. Staff feels like we need to
have a good quality network that not only addresses the children, but others that are
trying to shop and get to transit.
Burgess: Does this qualify for Safe Walk to School?
Coleman: It could if the school would apply.
Burgess: If that program expanded would that help us?
Coleman: Certainly, any school can apply for that funding. North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) will be issuing more calls for projects soon.
Burgess: So they [the school] have to apply?
Coleman: Yes, but we have provided some assistance in the technical dealings. The
school itself has to be willing to implement it.
Foxx: I know we are here because of my question on why we would change the policy
based on the Murrayhill Road example.
Coleman: It is not so much changes in the policy; it is clarification on how we apply the
Tier 3. We will continue to apply the Tier 3 with the most logical and appropriate
connections. We feel that if we can do an internal process and apply more traffic counts
when we exceed the ½ mile, then we could create those into two different tiers.
However, if the traffic counts fall in that Tier 3 and those blocks are important, we would
continue to apply the Tier 3 as described in the policy.
Foxx: Mr. Dulin do you have any feedback?
Council Member Andy Dulin: Looking at the bottom end of Murrayhill Road, is that
connection already there?
Coleman: No
Dulin: Would that [connection] be put in at the same time as the other connection?
Coleman: Yes
Dulin: If you eliminated the lower Murrayhill Road block would that eliminate the
Wedgewood Road section itself?
Coleman: Yes it would.
Dulin: If you eliminated the lower Murrayhill Road block would you come all the way
down with the sidewalk to Lamont Drive and have that be the eastern terminus?
Coleman: If that block were eliminated then yes, that would be the eastern most
terminus.
Dulin: If terminated at Lamont Road, would you continue to do the connection shown in
green?
Coleman: Yes, we would. That is the best connection point off the street.
Dulin: If terminated at Lamont Road, do you have other places where this good money
will be spent? Would it go to the next person on the list?
Coleman: We have decades to go, so I would say money could be spent elsewhere.
Steinman: Conversely, we would probably take a long time to come back and look at this
again.
Dulin: Along that point, if you eliminated the block on Murrayhill Road between
Lamont Road and Wedgewood Drive is it 30 years or 50 years before this block comes
back up?
Steinman: It is impossible to say. There are so many projects on the priority list with
only so much money.
Dulin: Well, let’s talk about the process of putting in a sidewalk. The process of putting
in a sidewalk is they come and stake it, a back hoe digs it out - making yard debris, and
then a truck comes and pours cement. What does the City do to help get the yard put
back together?
Coleman: The process is to go back, grade, and reseed. There is a warranty period on
the sidewalk.
Danny Pleasant: We’ve been known to transplant plants for people.
Dulin: To that point, there are big beautiful trees on the northern side of this street,
which I assume will be the side you put the sidewalk on.
Coleman: The side has not been chosen. It’s currently being evaluated by staff. We
work very hard to try and preserve trees. We move around the healthy trees.
Steinman: You can usually tell which sidewalks the City has installed. They are hardly
ever in a straight line because we try to work around the trees.
Pleasant: We do that most of the time in the City right-of-way.
Barnes: Is Ms. Bratton here?
Judith Bratton: Yes, I am.
Barnes: I’m reading your letter and I have a couple of questions to staff based on this
letter. There are 400 students at this school and 90% are bused and less than 10 % walk.
It seems the neighborhood doesn’t want the sidewalk and there are plenty of other
neighborhoods that do, so why are we forcing this?
Steinman: There are folks on the eastern most blocks that are opposed. The people on
other blocks are interested in the sidewalk. We have a split inside the neighborhood.
Barnes: It appears that if the sidewalk was terminated at Lamont Drive, you would be
closer to the school for pedestrian connectivity purposes and if you continue down closer
to Wedgewood Road then you are moving further from the school. Is that right?
Coleman: Children from Wedgewood Road would be walking this [referencing “Tier 3
Murrayhill Road Example” slide] route. The blue arrows get you to the school. Right
now they would have to cross Seneca Drive twice to have a safe travel on a sidewalk.
Currently, they are walking in the middle of a travel lane. We looked at the school, but
we are not looking at how many are walking today. It could be many more students
walking tomorrow. They could be using this afterschool and/or on the weekends.
Barnes: Is that based on Charlotte Mecklenburg School’s (CMS) projections or is this
assumption?
Coleman: We don’t look at the CMS projections.
Barnes: What I’m saying is it appears there are less than 40 children walking to that
school at the present time? In order for you guys to conclude that the number will go up,
you have to base that on something.
Steinman: At the moment we don’t know that the CMS policy will change, but there is a
possibility they might change the way they decide who goes to which school.
Barnes: Is it [the school] near capacity?
Pleasant: We don’t know that. It is designated as a magnet school. So a large population
gets bused in today. The latest thing we’ve heard is the superintendant plans to reduce
magnet schools and is also talking about extending the walk zones. It’s hard to think of it
as current versus long term designation. It is also treated as a neighborhood park and
play area. We are looking at the community aspect as well.
Barnes: I appreciate what you are trying to do. Sounds like it will be a spirited debate.
Burgess: The Neighborhood Association is in favor of the sidewalk. It’s for the
community. Ms. Bratton, from your letter you say there are trees in the way? Are those
large trees?
Bratton: There is nothing in the letter about trees.
Burgess: I read about it somewhere.
Bratton: In 2004 we were concerned about the length of Murrayhill Road. We live on
the very last block of Murrayhill Road. There is sidewalk connectivity from Lamont to
Seneca and on the school side of Seneca, the sidewalk continues up Seneca…..
Burgess: I just want to know about trees. I’m assuming that the sidewalks will go
around the trees.
Steinman: Yes
Burgess: I would like Mr. Doss from the Neighborhood Association to tell us why they
are in favor.
Foxx: Quickly, we had 30 minutes allocated for this.
Martin Doss: I was looking at it from the community aspect. The neighborhood is
divided by Tyvola Road. This would allow more safe places to cross the streets. I also
think from looking at the Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG) and Transportation
Action Plan (TAP) the sidewalks fit in.
Foxx: Alright Julie, there is no action requested by the Committee, correct?
Julie Burch: That is correct.
Pleasant: We are open to your direction. We want to make sure you feel comfortable
with how the policy is laid out and how the tiers are used. We welcome being tested. I
will look at the last block of Murrayhill Road myself and keep as an open item for a
while.
Burch: Mr. Foxx, what we would do is simply present it as a Committee information
report to the full Council. It will indicate the Committee has reviewed this and are taking
a closer look at Murrayhill Road until the public meeting.
Bratton: Will I hear from you, Mr. Pleasant, before that public meeting?
Pleasant: I think I would like to hear the public first.
Bratton: So I won’t hear from you?
Pleasant: I would like to go through the public process first.
Bratton: That’s not what I understood. Have you scheduled the meeting?
Coleman: We have not scheduled the meeting yet. You can expect it probably in about 2
months.
Foxx: I think it is appropriate for you [Danny Pleasant] to touch base with Ms. Bratton
first.
Pleasant: Okay.
Foxx: Now let’s get into the “Connectivity Policies: New Policies 1 & 2” presentation.
Matt Magnasco: We will go through the full 1st policy. (Begins reviewing and describing
“Connectivity Policies: New Policies 1 & 2” presentation attached)
Foxx: Regarding the “Identify & Protect City-owned Parcels” slide, does the current
policy state that Real Estate can just relinquish properties?
Magnasco: Real Estate sends out a comment list first. By doing it this way, we preempt
that process so the parcel doesn’t even come up and make it that far.
Burgess: Are you going to look at existing barricades?
Magnasco: Like?
Burgess: The one on Kingston? It makes no sense.
Steinman: We are looking at doing something relatively easy first.
Burgess: But when a barricade makes no sense, why would we not look at it?
Steinman: Well, there is always two view points. Matt has a map in his office with
potential connectivity projects that he is evaluating. If you get time to look at the criteria
again you will see the important factor is neighborhood support or opposition.
Magnasco: Take the barricade on Redman Road for example. From an engineering
perspective, removing it would make a lot of sense; politically, there would be a lot of
neighborhood opposition.
Steinman: So what we are looking at in a lot of the cases is - is there some change that
needs to take place in the land use or neighborhood before we actually make the change.
Usually it is not a technical issue that needs to be solved, it is political.
Pleasant: We just established the Connectivity Program so we are not eager to go after
the harder projects. There are two point-of-views. Something like Kingston may be
worth examining, but right now it is a little more than what we want to bite off.
Burgess: No, it makes no sense.
Foxx: I think Mayor Pro Tem wants you to look at it.
Steinman: We will look at it.
Pleasant: We will bring back information on that situation.
Magnasco: (Continues reviewing presentation)
Carter: Do public utilities have that same potential abandonment as does the
homeowner?
Magnasco: I don’t know what the legislation is for utility right-of-way.
Carter: It doesn’t fall under the same thing?
Magnasco: I don’t think so.
Carter: What about a transitional right-of-way?
Magnasco: That is a separate issue and it is created out of zoning.
Pleasant: It doesn’t get treated the same.
Magnasco: (Continues reviewing the presentation)
Foxx: Are these changes [references “Change General Statute on Withdrawals” slide]
pending before the General Assembly?
Magnasco: No, they are not.
Foxx: This is stuff you would ask us to support?
Magnasco: That’s right. Some other input we would like to get from the Committee is
should the City take over some of the paper streets for maintenance to help eliminate
some of the withdrawals. This is just something to think about. We don’t need an
answer today.
Burgess: What does it mean? How much maintenance? How much would we have to do
with it?
Steinman: That is a good question because there is a difference of opinion on that. It
depends on what the property looks like. In the case of Iverson Way you are maintaining
a patch of forest. In other cases you are maintaining an alley, so it’s like a small street and
has other requirements. In the case of The Plaza and Chantilly it is sort of a blend. We
are still trying to sort this out.
Burgess: Could you just take a lawn mower and clean it up?
Steinman: We might do a little bit of trimming, but I doubt the City would do that every
time. One of the reasons we have to sort this out is some people would say ‘wait a
minute, if you trim these bushes too much we will have people walking through here and
we are not sure that we want it that way,’ others might say ‘if we don’t trim the bushes
you might have people in here that you don’t want in there.’
Carter: I think the budget impact would be enormous.
Steinman: We are trying to work with Engineering and Landscape Management to get
some information on what the City would possibly spend.
Carter: This might be strategic targeting prioritization.
Steinman: That’s right. Many of these are dormant right now and we are not concerned
about them. But, we want to protect some land so it doesn’t get lost at/or about the 15
year period.
Pleasant: We have lots of paper streets and often times through infill lots we find
opportunity. But as you know, infill type projects have their own controversy. Paper
streets are a significant resource for the City. So, we are in a bit of a dilemma. We are
mindful and thoughtful about future impacts.
Burgess: Does a withdrawal have to be done by the property owner?
Magnasco: I believe it has to be done by an abundant property owner.
Carter: Could we change the statute to 30 years?
Magnasco: Yes, that could be another alternative.
Carter: Infill might be the keyword to build out.
Steinman: And that would be an interesting political question to see if there is more
opposition of that or to these kinds of changes that make it slightly harder.
Carter: Temporary fix, maybe renewal?
Steinman: That’s an interesting idea because if the local government were contacted we
could say ‘no, you may not have any plans right now, but you still have a purpose for this
land later.’ Currently, there is no notification to the City. Someone literally can just go
to the courthouse and say this property hasn’t been used by the State and put in a
withdrawal.
Foxx: Okay we have 10 more minutes to go through Policy 2.
Magnasco: I wasn’t intending to do that one, but I can if the Committee would like too.
Foxx: Yes let’s do it since Nancy and I were the only ones here last time; it might be
beneficial.
Magnasco: (Begins reviewing Policy 2 in your agenda package)
Barnes: What are the 27 candidate projects [referencing “Prioritize Connectivity Capital
Projects” slide]? Can you email a list to us?
Magnasco: I can certainly do that.
Steinman: These are almost always relatively short connections that we typically
consider to be local streets. These are not thoroughfares.
Magnasco: They are typically a few hundred feet in length.
Burgess: Are you including projects in Sherwood Forest that is connecting with the bike
route?
Magnasco: That one I’m not doing, but I am giving ranked projects to our bicycle and
pedestrian folks for them to evaluate as well. It may be that as a street it might be
infeasible for one reason or another. (continues reviewing presentation)
Carter: In reference to the “Densify Street Network” slide, as you go through the
neighborhood projects I expect that you add counting devices immediately to get traffic
counts.
Magnasco: That is covered in more detail in a later policy, which is assessing and
addressing perceived impacts.
Pleasant: To do the project you have to have counter activity.
Carter: Are you including in your matrix Council priorities, economic development and
transit issues that we raise to a certain level?
Magnasco: Some yes, some no. The matrix is mostly the engineering relationships, but
is linked to the TAP and Centers, Corridors and Wedges, but for the larger context of
Economic Development or Affordable Housing - no.
Carter: May I suggest that you add it to your awareness?
Pleasant: We will add it either to the matrix or as a supplemental item.
Steinman: It could also go as an intangible. It could be that the district representative
feels it’s extremely important to accomplish whatever the policy is. Most of the criteria
is about accessibility, connectivity and land uses - things of that nature.
Foxx: Danny, Norm, and Matt, I like the transparency of this approach. In the past I’ve
looked at the priority of roads and have seen things that come up on our budgets. My
concern is staff may be playing politics with the list. Can you dissuade or confirm my
concerns?
Pleasant: I have had to say political considerations today more than I like to hear from
staff. Matt made a comment about the top item, Starmount [referring to “A Sample of
Candidate Projects” slide]. It went through the SCIP program and we were able to
populate Council chambers that night. We use the information already provided for us to
steer our decisions. Prioritizing roads for funding starts with evaluations based on the
criteria and the TAP. Our needs are so deep that we move in and out based on the data
starting with quantitative analysis. We also look to see if we have started planning, has
there been construction, and is it partially funded. We do keep an eye on it because we
have needs all over the City.
Foxx: I raise that question because, for example, we are struggling to get the I-485 loop
completed. There is a circumferential road that is planned for Alexander Boulevard and
if it were completed it would provide some flow of traffic. We’ve been doing this project
in pieces but the whole project has not been proposed for funding.
Steinman: The reason is the cost of the project. We can only afford to do a certain
segment to make it usable between a major thoroughfare and the next major
thoroughfare. We could easily use up the entire allocation of 1 or 2 bonds to try to finish
that project. From a technical standpoint we couldn’t justify that at this time.
Foxx: My point is, when I see the budget I hope we are doing what is the best use of the
limited money we have for roads, not the political answer.
Steinman: We would love to give you a much more detailed presentation on that. Fred
B. Alexander is the perfect example. We recommended that the next construction project
on Freedom Drive on the Little Rock Road realignment be incorporated into this bond
because without those whatever would be done by the City, on the Fred B. Alexander
section, wouldn’t accomplish anything.
Foxx: I would like to suggest a follow up discussion on this if no one objects.
Barnes: Yes, I think you are raising a good issue.
Steinman: In this Committee?
Foxx: Yes. Well, we have about 7 minutes to discuss air quality.
Steinman: Well, we changed it just a little bit today. I want to give you a preview of
what you might want to ask. You will get a lot of information tonight from the folks of
the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ). (Begins reviewing and describing
the “Preview of Ozone Attainment Update” presentation attached) County line has been
one of the worst ones. Garinger has been about the second worst. We are supposed to be
at 84 parts per billion (ppb) for the readings, those are 96 ppb and 93 ppb.
Barnes: Is County line Cabarrus and Mecklenburg? My district?
Steinman: Yes. The news used to be very good until about 2004 and then it got awful
because we had very hot, dry summers. 85 ppb is where we are supposed to be. To make
matters even more interesting the EPA is already working on the next standard, which
will bring down the ppb to 75. My goal here is to give you possible questions for tonight.
First, what sense of confidence can they give you that their plan will actually get to
attainment? And attainment is demonstrating no violations. Second question is, based on
the trends, are we likely to get to attainment? The trends are not going in the right
direction. Third question is what might happen?
Barnes: Regarding question 2, are the trends factoring in some sort of a reasonable
historic projection? Gas prices keep going up; I see fewer cars on the road. Are they
basing these trends on what gas prices were like 5 years ago?
Steinman: No, this is what has actually been measured. What we are seeing now is that
people are either trading in their gas guzzling trucks and SUV’s or leaving them at the
dealer to get a smaller vehicle that isn’t as gas consuming. The good news with that is
the smaller vehicle, hybrid or gas efficient, pollute a lot less. So, that trend can overcome
this trend as long as the wind and heat conditions are right. One factor that we are
constantly dealing with here is growth. Engines are getting cleaner, the smoke stack bill
has reduced emissions in power plants, but all the increase in people using barbecues,
cleaners, automobiles and lawnmowers - it makes it harder. Over time the trend has been
very good, but we have had 4 years that have not been good.
Carter: Since South Carolina is suing us over water, why don’t we sue them for not
controlling emissions on their cars?
Steinman: That’s up to the state of North Carolina, but even that might not necessarily
mean we obtain the standard.
Pleasant: In North Carolina they allocate budgets for various pollutants by county.
Foxx: Any other critical details?
Steinman: Only the last one here and this will be a difficult question for DAQ to answer
because they have to say with confidence that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) will
achieve attainment. The difficulty they face is they are battling the trend. Last question
to consider is what else is the DAQ thinking about in case the City does not achieve
attainment by 2010? This isn’t that far away. We are already in 2008. The only thing
left to measure is the summer ozone seasons this year and next year. Then there will be
an average and that will be the information that determines attainment or not by 2010.
Barnes: It’s going to be ugly.
Burch: We are not off to a good start already. We have a code orange day today and
tomorrow.
Pleasant: My question, process wise, is when it goes to Council, is it better referred here
or Environment Committee?
Burch: We are not asking for a referral this evening. We are suggesting that the Manager
might want to refer it to a Committee. At the end of the day that is for the Council to
decide.
Foxx: This gives us something to be thinking about between now and then.
Burch: We have some overlap on Committee memberships.
Foxx: Alright, well we really appreciate that presentation. Norm, can you please print
that slide for me? I would like to take it to the meeting tonight.
Steinman: Yes
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
Attachment 1
City of Charlotte
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy
Transportation Committee
June 9, 2008
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy was adopted on May 23, 2005.
F
Four
classifications
l
ifi ti
off Sid
Sidewalk
lk Prioritization:
P i iti ti
•
•
•
•
Tier 1: Thoroughfares
Tier 2: Streets with daily traffic volumes greater than or
equal to 3000
Tier 3: Streets near a park or school and with daily traffic
volumes between 1000 and 3000
Tier 4: Streets with daily traffic volumes less than 3000
(Petition needed for Tier 4)
1
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Two primary issues:
1. Number of traffic count locations needed to justify sidewalk
category and installation.
installation
2. Clarification of Tier 3 category.
Traffic Count Issue
Current Practice:
Highest
Hi
h
traffic
ffi count volume
l
used
d for
f Tier
Ti 3 and
d Tier
Ti 4
sidewalk requests.
Recommendation:
If street is over ½ mile, take 1 count per ½ mile radius of
street.
2
Tier 3 Analysis
Current Practice:
• Street section is identified.
• If 30% or more of the street is located within the ¼ mile
radius of the school/park property, street is classified as
Tier 3.
• The most logical pedestrian route from that street to the
school/park are identified (with staff and public input) and
included in the project.
• If route includes a street of fewer than 1000 vehicles per
day, the lesser volume blocks will be included in the
project.
Tier 3 Analysis Recommendation
• If blocks with fewer than 1000 cars per day are
part of the logical network, staff will include in
project and construct sidewalk to:
– Logical terminus (not in the middle of a block).
– Provide the most logical access route.
3
Tier 3 Analysis Recommendation
• Number of streets on priority list over ½ mile:
Tier 3 = 23 of 64 (6 over 1 mile)
Tier 4 = 1 of 9
• Total # of streets on Tier 2-4 Priority List: 146
Tier 3 – Remington St
Tier 3 Request
Logical Connection
Existing Sidewalk
¼ mi. Buffer
School Entrance
Total Length: 0.53 mi
% in Buffer: 0.49 mi
(92%)
4
Tier 3 – Westbury Rd & Crosby Rd
Tier 3 Request
Logical Connection
Existing Sidewalk
¼ mi. Buffer
School Entrance
Westbury Rd:
Total Length: 0.33 mi
% in Buffer: 0.22 mi
(74%)
Crosby Rd:
Total Length: 0.13 mi
% in Buffer: 0.13 mi
(100%)
Tier 3 – Coulwood Dr
Tier 3 Request
Logical Connection
Existing Sidewalk
¼ mi. Buffer
School Entrance
Couldwood Dr:
Total Length: 0.79 mi
% in Buffer: 0.30 mi
(38%)
Kentberry Dr:
Total Length: 0.75 mi
% in Buffer: 0.70 mi
(93%)
Gum Branch Dr:
Total Length: 0.78 mi
% in Buffer: 0.46 mi
(59%)
5
Tier 3 – Sommerdale Ln
Tier 3 Request
Logical Connection
Existing Sidewalk
¼ mi. Buffer
School Entrance
Total Length: 0
0.62
62 mi
% in Buffer: 0.35 mi
(57%)
Tier 3 – Murrayhill Rd
Tier 3 Request
Logical Connection
Existing Sidewalk
¼ mi. Buffer
School Entrance
Total Length: 1
1.33
33 mi
% in Buffer: 0.74 mi
(55%)
6
Tier 3 Murrayhill Road Example
7
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Connectivity:
New Policies 1 and 2
June 9, 2008
Agenda
• Recap of Street Connectivity Program from
4/24/08 Transportation Committee meeting
• Discussion of new Policy 1
• Discussion of new Policy 2
Discussions of new Policies 3, 4, and 5 will occur at
subsequent Transportation Committee meetings.
1
Recap of 4/24/08
Presentation
The Four Functions of Connectivity
• Provide mobility to transportation network users
o d accessibility
a
b y to
o abutting
abu
g properties/land
p op
/a d
• Provide
uses
• Provide resiliency of transportation network
• Provide redundancy of transportation network
2
Goals of
Street Connectivity Program
1. Implement Transportation
Action Plan (TAP) Objective
#2.9
2. Densify street network
3. Reduce vehicle-miles of
travel (VMT)
• Fulfilling these 3 goals:
– Provides route choices
– Distributes traffic
– Helps to link land uses
Summary of Policies
Goal: To define the 5 specific policies that comprise
the comprehensive set of Connectivity Policies
• Maintain existing opportunities for connectivity
• Prioritize connectivity capital projects
• Mitigate actual or perceived impacts of connectivity
• Improve future opportunities for connectivity and
map strategic connections
• Lessen hardships that prevent connectivity
3
New Policy 1:
Maintain
M
int in Current
C ent Oppo
Opportunities
t nitie
for Connectivity
Maintain Current Opportunities for Connectivity
Purpose of this Policy
• To preserve opportunities for new/additional:
–
–
–
–
–
Streets
Bicycle and/or pedestrian connections
Greenways or access points for greenways
Multi-use trails (e.g., South Corridor trail)
Emergency-vehicle-only routes
• To play “better defense” and retain what we have
– Rights-of-way
– City property
• To preserve ROW or land that would facilitate
future connectivity
4
Maintain Current Opportunities
for Connectivity
• Preserve existing platted
rights-of-way
– Maintained streets
– Paper streets
Paper Street:
Platted ROW without
a street in it
• Use a consistent basis for
evaluating abandonment
petitions
• Proactively
y identify
y Cityy
owned parcels to retain
• Change N.C. General Statute
about Withdrawals of ROW
Preserve Platted Rights-of-way
• Implement more stringent reviews of
abandonment petitions
• Keep
K
ROW’s
ROW’ for
f future
f t
connectivity
ti it unless
l
clearly
l
l
not needed for network
• Review abandonments based on TAP Objective
#2.9 and Subdivision Ordinance
– Evaluate for consistency with TAP/Subdivision Ordinance
– Make evaluations more consistent
5
Preserve Platted Rights-of-way
(cont.)
• TAP Consistency factors
– Reductions in VMT
– Multi-modal
Multi modal connection choices
– Connections to complementary land use(s)
• Subdivision Ordinance consistency factors
– Consistency with adopted City plans and policies
– Allowances for hardships in making connections
• Definitions
D fi iti
off these
th
hardships
h d hi being
b i
refined
fi d
Preserve Paper Streets:
Review per TAP
Is abandonment
consistent with
TAP?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
TAP Policy
Policy 2.9.2: The City will require street or subdivision designs that provide for
public access,
access ingress,
ingress and egress by interconnecting streets,
streets bike paths,
paths and
walkways within developments and with adjoining developments
Policy 2.9.3: The City will continue to require that the proposed street system will
be designed to provide a network of interconnected streets so as to facilitate the
most advantageous development of the entire area. Stub streets will be provided to
adjacent properties in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Cul-de-sacs
and other permanently dead-end streets are permitted where certain conditions
offer no practical alternative to connectivity.
Policy 2.9.4: The City intends for existing and new residential developments to be
connected by streets and/or bikeways and pedestrian systems in order to reduce
vehicle miles of travel (VMT)
vehicle-miles
(VMT). This will help accommodate travel between new
residential developments and nearby schools, neighborhood/community centers,
transit stops, parks, bikeways, commercial land uses, office developments, and
other compatible land uses and developable lands.
Policy 2.9.6: The City will preserve the existing and future connected street system
by protecting individual existing street connections and platted non-existing
streets, and will consider restoring appropriate street, bicycle, and pedestrian
connections that were previously severed.
6
Preserve Paper Streets:
Review per Subdivision Ordinance
Is abandonment
consistent with
Subdivision
Ordinance?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Subdivision Ordinance Code Section
Section 6.200.1: All subdivision of land approved under [the Subdivision
y
p
ppublic pplans and
Ordinance] should be consistent with the most-recently-adopted
policies for the area in which it is located. This includes general policy regarding
development objectives for the area as well as specific policy or plans for public
facilities such as streets, parks and open spaces, schools, and other similar
facilities.
Section 6.200.2: The proposed street system shall be design to provide a network
of interconnected streets so as to facilitate the most advantageous development of
the entire neighboring area. Stub streets shall be provided to adjacent properties
where feasible. The proposed street system shall extend existing streets on their
proper projects. Cul-de-sacs shall not be used to avoid connection with an
existing street or to avoid future extension. Cul-de-sacs and other permanently
dead-end streets are permitted where one or more of the following conditions
offer no practical alternative for connectivity:
Topographical conditions
Environmental conditions
Property shape
Property accessibility
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
Land use relationships
Section 6.200.7: Streets should be designed or walkways dedicated to ensure
convenient access to parks, greenways, playgrounds, schools, and other places of
public assembly. Dedicated walkways may not be less than 15 feet in width…
Section 7.160: …In the event that a vehicular connection is impractical, a
pedestrian and/or bicycle connection may be required.
Identify & Protect
City-owned Parcels
• Use GIS to identify all City-owned properties
• Cross-reference parcels identified with plans for
proposed streets
–
–
–
–
–
Thoroughfare plan
Collector plan
Area plans
Stub Street locations
Etc.
• Require Real Estate not to sell or relinquish the
parcels identified as important for connectivity
7
Change General Statute
on Withdrawals
• North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 136-96
states that:
– If a right-of-way is not opened (used for the general
public) within 15 years, it is de facto abandoned
– After 15 years, abutting property owner can file
Declaration of Withdrawal at Register of Deeds’ office
– Right-of-way is then added to declarant’s property
– Right-of-way does not split like an abandonment
• NCGS does not require City approval or review
• Burden of proof is placed on declarant (conflict of
interest)
• Majority of withdrawable ROW’s are inside Rt. 4
Change General Statute on Withdrawals
How Public ROW Is Created
• Subdivision Process
– New streets created through Subdivision process
– Almost 100% of new local streets created this way
• 3-step process for creating new public streets
1. Preliminary Plan (construction plan) approval
2. Record plat dedicates right-of-way to public entity
3. Acceptance for maintenance makes street public
• M
Many platted/dedicated
l tt d/d di t d ROW’s
ROW’ do
d nott have
h
streets in them
– Alleys
– Unopened public streets (“paper streets”)
8
Change General Statute on Withdrawals
Unopened Rights-of-Way
Paper St
P
Streett in
i
Madison Park
(Longwood Dr.)
Alley in Chantilly
(off Bascom St.)
ROW continues
through underbrush
Change General Statute
on Withdrawals
• Withdrawal statute (136-96) however does
reference Thoroughfare Plan statute (136-66.2)
• Thoroughfare Plan can stop a withdrawal
– Right-of-way must be identified as existing or future
thoroughfare
– A City/MPO must furnish this information on request
– Burden of proof is on declarant
• Collector Plan or Area Plan cannot stop a
withdrawal
– NCGS does not grant force of law to these plans
9
Change General Statute
on Withdrawals
• Proposed changes are substantive and procedural
– Local streets are important to transportation system
– Allow area plans and collector plans (and similar) to
have same weight as thoroughfare plans for purposes of
withdrawals
– Require an adopted resolution by municipality/county as
part of filing a withdrawal
• Is ROW on thoroughfare plan? Yes/No
• Is ROW on collector plan? Yes/No
• Is ROW on area plan?
l
Yes/No
/
• 15-year premise is not changed
Change General Statute
on Withdrawals
• Need Committee’s input on the following:
– Should City accept paper streets and/or alleys for
maintenance?
• Section 6.203 of City Code allows City Manager to accept
any street within the City Limits
• Maintained streets cannot be withdrawn
• Potential impacts
– Would impose additional requirements on Landscape
M
Management
t and
d Street
St
t Maintenance
M i t
– What about existing encroachments?
10
Change General Statute on Withdrawals
Examples
Alley in Wesley Heights
Iverson Way in
Sedgefield & Dilworth
Alley in Elizabeth
The Plaza in Chantilly
New Policy 2:
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
11
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects
Purpose of this Policy
• To spend CIP money where it is most effective
• To
o develop
d
op a consistent
o
basis
ba
for
o evaluating
a ua g
connectivity projects
• To have City Council endorse the prioritization
criteria
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
• Staff has already developed evaluation matrix
a ua o of
o potential
po
a projects
p oj
based
ba d on
o technical
a
• Evaluation
merits of project
• Used to select Connectivity CIP projects
12
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
• 5 Criteria
–
–
–
–
–
Connect land uses
Promote modal split
Densify road network
Reduce VMT
Constructability
• Reduction in VMT is most important
• 27 candidate projects ranked so far
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Connect Land Uses
• Encourage trips that can be
made on local streets
• Important to connect
different but complementary
land uses
• Less important to connect
same land uses
• Proximity function weights
closer land-use pairs more
13
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Promote Modal Split
• Evaluate how well a connection
links 2 or more modes of
transportation
–
–
–
–
–
–
Vehicular
Fixed-guideway transit
Bus route
Greenway
Bike facility
Sid
Sidewalk/multi-use
lk/
lti
path
th
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Densify Street Network
• Increase number of connections to
one major road
• IIncrease number
b off connections
ti
to
t
several major roads
• Remove traffic from signalized, highaccident, and high-congestion
intersection(s) wherever possible
• Inside or outside Route 4
14
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Constructability
• Cheaper projects assumed to be easier to build
• Creek crossings
o
g important,
po a , but
bu also
a o more
o
expensive
• Avoid ROW acquisition as much as possible
• Incorporate a cost/benefit factor
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Intangibles & Bonus Points
• Points unrelated to the inherent merits of the
connection – the intangibles
–
–
–
–
Known HOA support?
Known HOA opposition?
Requests for connection by third parties
Unlocks inaccessible land?
• CDOT would seek feedback from District
councilmember
– Neighborhood support or opposition?
15
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
A Sample of Candidate Projects
Candidate Project
Area of City
Raw Score
Rank
(125 = max)
(Out of 27)
Starmount/Huntingtowne
F
Farms
Connector
C
t
Little Sugar Creek
(South Charlotte)
55.2
12
Lawing School Road
Extension
Mt. Holly-Hsvl. Rd
(NW Charlotte)
66.4
4
Lamont/Longwood
Connector
Madison Park
48.8
19
Polk & White Road
E tension
Extension
Mallard Creek/
University
60.0
8
Scaleybark Station
Area
56.4
11
Brookshire/I-485
56.8
10
Herriot Ave.
Overlook Mountain Dr.
Extension
Questions?
16
Attachment 4
Preview of Ozone Attainment Update
Presented to Council’s Transportation
Committee
June 9, 2008
Norm Steinman, CDOT
Background
• North Carolina Division of Air Quality prepared
State Implementation Plan in 2007 to show how
Charlotte area will meet ozone standard by 2010
– Effectively the end of 2009 ozone season
• DAQ is responsible for demonstrating the
effectiveness of strategies in SIP
1
4th-Highest 8-hour Ozone
in 2007
Enochville
96
Rockwell
96
85Crouse
96 County
Line
93Garinger
87 Arrowood
82 Monroe
York
Metrolina Regional 4th-High Ozone Trend
115
110
108
107
105
*The 4th highest ozone recorded
each year in the Charlotte area, not
necessarily the same monitor
110
105
05
*Note:
*N
t th
the average off 3 consecutive
ti
points is compared to the ozone
standard
103
Ozone (ppb)
100
101
98
96
95
93
90
90
85
85
80
75
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
2
Metrolina Regional 4th-High Ozone Trend
115
110
108
107
105
*The 4th highest ozone recorded
each year in the Charlotte area, not
necessarily the same monitor
110
105
*Note:
*N
t th
the average off 3 consecutive
ti
points is compared to the ozone
standard
103
Ozone (ppb)
100
101
98
96
95
93
90
90
85
85
80
75
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
Change in Ozone Standard
• On March 12, EPA announced it is revising the 8-hour
“primary”
primary ozone standard
standard, to a level of 75 parts per billion
(ppb).
• The previous standard was effectively 84 ppb
3
345 monitored counties violate the new 8-hour ozone today
Possible Questions Tonight
• Will the SIP guarantee attainment?
a d on
o trends,
d , will attainment
a a
occur
o u by 2010?
0 0
• Based
• What else will DAQ propose to increase our
chances of attainment?
4