Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for May 27, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
Charlotte Pedestrian Plan
Connectivity Policy: Initiatives 1 & 2
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
I.
II.
III.
Pedestrian Plan Transportation.ppt
Sidewalk Transportation.ppt
Connectivity Policy: New Policies 1 & 2.ppt
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order)
Chairman Anthony Foxx: Let’s go ahead and get started.
Norm Steinman: I would like to introduce Vivian Coleman. Vivian is the Pedestrian
Program Manager, which means she is responsible for the sidewalk program but she is
also an advocate for anything that we can do to make travel for pedestrians better.
Vivian Coleman: Today we will talk about the pedestrian plan and then move in and talk
about a short term issue we have with the sidewalk retrofit policy. (Begins reviewing and
describing the “Pedestrian Plan” presentation in the agenda package) We are here today
to talk about better walkability. How do we get our residents and visitors walking around
in a more safe, comfortable and connected mode?
Council Member Nancy Carter: [Referencing the “Advisory Team” slide] The active
living interests, would that be the senior citizens?
Coleman: It is a lot of the Mecklenburg County Health Department groups. We had Fit
City Challenge and some others from the Health Department.
Carter: The only one I’m not seeing is the senior citizens.
Coleman: We had a senior that was part of the Council district.
Carter: Hopefully he/she was vocal.
Coleman: (Continues reviewing and describing presentation) Now we get into some of
the issues we have regarding sidewalk replacements. You will see three examples on the
“Sidewalk Replacement” slide of Woodlawn Road. We do not have a requirement to
replace substandard sidewalk at backup curb or with little or no planting strip when we
put in a brand new development. It is very uncomfortable for the residents to walk along
those areas. The residents want to see the example on bottom right of the slide, used in
their area.
Carter: Is this all along Woodlawn Road?
Coleman: Yes, it is all along Woodlawn and Scaleybark. We are talking with our City
Attorney to see what we can ask for in terms of replacement when you have an existing
sidewalk that is substandard.
Foxx: Have you looked at pervious surfaces that could be used as material for
sidewalks? I am thinking from an environmental and health perspective.
Coleman: We are starting to do some of that. We will be experimenting with rubber
sidewalks soon and we are looking for candidate locations right now. We are looking at
other technologies with cost benefits.
Council Member Susan Burgess: Rubber sidewalks around trees?
Coleman: Yes. We are looking at locations where you have a buckling of a sidewalk.
This material is supposed to move with the tree roots. It will be a long-term test.
Burgess: Don’t you have some of those at intersections where there is a curb cut?
Coleman: Those are the truncated domes. Those are actually for the visually impaired
persons.
Steinman: The top layer is rubber that is nailed down.
Carter: Greenville, S.C. has a wonderful walking trail. It has to be at least 2 years old
and it might be a good study.
Coleman: It might be good for us to add a recommendation as well.
Danny Pleasant: It [rubber] is easier to put in than gravel. We are always looking for
new opportunities to give us longevity and to be environment friendly.
Coleman: (Begins reviewing “Infill Lot” slide) McDonald Avenue in Dilworth is the
perfect example. If you have driven down this street, you have seen a number of tear
down houses and houses being put back up. This would have been a great opportunity to
have the developer put in a sidewalk. The rough cost to the developer if you have a 60
foot lot frontage is $2,400. Our cost to install the sidewalk would be 6 times that.
McDonald Ave. is on our sidewalk list and will be programmed this year or next year and
will cost roughly $500,000. 70% of the lots on McDonald Ave. have been under
substantial renovation. Internal Connections [Reference “Internal Connections” slide] is
another category we need assistance with. There aren’t good internal connections
between all the facilities in the outparcels and strip mall behind it. We need
enhancements to our codes that allow true connections between all these buildings to
allow pedestrians to get through this massive parking lot.
Burgess: While we are at it, can we look at strengthening our tree requirements in
parking lots?
Steinman: One of the things we are looking at is converting driveways or drive aisles to
look like streets. The roadway begins to look more like a street because it would have a
sidewalk, planting strip, and lighting. These may or may not be public, they could be
private.
Coleman: The Park Road Shopping Center and the new Wal-Mart at Wilkinson Blvd.
have some really nice internal connections. Planning staff did a great job to get the
connections out to the street as well. The City of Raleigh did a project where they
actually got street trees back into the parking lots.
Burgess: That’s what I’m talking about.
Coleman: Now, connections to public streets. It is in the code that a building must
connect to a public street via a sidewalk system. But, we are missing some opportunities.
We are finding through some of the developments and review that we are not getting all
the connections that the code will require. We have an example here of multi-family
condominiums [referencing the “Connections to Public Street” slide] and there is
supposed to be a sidewalk connection if you have four units or more. The site plans show
a sidewalk connection, but as you can see there is no sidewalk. Therefore, something
happened, something was missed. This is where we need to take every opportunity to
strengthen the codes and strengthen the review.
Carter: When you find these instances where the mandate is not followed, I want a list of
those developers so when they come to us we can say to them, you didn’t follow these
prescriptions, we will have a hard time rezoning. I will not accept this.
Coleman: You will find that in some of our large expansions sidewalks are not being
required and we need to evaluate that too. What could be a threshold to force the
developer to put in a sidewalk when they are doing a large scale redevelopment? I
believe you went with us on the walk for the Safe Routes to School and there was that
one development that was not required to do sidewalks and they probably should have
been.
Carter: It was very interesting to see that sidewalk cut through the proposed
redevelopment. That’s dangerous. There was no sidewalk to accommodate children.
Burgess: Cotswold?
Carter: Yes
Coleman: We have to strengthen our codes in the way they are written. We should also
strengthen our assignment responsibility of who actually enforces these codes. Code
enforcement will not review anything where you have Bermuda grass covering the
sidewalk, unless it’s 12 inches tall. We hear from residents that they ‘just want to walk
on their sidewalk with total access of the space.’
Foxx: Whose responsibility is it, ours?
Coleman: It’s up to the property owner. But it also takes the resources and staff to go
out and do the violations.
Foxx: For example, there is a tree on the backup curb into the sidewalk and the root
system creates a big bulge in the sidewalk, that’s also the property owner’s
responsibility?
Coleman: If it’s in the public system our street maintenance crew will go back in and repour the sidewalk.
Pleasant: Literal reading tells us property owners are responsible for sidewalk
maintenance. We do some public maintenance now. There is a little disconnect on what
code says and what we actually practice. If we are notified of cracks or broken
sidewalks, we’ll repair that, but trimming and hedging we leave up to the property owner.
Burgess: At Lexington and Oriole, a tree fell on a condo and caused debris on the
sidewalk on the Lexington corner. I turned it in twice and it finally got resolved. The
citizen was David Syfert. I don’t know who cleaned it up. I thought the City did, but
after hearing this today, maybe it was the property owner.
Pleasant: If it was a tree across the sidewalk then we get a crew out there to clean it up.
But simple debris would be for the property owner.
Burgess: This was dirt and tree limbs and lots of debris. Someone cleaned it up.
Coleman: (Continues reviewing presentation) With intersections, we cannot require
developers to make offsite improvements in the intersection to make it more pedestrian
friendly. The guidance isn’t there yet. We are talking with the City Attorney to see what
we can change. Now, street crossings are something we hear a lot about. The
pedestrians would like to cross the road at bus stops more safely. We are generating a
map right now to prioritize more crossings over time.
Carter: Another point that should be made is we need to correlate our neighborhood
improvement projects and our minor thoroughfare interconnections. We have a
constellation coming together that seems to mandate one action and is prevented by two
turf groups. The intent is to move people along safely.
Burgess: What scares me to death is seeing people crossing midblock on Eastway Drive.
I see it all the time.
Coleman: There is a lot of midblock crossing going on at Eastway Drive, Central
Avenue, Sharon Amity Road, and Wilkinson Boulevard.
Carter: Central Avenue is a very good example of how midsection crossing has been
facilitated and recognized as a reality. Social planning has made an impact.
Steinman: This is not going to be easy to solve because there are many miles of four
lane, undivided roads. The projects here will consist of purchasing the right-of-way in
selective locations to widen out to install more channelization or islands.
Coleman: It becomes more of a traffic calming project.
Steinman: For the people driving at 45 mph, we can’t just have one crossing appear in
the middle of a roadway all of the sudden.
Carter: In doing a quality of life study, I’m wondering how these facilitations interact. I
think there is a direct correlation. We should make sure we allow for characteristics of a
neighborhood to exist; specifically Grove Park where swales and no sidewalks are
debated.
Steinman: One of the things we are doing now is looking more at context sensitive
design. We are being more selective to make sure there is a drainage reason to install
curb and gutter or there is a context reason.
Foxx: I forgot to acknowledge Andy Dulin. Please feel free to jump in.
Council Member Andy Dulin: I have questions at the end.
Coleman: (Continues reviewing & describing presentation)
Burgess: Regarding the white stripes picture on the 2nd “Barriers to Better Walkability”
slide, in London they have midblock crossing and they do the white stripes with light
poles on each side of the street that flash when it’s time for the pedestrian to cross. The
pedestrian has the right of way when those lights start flashing.
Coleman: We do have a few Pedestrian Only signals. There is something we are about
to test in July called a Hawk signal. It’s a pedestrian beacon. You have a dark signal that
is not lit up and when the pedestrian pushes the button the signal flashes yellow, then it
flashes red, then it goes to all red, which means all cars should stop. We will be the first
to try this experiment in North Carolina. We’ll do a media campaign and get the
education out on how they work. You’ll be hearing more about it in Council Manager
Memos.
Foxx: In terms of sidewalks, how far back are we in terms of years and dollars?
Coleman. I always say decades. There are roughly 400 miles of thoroughfare that do not
have sidewalks on both sides of the street and roughly 1,300 miles of non-thoroughfare
streets that have no sidewalks. We have decades to go.
Steinman: We are trying to build 10 miles a year.
Foxx: How does that compare to 5 or 6 years ago?
Coleman: Our goal has always been 10 miles per year.
Steinman: Part of the reason we are stressing the codes here is the realization that most
local streets are built through private developers. Many of these sidewalks are going to
get built by private developments. If we take just the pace of the sidewalk program of 10
miles per year, it will take decades. It will have to be a concerted effort. A lot of it will
have to be done through private sector involvement.
Carter: Have we looked at partnerships? In other words, neighborhoods or businesses
sharing a portion of the cost.
Coleman: We are starting to look at some of that. Lowes on South Blvd. has contributed
to sidewalks, but that was part of rezoning.
Carter: Neighborhood grants perhaps?
Foxx: Committee of 21 has been formed and will be looking at a lot of things. I believe
that there is interest in trying to solve the transportation funding gaps. We may find some
peace with the development community on how to help support funding and how to
support infrastructure. I think that topic will come up.
Steinman: The first Committee of 21 meeting is tomorrow. We are looking very
carefully at the zoning and subdivision codes because we are trying to make sure there
are consistencies. The expectations should be the same but we are looking for a more
consistent philosophy.
Foxx: Pull out sidewalks versus bicycles lanes versus trees versus streets; it is one
element that is pulled out versus everything else. It becomes very hard to get the support
outside for the overall strategy.
Steinman: We certainly hope it’s viewed as to try to deal with all types of mobility.
Coleman: Alright, part two of this presentation. We have some recommendations and
we are going to need a little guidance. Please bear with me while I go through this.
(Begins reviewing and describing “Sidewalk Retrofit Policy” presentation in your agenda
package)
Dulin: Can you go back to the map of Murrayhill Road? [reference “Tier 3 Murrayhill
Road” slide] That is an elementary school isn’t it?
Coleman: Yes sir.
Dulin: I don’t know why this just struck me, but I have kids that live a walkable distance
to their elementary school they attend and we don’t let them walk to school by
themselves. But as soon as they get to 6th grade, we say go ahead. Even the 5th graders
catch a bus. There are sidewalks on the south side down, but the parents aren’t going to
let the younger kids walk by themselves.
Coleman: If I could interject, I teach the Safe Routes to School course and there are a lot
of ways of thinking about this. It’s not just about walking, it’s about their independence,
feeling good and being alert when they get to school, as well as improving air quality and
reducing congestion. We have a lot of greater things to think about when we talk about
our emphasis on trying to get kids to walk to school more.
Dulin: I’m not trying to talk you out of it, but I do have folks on both sides. I’m just
trying to make sure we can make an informed, professional decision on what to do. I
want to make sure all the info is out there and everyone feels like they have been heard.
Carter: In looking at the map on the “Tier 3 Clarification” slide, I’m wondering if the
most direct way is not usually what people would choose. What concerns me is we have
something of a U in approaching not using the perpendicular road.
Coleman: This is just a very basic example we use. When we really get out there and
start analyzing where the real connections are that becomes a big analysis.
Steinman: The sidewalk on Murrayhill Road has been very good for us to first reengineer the priority process itself. The last 2 blocks are what is in question here. We
are saying that even if there are a fewer than 1000 vehicles on those 2 blocks then we
believe its proximity to the school should be a greater importance than the number of
vehicles per day. That school is often used on weekends for recreation. School does
double duty – education during the week and recreation on the weekend.
Burgess: That’s by design. This is repeated all over Charlotte. I don’t know that we
should make it so specific to this school. We should have a policy that applies to them
all. My question is the sidewalks that have the 300 traffic count; I’m not sure what the
neighbors are protesting. What’s the problem?
Coleman: What we are finding generally speaking, residents in their homes for many of
years prefer not to see the change and residents that are new to their neighborhoods and
having children would like a safer place to walk. I think it becomes generational.
Steinman: It’s also from people who have lived somewhere else, they call in and say
‘where is the sidewalk; I’m in the city, I thought that would be provided’.
Burgess: Who is protesting?
Steinman: One of the residents on the last block.
Burgess: Just one person?
Coleman: I think it’s more than one, but I’m not sure the exact count.
Judy Bratton: Ms. Burgess and Mr. Dulin have been sent a number of emails about this
and I think the latest count shows there are 15 or so residents on the very last block of
Murrayhill. We have a very straight street, no visibility issues, and speed humps along
there. I’ve owned my home since 1978 and majority of the children are bused to
Pinewood school. We are only concerned about our block, which is between Lamont and
Wedgewood.
Burgess: And I have read your emails and seeing this map helps it make sense.
Carter: Have we made correlative studies about the value of homes or properties as you
add sidewalks? Is there potential increase in value?
Coleman: We have not done actual studies from our section, but we understand there is a
correlation that property values do increase.
Carter: I would be interested in seeing if there is some sort of study on that and present it
to the neighbors.
Steinman: We do know when you look at the new home sections of the newspaper, the
advertising mentions sidewalks, walking hills, pathways, common recreation area,
schools, and etc.
Burgess: Who pays for the construction of the sidewalk?
Steinman: In Raleigh their policy is to ask the property owner to pay for the construction
and installation of the sidewalks. Our policy here does not ask the property owner to pay.
Foxx: The general rule that you used today is ¼ mile away from the school, whether
30% of the road requested it. You apply that rule to this situation, what does it tell you?
Coleman: This situation tells me that greater than 30% of the requested area is within
that ¼ mile boundary.
Foxx: And your recommendation is to change the rule so that you can break the street
into smaller components. But in this situation your recommendation does not produce a
different result.
Coleman: Correct
Foxx: Okay, well then give me a situation where this general rule is applied, but you get
a different result.
Coleman: If there were no school nearby you would fall into that Tier 4 petition
category. If we had a street that was 1.4 miles long and a school was on a different side
you would break the traffic counts down.
Steinman: There is no site or location nearby that is crucial to be connected into the
pedestrian walking network. In this particular case on Murrayhill, the outcome is the
same because the school is on the eastern end; if it were on the western end it would have
a different outcome.
Burgess: The City right-of-way from the curb is 11 feet?
Coleman: It depends on the right-of-way.
Steinman: It’s probably around 11 feet here.
Burgess: So really what we are saying is the City owns that and we want to come along
and put a concrete strip on our property. But, people think they own to the curb and they
really don’t. I think we should present it as this 11 feet belongs to the public and we are
going to pave parts of it for a sidewalk, then I think it will have a different perception.
Coleman: We have described that to our residents many times and they are disappointed.
Burgess: But it’s true.
Steinman: Yes, but from a perception standpoint it is viewed as a loss.
Foxx: Staff is asking us for feedback on proposed changes. Are you asking for a vote?
Steinman: Not today. Just feedback today.
Dulin: Vivian, is the entire length of Murrayhill number one on the list? Everything in
red [referencing the “Tier 3 Murrayhill Road Example” slide] is number one?
Coleman: Everything red on Murrayhill is number one and Wedgewood portions are in
the top five.
Dulin: So we are talking about a little bit more than 10% of this year’s sidewalk money.
Coleman: In essence.
Dulin: For the City of Charlotte?
Coleman: It will not be bid out for probably 2 ½ more years for construction and that’s
40% of the cost.
Dulin: Everything except for that lower end is non-contested?
Steinman: That’s equally supported.
Dulin: What steps do the folks at the lower end have if they wish to contest their section?
Coleman: They have the right to talk to their City Council Members and appeal.
Bratton: All we are asking for is an exception.
Foxx: That reminds me, when you are going to do work in your area you usually get
more bang for your buck by buying more. Is there an incremental economic advantage to
put a sidewalk in at once versus putting in sections at a time? Would it be cheaper?
Steinman: Generally the actual construction cost is less than ½ the total project cost. ½
goes to real estate, for planning and design, and public involvement. These projects take
a lot of our time and consultant’s time. There is a slight reduction in cost in getting the
whole sidewalk done at one time.
Burgess: What if you took out those 2 blocks, how much money would you save?
Coleman: Not much.
Foxx: I understand the point of location of the school, but I haven’t felt compelled to
change the rule. It still doesn’t make sense to me. I’m still struggling with it.
Coleman: The policy as a whole? We can bring back more examples. Would that be
helpful?
Foxx: Yes, that would be very helpful.
Carter: Can we see also the parameters, diameters, and radius? I’m a little confused by
that.
Coleman: Okay, we will come back with that.
Burgess: Are we sending someone to the Transportation Summit in Irvine, Texas in
August? I received a call today about being sponsored.
Pleasant: I’m not aware of sending anyone.
Foxx: Alright, we are moving on to Connectivity – New Policies 1 & 2.
Steinman: Let me explain that there are 5 separate policy components that we are going
to be describing to you. Today we have the first 2, which we feel are easy. The others; 3,
4 and 5, are the harder ones.
Matt Magnasco: In the essence of time I would like to do policy 2 first since it will take
less time. (Begins describing and reviewing policy 2 in “Connectivity Policy: New
Policies 1 & 2” presentation in your agenda package)
Steinman: Are there any general questions or reactions to this?
Burgess: Is Kingston Road in this sample list? [referencing “A Sample of Candidate
Projects” slide]
Magnasco: Kingston Road connecting to Euclid Avenue?
Burgess: Yes, there is no reason for a barricade there.
Steinman: We can look at that. One of the reasons we would like you to look at this is to
see the kinds of rankings that you get from the criteria. The Starmount Huntingtowne
Farm connection would come up number 12 out of 27 and we know there are many
people waiting for that project not to happen. The key point here is that we are
comfortable with the technical criteria. But the real wildcard are the nontechnical parts
of it, that’s why we are suggesting at least the District Council Member review the
candidate projects before we decide to go forward.
Foxx: I’ve seen one of the documents in the appendices shows major road projects not
just connector projects.
Steinman: Those are major thoroughfares.
Foxx: Do we publish our list of priority projects every year? Are we tiering the projects
in our Capital Investment Program (CIP) according to priority?
Steinman: The priority we recommend at the staff level for the CIP base are generally on
the rankings of a project, but we do have some leeway in not following the sequence
perfectly. We don’t literally go 1, 2, 3, 4 right off the list. Sometimes there are various
differences among the projects depending on an economic development that’s going on
nearby or an opportunity for a partnership with the private sector. There is a ranking as
there are for potential connectivity projects and farm-to-market roads. I’m more
comfortable saying the ones at the top of the list are relatively close to each other and
likely to get done in next 5 years.
Foxx: We have a couple of more minutes; I suggest we open this topic back up at our
next meeting. Let’s go to policy 1.
Magnasco: (Begins reviewing policy 1 in the “Connectivity Policy: New Policies 1 & 2”
presentation)
Foxx: Regarding reviewing abandonments [referencing “Preserved Platted Rights-ofway” slide on page 5], right now we look at those on a case by case basis without
reference to other policies?
Magnasco: Correct.
Carter: I would be interested in seeing abandonment procedures presented at Council?
Haven’t seen it yet and it would be very helpful.
Magnasco: I can check with Linda.
Burgess: We abandon alleyways all the time and I don’t know why we do that. I think
we should preserve continuous alleyways in a neighborhood. I don’t know if this
checklist includes alleyways or not.
Magnasco: This list is designed to be very generic. The last half of this topic will deal
with alleyways.
Burgess: I know a lot of the newly planned compact developments have alleys.
Steinman: The benefit of alleys has changed and has evolved back to uses for access
garage, trash, storage, etc.
Pleasant: The dilemma is that the paper streets are often platted and are not accepted.
The City has to accept it. As far as I know we have not accepted alleys for maintenance.
Magnasco: The City maintains one alley by Spirit Square.
Pleasant: Part of what we have to wrestle with in the next weeks and months, is do we
have a mechanism in place where we accept maintenance for all right-of-ways dedicated
to us? Which means do we stop letting them become forests, do we actually go in and do
something with them over time?
Steinman: Do we enforce accessibility requirements in some cases?
Pleasant: This is just a preview of coming attractions. We will have to get dialogue and
direction on these areas. I just became aware of a withdrawal provision where someone
can go to the courthouse after 15 years and just take it off of the plat, without notification
to the City, which causes concern because we have lots of paper streets. So we have lots
of things to talk about.
Magnasco: That is an excellent tease for the last of this presentation.
Foxx: This is great, we are out of time. I would like one piece of information going back
to sidewalks. I would like to see our funding and build out on the sidewalks over the last
6 years.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting)
5/22/2008
Attachment 1
Pedestrian Plan Purpose
• To promote and
implement a safe,
comfortable and
connected pedestrian
transportation system.
City of Charlotte
• TAP Mission: “To become
the premier city in the
country for integrating
land use and
transportation choices.”
Pedestrian Plan
Update to the Transportation Committee
• TAP Policy 2.7.6 states
that the City will adopt a
Pedestrian Plan.
May 27, 2008
Schedule
Dec 06/May 08
Development of Plan
May/June 08
Transportation Committee
July 08
Public Workshop
July/Aug 08
City Council Hearing
Aug/Sept 08
City Council Action
Advisory Team
Total of 25 participants
• Each council district resident representative (7)
• Health and Active Living Interests (2)
• Disabled community (1)
• CMS Representatives (2)
• Development community (2)
• Community Development Corporation (1)
• County Greenways (1)
• UNCC Student and West Charlotte HS Student (2)
• CATS Transit Advisory Team (1)
• Dilworth Neighborhood Representative (1)
• Land Planning Firm (1)
• CMPD (2)
• NCDOT (2)
1
5/22/2008
Pedestrian Plan Elements
Key Issues
•Key Issues and Decision Points
- Amending City Ordinances
- New subdivisions and site plans
- Infill/Retrofits
- Consistent Applications
• Vision
• Goals and objectives
• Evaluation of existing
conditions, programs,
policies
• Guidance on best practices
• Evaluation of codes
• Code recommendations
• Action items for
implementation
• Public involvement
Code Review
•
•
•
•
Code Evaluation
Strengths:
• Construction of sidewalks typically required for most land
uses along frontage
City Code
Zoning Ordinance
Subdivision Ordinance
Charlotte Land
p
Development
Standards Manual
• Sidewalks required on both sides of local residential and
residential collectors
• Some districts establish higher standards (6’ sidewalk and
8’ planting strip)
• Codes prioritize pedestrians in certain districts (MUDD,
UMUD, TOD).
Some codes must be changed for Charlotte
to become a more walkable city.
2
5/22/2008
Sidewalk Replacement
Infill Lots
Woodlawn Road Examples
No requirements for
substandard sidewalk to
be replaced with
standard sidewalk (esp.
by-right development)
No requirement for single
family infill lots without
sidewalk to construct
sidewalk or pay a fee in
lieu of sidewalk.
Internal Connections
Internal Connections
Examples of better
internal
connections
Need better connections internally on commercial sites
3
5/22/2008
Connections to Public Street
Connections to Public Street: Lalex Lane
Need better connections to public street from all
development (including private driveways and
streets)
Sidewalk Obstructions
Better Connections to Public Street
Need enhanced
requirements and
assignment of
enforcement
responsibility
4
5/22/2008
Street Crossings
Intersections
Need more street
crossings between
signalized intersections
No requirements to make
intersections more
pedestrian friendly
adjacent to or near land
development.
Barriers to Better Walkability
Barriers to Better Walkability
What residents don’t want…
What residents don’t want…
5
5/22/2008
Better Walkability
What residents want…
6
5/22/2008
Attachment 2
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy was adopted on May 23, 2005.
Four classifications of Sidewalk Prioritization:
•
•
City of Charlotte
•
•
Sidewalk Retrofit Policy
Transportation Committee
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)
May 27, 2008
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Traffic Count Issue
Two primary issues:
1. Number of traffic count locations needed to justify sidewalk
category and installation.
Current Practice:
Highest traffic count volume used for Tier 2, 3 or 4 sidewalk
requests.
2. Clarification of Tier 3 category.
Questions:
How should traffic counts be applied when traffic volumes
change over the length of a street?
Should there be multiple counts on some local streets?
If multiple counts, what should be the criteria?
Length of street, number of blocks, traffic patterns, land
use generators, sidewalk continuity?
1
5/22/2008
Tier 3 Clarification
Tier 3 Clarification
AAWT=250
0
AAWT=2500
3000
AAWT=3000
School/park
School/park
1300
Primary
access
point
Step 1: Identify 1000-3000 AAWT streets within ¼
mile of school/park
AAWT=1300
AAWT=250
0
3000
¼ mile boundary
School/park
Primary
access
point
Step 3: Evaluate sidewalk network to determine which
streets provide the best connection between primary
access point and 1000 – 3000 AAWT streets. Consider
these streets for inclusion in Tier 3 project.
1300
Step 2: Identify primary access point(s) to
school/park
Tier 3 Clarification
Tier 3 Murrayhill Road Example
AAWT=2500
AAWT=3000
School/park
Primary
access point
AAWT=1300
¼ mile boundary
Step 4: Identify proposed sidewalk network to be
included in project.
2
5/22/2008
Tier 3 Murrayhill Road Example
Tier 3 Murrayhill Road Example
Sidewalk Policy Revision
Recommendations
• For Tiers 2, 3 and 4, if street is longer than ½
mile, take 1 traffic count for each ½ mile.
• For Tier 3, staff (with public input) will choose
the most logical
g
route from requested
q
street to
the school and/or park.
If pedestrian network includes a street of fewer
than 1000 vehicles per day, the lesser volume
blocks will be included in the project.
3
Attachment 3
Agenda
• Recap of Street Connectivity Program from
4/24/08 Transportation Committee meeting
• Discussion of new Policy 1
• Discussion of new Policy 2
Connectivity:
C
ti it
New Policies 1 and 2
Discussions of new Policies 3, 4, and 5 will occur at
subsequent Transportation Committee meetings.
May 27, 2008
The Four Functions of Connectivity
Recap of 4/24/08
Presentation
• Provide mobility to transportation network users
• Provide accessibility to abutting properties/land
uses
• Provide resiliency of transportation network
• Provide redundancy of transportation network
1
Goals of
Street Connectivity Program
1. Implement Transportation
Action Plan (TAP) Objective
#2.9
2. Densify street network
3. Reduce vehicle
vehicle-miles
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
Maintain Current Opportunities for Connectivity
Purpose of this Policy
New Policy 1:
Maintain Current Opportunities
for Connectivity
• 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
2
Maintain Current Opportunities
for Connectivity
• Preserve existing platted
rights-of-way
– Maintained streets
Preserve Platted Rights-of-way
• Implement more stringent reviews of
abandonment petitions
Paper Street:
Platted ROW without
a street in it
• Keep ROW’s for future connectivity unless clearly
not needed for network
– Paper streets
• Use a consistent basis for
evaluating
l ti
abandonment
b d
t
petitions
• Review abandonments based on TAP Objective
#2.9 and
d Subdivision
bd
Ordinance
d
– Evaluate for consistency with TAP/Subdivision Ordinance
– Make evaluations more consistent
• Proactively identify Cityowned parcels to retain
• Change N.C. General Statute
about Withdrawals of ROW
Preserve Platted Rights-of-way
• TAP Consistency factors
– Reductions in VMT
– Multi-modal connection choices
– Connections to complementary land use(s)
• Subdivision Ordinance consistency factors
– Consistency with adopted City plans and policies
Preserve Paper Streets:
Review per TAP
(cont.)
Is abandonment
consistent with
TAP?
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
No
N/A
– Allowances for hardships in making connections
• Definitions of these hardships being refined
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, ingress, and egress by interconnecting streets, bike 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.
Ordinance Cul-de-sacs
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). 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.
3
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
Ordinance] should be consistent with the most-recently-adopted public plans and
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
g
development
p
of
of interconnected streets so as to facilitate the most advantageous
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
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
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.
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)
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
4
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? Yes/No
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
Management and Street Maintenance
• What happens with existing encroachments?
• 15-year premise is not changed
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects
Purpose of this Policy
New Policy 2:
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
• To spend CIP money where it is most effective
• To develop a consistent basis for evaluating
connectivity projects
• To have City Council endorse the prioritization
criteria
5
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
• Staff has already developed evaluation matrix
• Evaluation of potential projects based on technical
merits of project
• Used to select Connectivity CIP projects
Prioritize Connectivity
Capital Projects
• 5 Criteria
–
–
–
–
–
Connect land uses
Promote modal split
Densify road network
Reduce VMT
Constructability
y
• Reduction in VMT is most important
• 27 candidate projects ranked so far
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Connect Land Uses
• Encourage trips that can be
made on local streets
• Important to connect
different but complementary
land uses
• L
Less important
i
t t to
t connectt
same land uses
• Proximity function weights
closer land-use pairs more
Promote Modal Split
• Evaluate how well a connection
links 2 or more modes of
transportation
–
–
–
–
–
–
Vehicular
Fixed-guideway transit
Bus route
Greenway
Bike facility
Sidewalk/multi-use path
6
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
Densify Street Network
• Increase number of connections to
one major road
• Increase number of connections to
several major roads
• Remove traffic from signalized,
g
, highg
accident, and high-congestion
intersection(s) wherever possible
Constructability
• Cheaper projects assumed to be easier to build
• Creek crossings important, but also more
expensive
• Avoid ROW acquisition as much as possible
• Incorporate a cost/benefit factor
• Inside or outside Route 4
Prioritize Connectivity Capital Projects:
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?
A Sample of Candidate Projects
Candidate Project
Area of City
Raw Score
Rank
(125 = max)
(Out of 27)
Starmount/Huntingtowne
Farms Connector
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
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
7
Questions?
8