Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for April 14, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
Airport Update (Enterprise Fund)
UNCC Transportation Survey Results
Connectivity Program Introduction to Draft Policy
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Michael Barnes, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter
Additional Attachments:
1.) “Airport – 4.14.08”.ppt
2.) “UNCC Survey Results 4-14-08”.ppt
3.) “Connectivity Policy Initiatives 4-14-08”.ppt
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Anthony Foxx called the meeting to order)
Jerry Orr: (Introduced Diane Carter, Vice-Chair of Advisory Committee.)
Diane Carter: We are in such good hands with Jerry and there is no better airport run in
any place I can think of. Jerry runs a tight ship and every dime is accounted for.
Chairman Foxx: Thank you very much for your service.
(Chairman Foxx asked table to introduce themselves and Jim Schumacher introduced
Eric Campbell.)
Orr: (Reviews and describes Airport – 4.14.08 presentation in agenda package) On page
3, the second yellow line is very important. It shows what our airline cost for each
boarded passenger will be if U.S. Airways went away completely and nobody came to
replace the hub, we had only our local boarding’s, we paid all of our debt services and all
of our expenses; that’s what our cost per boarding passenger would be, it would be less
than the median of the other airports you see on the slide.
Page 1 of 10
Council Member Nancy Carter: Regarding page 9, you have a significant projected
budget increase for the next 2 years, I’m wondering how that will compare with what you
have on page 3? Will it affect that [U.S. Airways leaving]?
Orr: No, it will not. Do you want detail on that?
Carter: I would like that detail in an offsite conversation.
Council Member Susan Burgess: If U.S. Airways went away would you have to increase
the passenger service charge?
Orr: Yes, we would increase it from $3.00 to $4.50.
Burgess: Is $4.50 still competitive?
Orr: Yes, about 84% of the airports in the country are already $4.50. And as you know
Congress has toyed with taking that up to $6.00 or $7.00.
Carter: Would they take a portion of that $6.00 or $7.00?
Orr: No, the passenger facility charge is collected by the airlines when you buy your
ticket. The airline keeps a portion and the rest comes directly to us. It’s a scheme to fund
airports with revenues generated on the airport to avoid the middle man.
Carter: It does not support someone’s security funds?
Orr: Not at all, that is a different tax. (Continued reviewing and describing Airport
presentation)
Council Member Michael Barnes: Regarding the Wilson Air Center jumping from
number 23 to number 8 this past year, what was that measure?
Orr: It derived from a survey on passenger and user satisfaction with the facilities. There
are about 8 or 10 parameters they measure which are all quality and pricing related.
Burgess: Did you change contractors?
Orr: Yes, the Signature Flight Support contract expired; we looked everything over and
selected Wilson Air Center.
Barnes: Regarding the airfield and airline rentals, how much of that $38 million is U.S.
Airways?
Orr: About $21 million. That’s about 26% of the whole pie and in most airports that
would be around 60%. That clearly indicates our efforts to reduce our independence on
the airlines and depend more on the market to generate our revenues.
Page 2 of 10
Foxx: I get the sense of the importance of U.S. Airways to our airport. How solid of a
relationship do we have with U.S. Airways? What threats, if any, are there for them to
not continue working through Charlotte?
Orr: If you want airlines to like you, you need to be low cost, and if you want them to
like you a lot, you need to be really low cost. That is what we have been focused on for a
long time. We have struggled along with U.S. Airways since 1991 and I think they are in
better shape right now than they have been. We focus on the best platform we possibly
can; highest quality service and lowest cost structure. We want to be the other Hub in the
Southeast and Atlanta is clearly one of them. You want there to be at least two for
competition.
Barnes: Question regarding parking revenue, what is that number based on? What will it
look like once the new stuff is finished because it is already close to what we get from the
airfield and airline rentals?
Orr: The parking revenue is a function of local travelers traveling out of the airport. It’s
a function of our rates, which are very low. The growth in parking revenue has been
double digits for each of the last 3 years. So, building another deck doesn’t do anything
for revenues but the growth of passengers that fills up the deck grows the revenue.
Barnes: Where will that deck be?
Orr: On the corner of Harlee Avenue and Wilkinson Boulevard, right across from The
Ranch House.
Carter: You have $2 million budgeted for advertising. Is that a sustained number and not
a growth number?
Orr: That is actually revenue not the budget. That’s how much revenue we anticipate
from advertising in FY09.
Carter: And there is no expense line itemized for advertising?
Orr: It should be there at the top.
Carter: I see administration, but that’s all I see.
Orr: I’ll find it for you. (Continues reviewing and describing presentation)
Carter: There’s a difference between income and expense for your fixed base operation.
Is that $825,000 reinvested in the service field?
Orr: I was always taught your revenues must always exceed your costs. It [$825,000]
stays in that cost center.
Foxx: How does that debt service compare to the other airports with the fact that not all
of it is paid through non-passenger revenues?
Page 3 of 10
Orr: We are not highly leveraged, even with respect to just our local boardings. We
always focus on those two numbers and our tax reserve; we were able to get our bond
rating raised last year.
Foxx: What was it?
Orr: It was A, A3, A- was raised to A, A2 and A+.
Carter: What would it take to raise those rates?
Orr: We wouldn’t dare ask right now because the market is in such turmoil. We are
focused on maintaining our rate.
Barnes: What makes up the $4.2 million in the city services?
Orr: That is providing for all the fire fighters at our location and our share of the Council
salary.
Barnes: So the Fire Department is $4 million?
Orr: There are 37 or 38 firemen, 5 or 6 captains.
Barnes: Are they staffed that well? How many people are typically there?
Orr: There are usually 8 people there.
Barnes: Regarding Public Affairs, Community Programs, and Development, can you
give me a quick explanation of what those are?
Orr: Public Affairs is our Public Relations person and her staff of 3. They generate all
printed materials and handle volunteer projects and most interaction with the public
outside of the airport. Community Relations is our Noise and Land Acquisition
Programs. Development is all the construction going on. Marketing and advertising is
under Public Affairs.
Barnes: So the development is only $1.8 million?
Orr: Yes
Barnes: Where would the third parallel runway fall?
Orr: Most of that cost is construction so it’s not in the operating budget.
Carter: As I mentioned before, the increase is fairly substantial. Is there something that
is generating that?
Page 4 of 10
Orr: A continually growing operation. Remember in 2000 and 2001 we deferred a lot of
maintenance and we got behind, now we are paying the price for it and playing catch up.
Burgess: I have a question about staff. Do you have Union Members in this number?
Orr: No, because no City staff is unionized.
Orr: On page 9 it shows our total boardings. As you can see, the last 4 years our growth
has been very strong. Regarding our Capital Improvement Program, our 5 year number is
$1 billion. The other slides show you how the five categories are split up. Are there any
of them you want to talk about?
Burgess: What is the total budget for the third parallel runway?
Orr: Depends on all the ins and outs, but it is about a $300 million project.
Burgess: What was the original anticipated budget?
Orr: In 2001 when we where getting ready to start the project the budget was $80 million
for land, $80 million for paving, and $80 million for grading and roads.
Burgess: So it went up from $240 million to $300 million.
Orr: Right, but remember we did the runway over.
Burgess: Yes, I remember.
Orr: So, under Terminal Complex Projects, remember we are continuing day to day from
the ‘E’ Concourse, and building the deck on Wilkinson Blvd. We are going to be
spending about $10 million redoing roads in front of the Terminal Building.
Foxx: What is the total projected cost there?
Orr: We don’t have a total number on the roads yet. It is in the concept stage. The total
on these projects combined over 5 years is $1 billion.
Foxx: But for the roads specifically, you don’t have a total number? It’s included in the
$1 billion?
Orr: Yes
Foxx: How do you get to a $1 billion number without knowing the road cost?
Orr: We know about what it is. It’s buried in that number.
Foxx: I’m just curious because we get a lot of questions about the extent in which we
support state projects.
Page 5 of 10
Orr: All of this cost you see here is airport dollars.
Carter: As you look at the Terminal Complex are you making efforts to turn green?
Orr: Everything we do has that element in it.
Carter: Is HVAC and chiller components already compatible?
Orr: Most of that stuff is already there. Everything we put in is high efficiency.
Burgess: I have a question about hotels. I read in the Business Journal that Bissell is
building a hotel.
Orr: Bissell has a site graded for a hotel at the corner of Billy Graham and Morris Field,
but there is no plan to build a hotel. It’s available to be done if someone is interested.
Burgess: Well what is the Hotel/Unit Terminal Roadway on the Airport Facility Projects
slide?
Orr: That is a roadway that serves a future unit terminal and would serve a hotel if we
were to get one.
Burgess: Is there a reason you don’t want to build a hotel?
Orr: Yes, we missed that window. Our traffic has grown to a point where we need all
the space available for a terminal building and parking for customers. Airport hotels are
not the glorious projects they were because of security requirements.
Carter: Do you have any plans in here for the transportation issue vs. the monorail.
Orr: Yes, all that is in there. I would suggest that what you will probably see in the
monorail, in the not to distant future, is a dedicated roadway or roadways that separate
the general traffic from shuttle buses.
Burgess: And where would it go?
Orr: It would go from the various parking facilities right into the terminal building.
Burgess: Where are we on the railroad yard?
Orr: We’ve graded for the railroad yard and we are very close to an agreement to move
forward.
Foxx: Jim, I would like to do a meeting in the future at the airport. I think it will be well
worth coming out to see what we have talked about today.
Orr: We would love to have you.
Page 6 of 10
Foxx: We appreciate the presentation. It’s always good to know what’s going on with
our Enterprise Funds and thank you Diane for attending today. Alright, lets move on to
item 2, the UNCC Transportation Survey Results.
Steinman: I first would like to acknowledge that this survey is done in collaboration with
various divisions within CDOT. Scott Correll helped organize the presentation we have
today. So what we are going to do today is present the results of the last of the annual
surveys. It is a comprehensive survey with a whole series of questions about
transportation conditions, strategies and the public’s perceptions to them. There were
858 households throughout Mecklenburg County surveyed which means that on any
particular answer we can be within +/- 2.5% of what we would have been if we had asked
everyone in Mecklenburg County. (Describes and reviews UNCC Survey Results
presentation in the agenda package)
Carter: When was this survey done?
Steinman: It was done during September & October 2007.
Carter: So this was prior to the opening of the Lynx’s?
Steinman: Yes
Carter: Regarding somewhat congested on slide 4, is that acceptable to them?
Steinman: We don’t tell them what any of these words mean, we just let them choose
which ever way they feel. So, it’s their interpretation of what they consider congested or
un-congested.
Carter: (Referencing slide 6) No mention was made of more dense housing?
Steinman: Not directly.
Carter: What are the “other” solutions here for encouraging people to ride a bicycle for
errands, school, or work?
Steinman: I would have to go back and look and get back to you on those. If it didn’t fit
into one of these larger categories, it could be a whole bunch of things.
Burgess: Was there anything in here that was unexpected or surprising to you?
Steinman: I will admit it was heartwarming to see the answers were; yes, we want the
streets to be designed for all kinds of travelers and yes, we want something to be done
about alternative modes and not just widen roads or build roads. The other pleasant
surprise was that the public understood that there really is not any money around to build
new roads and if there are going to be new roads built someone will have to pay for it.
Carter: Can we get reports about safety and air quality?
Page 7 of 10
Steinman: Sure
Burgess: Let’s move on to the last agenda item, Connectivity.
Steinman: What we are going to do here is introduce our new Connectivity Program
Manager, Matt Magnasco. Matt worked for almost 7 years in Development Services
Division, so he is extremely familiar with our development review processes. We
decided early on that connectivity is created primarily by the Private Sector. Most of the
local streets are built by the Private Sector. So, we wanted to build on the experience of a
person who had been working with the Private Sector. We are here to discuss where we
see the Connectivity Program going. We have a summary of Recommended
Connectivity Policies and number 1 is to maintain existing opportunities for connectivity
(Reference Connectivity Policy Initiatives presentation in agenda package).
Burgess: Are you including alleyways in that?
Steinman: To the extent that we can, yes.
Burgess: We abandon them all the time for no reasons. I’ve always wondered if we
would ever need them in the future for bicycle paths or what not.
Steinman: Also it depends on the kind of development pattern that will be created and I
think we are going back, in some cases, to recommend that the front doors of buildings be
on the streets and the garages in alleys.
Danny Pleasant: Unfortunately, our alleys were never securely established as they were
in some cities. They have launched a significant Alley Protection Plan in Chicago and
doing a push on Green Alleys. Hopefully, as we move and develop our strategies in the
next years we will find a use for alleys.
Burgess: I think alleys are terrific. It gets all the garbage cans and stuff off the street. It
allows you to service your home from behind.
Carter: The reverse question is how much does that take up in stormwater drainage and
less buying space?
Burgess: Alleys do not necessarily need to be paved.
Pleasant: One thing we would have to do is focus on how you treat stormwater and
drainage issues.
Carter: Are there other ways of treating bike paths other than concrete or asphalt?
Pleasant: For off street paths there are materials we put down; some gravel type material
and off road type of material.
Carter: This is very important to me because of the environmental aspect.
Page 8 of 10
Pleasant: There are some innovations and more porous pavement type of materials as
well.
Steinman: The second item on the summary slide is an idea put out about 10 years ago
where the Council had been asked to adopt a collector map, and that map hasn’t been
updated in about a decade so we are taking another look at it. We will bring that forward
for your review eventually. The third item here is to develop criteria on how we will
spend the street connectivity money. The fourth one is we often find in working with the
Private Sectors, especially in subdivisions and rezoning, there is opportunities there for
creating the connections not just over land but over creeks, which otherwise might not be
possible to create afterwards. And the fifth one we have actually started discussing with
the Transportation Committee and that has to do with reducing the perceived or actual
impacts of connectivity.
Burgess: How about removing existing barricades?
Steinman: That’s an interesting one. I don’t know definitely where we would put that,
but probably under number 1.
Burgess: Some of them just make absolutely no sense.
Steinman: Alright, I will turn it over to Matt.
Matt Magnasco: Thank you Norm. (Continues reviewing and describing presentation in
agenda package)
Carter: Regarding slide 11, how do you define congestion?
Magnasco: That is based off the volume to capacity ratio. The number of cars trying to
go through an intersection divided by its theoretical capacity, based on the land, signals,
phasing.
Carter: And you’ve seen intersections that are graded F to A?
Magnasco: It’s a numerical version of A to F.
Steinman: This one is a technical grading. It’s been a continuous measurement CDOT
has been doing for years. You can see that 0.85 to 0.94 it’s getting to be almost
congested. Greater than 0.94 is high, which means you might not get there in one signal
cycle; you might have to wait longer than one signal cycle.
Carter: And this is time related?
Steinman: This is a.m. hour and p.m. hour. We typically don’t have much congestion at
night time or middle of the day.
Magnasco: (Continues reviewing and describing presentation)
Page 9 of 10
Carter: First of all Congratulations! This is exciting, but you have just given the Area
Representative heartburn. So, realizing this has to be our reality, what we need you to do
is be our Public Relations person. We need cost because that is huge for tax payers. We
obviously need to see air quality; but also we need to look at traffic coming as we go in.
That is huge. That helps us sell to the community. I need a complete project.
Magnasco: Traffic coming in is considered under number 5 on the summary. We can’t
just look at a project and just say we are going to put some asphalt between here and
there. We have to understand the entire context of the two ends of the connection. We
know those things will be an issue and we are planning to have that as part of the project.
Carter: Involving the community is really important.
Pleasant: The more organic you can make it the better. The idea is slow but study.
Foxx: I’m sorry I missed some of the presentation. However, I have a couple of
thoughts on how we carry this discussion forward. The case for the Connectivity
Program is made effectively by what you showed us. The hard part is realizing how in
implementation it actually works. So, as you look at the continuum of a rezoning
proposal, where along the continuum do these Policies hit and can they hit at an earlier
point so the developer can factor them in? If it’s not in a rezoning process at what point
does the connectivity happen? Let’s figure out the most effective way to implement this
so everyone knows going into it what the cost are on any given project. I would like to
spend time in the next meeting discussing how exactly the staff will propose that this be
implemented. The second thing that comes to mind is we need to be sure that we
understand whether we are actually taking Council Approved Policy and putting it all in
one place or are there Bridge Policies that have to be adopted as a way of harmonizing
those five areas. If the latter is the case, we need to understand where those gaps are and
what exactly we will be asked to do.
Steinman: That’s exactly what we would like to do in these conversations because this
represents a continuation that has been underway in the last 5-7 years. We want to
discuss with you the 5 components of Connectivity itself. The point is for you, Council
Members, to get comfortable with what we are proposing or if not, tell us to drop it or
change it. The intent is to make it clear.
Foxx: One last thing is we need to understand the extent of Stakeholders involvement
either in the source Policy as it relates going forward. Anything else?
Schumacher: That’s it for today.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting.)
Page 10 of 10
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Connecting the Carolinas to the World
Airport
Overview…
•1
Airport Mission
“Charlotte Douglas International will be the
preferred airport and airline hub by
providing the highest quality product
for the lowest possible cost.”
Management Goals
Quality
Cost
4 Goal Indicators
™ Low Cost per Enplaned Passenger
™ Customer Satisfaction
•2
Airline Cost Per Enplaned Passenger
at Large and Medium Hub Airports
$28.00
$24.00
$20.00
$16.00
$12.00
$8.00
$4.00
SDF
ANC
PBI
RSW
ABQ
CMH
IND
DAL
CLE
CVG
DTW
FLL
TPA
MIA
STL
SFO
LAX
DFW
ATL
ORD
DEN-No UA
PIT
DEN-UA
PHL
CLT O&D
CLT Total
$0.00
Group Median
Enhance Customer Service
• Volunteer Program
¾ Meet, greet and assist passengers
¾ 70 volunteers ranging in age from 16- 82
¾ In 2007 volunteers assisted nearly 80,000
customers, a 107-percent increase over 2006 and
donated 5,800 hours of service, a 35 percent
increase over 2006
• Restroom Attendant Program and Renovations
¾
¾
¾
¾
38 Public Restrooms in Terminal
30 restrooms have Attendants who maintain the cleanliness and offer amenities
Completed renovations in 6 restrooms, currently renovating 8 restrooms
Renovations make facilities “greener” by including energy-saving lamps and
sensor-operated water controls
Before
After
•3
Enhance Customer Service
• Established Partnership with CRVA
¾ Manage Advertising Program
¾ Operate Welcome Center in Baggage Claim
¾ Promote Charlotte
• New Wayfinding Signage
¾ 11 terminal directories installed,
themed Shop, Dine, Work, Relax!
¾ Added new terminal/concourse signs
¾ Street-style signs installed in Atrium
and Ticket Lobby
Enhance Customer Service
• Free Wireless Internet
¾ 1.7 million square foot wireless
hotspot with over 325 miles of fiberoptic cable and approximately 170
access points
¾ Forbes.com ranked CLT 20th among
the “World’s Most Wired Airports”
• Concessions
New:
¾ Concourse D: Carolina Beer Co., Great
American Bagel and Charlotte News
¾ Concourse E: News Connection
Re-concepts:
¾ Atrium: The NASCAR Shop
¾ Concourse D: World Passage (Duty Free)
Coming Soon:
¾ Concourse E: Salsarita’s, Zia, Burger King
¾ Atrium: World Passage, Salsarita’s
¾ Concourse B: Bojangles
•4
Means and Methods
4 Increasing Non-Airline Revenues
4 Contract Services
™ Management Contracts
™ Personnel Costs vs. Contracts
Management Contracts
Terminal Advertising
Valet Parking
Wilson Air Center
•5
The Economic Development Platform
• Generates nearly $10 billion in annual economic impact
• 100,000 jobs are directly or indirectly supported
by the airport
Financial
Structure…
•6
FY09 Budgeted Revenue by Type: $147,189,637
Airfield
$10,500,000
Airline Rentals
$28,035,000
Advertising
$2,000,000
Parking
$34,500,000
Fixed Base Operator
$22,000,000
Interest Income
$2,250,000
Cargo
$18,904,637
Food & Beverage/Retail
$18,000,000
Rental Car
$11,000,000
FY09 Budget: $147,189,637
Utilities
$7,193,000
Fixed Base Operator
$21,175,000
City Services
$4,230,611
Contracts/Materials
$36,898,085
Personnel Costs
$19,758,640
Debt Service/Transfers
$57,934,301
•7
FY09 Operating Budget by Division
Community Programs
$360,259
Pay As You Go/Reserve
$8,660,155
Utilities
$7,193,000
Development
$1,867,861
DBE
$167,934
Janitorial
$6,147,768
Fixed Base Operator
$21,175,000
Vehicle Maintenance
$3,581,340
Parking
$10,653,433
Administration
$7,857,953
Field Maintenance
$4,661,966
Building Maintenance
$8,262,525
Human Resources
$392,218
Finance
$466,292
Public Affairs
$1,635,449
Operations
$6,172,183
FY09 Budgeted Personnel Costs by Division:
$19,758,641
Community Programs
$339,379
DBE
$137,934
Development
$1,123,661
Human Resources
$356,718
Janitorial
$235,918
Administration
$1,926,638
Vehicle Maintenance
$426,590
Operations
$4,523,223
Parking
$4,147,225
Public Affairs
$281,449
Finance
$450,092
Field Maintenance
$1,998,539
Building Maintenance
$3,811,275
•8
Revenues, Operating Expenses
and Debt Service
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$0
FY03 Actual
FY04 Actual
FY05 Actual
Revenues
FY06 Actual
FY07 Actual
Operating Expenses
FY08 Budget
FY09 Budget
Debt Service
Airport Staff
275
270
265
260
255
250
245
240
235
230
225
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
*Budgeted Positions
•9
Passenger Boardings
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Calendar Year
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Summary…
•10
Capital Improvement Program
• Program covers FY 2009 – 2013
• 5-Year Total: $1,078,555,511
• Project Categories include:
• Airfield
• Terminal Complex
• Airport Facilities
• General Aviation
• Cargo Development
• Special Facilities
Airfield Projects
Funding Distribution
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
5 Yr. Total
Third Parallel Runway
$69,168,527
$73,163,964
$0
$0
$0
$142,332,491
New Parallel Taxiway - Taxiway 'V'
$10,220,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$10,220,000
West Boulevard Relocation
$11,700,000
$2,000,000
$0
$3,000,000
$0
$16,700,000
Deicing Facility
$19,540,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$19,540,000
Rwy 18L Safety Area
Improvements
$1,375,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,375,000
Storm Drain Rehabilitation- Phase
II
$4,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4,000,000
Runway 18R-36L Rehabilitation
$0
$0
$13,059,200
$13,652,800
$0
$26,712,000
Terminal Ramp Expansion (West)
$0
$428,400
$5,119,800
$0
$0
$5,548,200
$116,003,527
$75,592,364
$18,179,000
$16,652,800
$0
$226,427,691
Airfield Sub-Total
•11
Terminal Complex Projects
Funding Distribution
FY10
FY11
Concourse 'E' Expansion
$1,100,000
FY09
$13,905,000
$13,144,000
FY12
$0
FY13
$0
$28,149,000
5 Yr. Total
Concourse 'E' Jet Bridges
$4,050,000
$0
$6,439,500
$6,069,938
$6,237,000
$22,796,438
Con. 'E' Baggage Transfer
Station
$650,000
$850,000
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
Communications
Infrastructure
$3,736,450
$3,736,445
$0
$0
$0
$7,472,895
Renovate Terminal
Restrooms
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
Renovate Baggage Claim
Lobby
$3,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,000,000
Consolidated Fuel Farm
Expansion
$5,450,000
$6,000,000
$4,700,000
$0
$0
$16,150,000
$700,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$700,000
$5,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,000,000
HVAC Chiller Replacement
Security Checkpoint 'E'
Terminal Lobby Expansion
$7,500,000
$91,250,000
$91,250,000
$60,000,000
$0
$250,000,000
New Hourly Parking Decks
$2,250,000
$28,687,500
$9,562,500
$0
$0
$40,500,000
$41,250,000
$13,750,000
$0
$0
$0
$55,000,000
Public Parking Lot Expansion
$2,234,305
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,234,305
Terminal Building Exp. (West
side)
$2,904,600
$7,844,000
$0
$0
$0
$10,748,600
$81,325,355
$166,022,945
$125,096,000
$66,069,938
$6,237,000
$444,751,238
Parking Deck (North)
Terminal Complex Sub-Total
Airport Facility Projects
Funding Distribution
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Master Plan Land Acquisition
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
FY13
$0
$40,000,000
5 Yr. Total
Noise Compatibility Program
$0
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$4,000,000
Employee Parking Expansion
$0
$3,150,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,150,000
Master Plan Update
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000
Josh Birmingham Parkway
Off-Ramp
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Storm Water Facilities
$0
$2,226,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,226,000
Hotel/Unit Terminal Roadway
$0
$0
$0
$4,360,000
$0
$4,360,000
Airport Entrance Road
Connection
$3,800,000
$5,200,000
$0
$0
$0
$9,000,000
Roadway Signage Project
$1,750,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,750,000
Airport Drive Relocation
$0
$0
$1,272,000
$0
$0
$1,272,000
Airport Office Relocation
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,000,000
Air Traffic Control Tower
$12,000,000
$28,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$40,000,000
$31,750,000
$49,576,000
$12,272,000
$15,360,000
$1,000,000
$109,958,000
ASF Sub-Total
•12
General Aviation Projects
Funding Distribution
FY09
FY10
FBO Terminal Aircraft Canopy
$0
FBO Terminal Expansion
FBO Ramp Expansion
FY11
FY12
FY13
5 Yr. Total
$0
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$1,000,000
$0
$247,200
$2,925,600
$0
$0
$3,172,800
$0
$3,090,000
$0
$0
$0
$3,090,000
FBO Parking Deck
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,400,000
$8,400,000
GA Aircraft Maintenance Hangar
$0
$0
$3,500,000
$0
$0
$3,500,000
$3,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,014,000
$3,286,000
$5,300,000
GA Hangar Development
$3,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,500,000
BofA Hangar Road Relocation
$1,500,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,500,000
$8,500,000
$3,337,200
$6,425,600
$3,014,000
$11,686,000
$32,962,800
Group Hangar #4
GADO Site Redevelopment
General Aviation Sub-Total
Cargo Development &
Special Facility Projects
Funding Distribution
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
5 Yr. Total
Cargo Development Projects
Cargo Ramp Exp. (Cargo 6 & 7)
$0
$515,000
$3,922,000
$2,180,000
$0
$200,000
$2,369,000
$0
$0
$0
$2,569,000
$2,000,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,000,000
$2,200,000
$2,884,000
$3,922,000
$2,180,000
$0
$11,186,000
Rental Car Facility Relocation
$4,000,000
$52,875,000
$17,625,000
$0
$0
$74,500,000
Aircraft Maintenance Facility
$2,900,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,900,000
$6,900,000
$52,875,000
$17,625,000
$0
$0
$77,400,000
Cargo Building #8
Old Terminal Loop Road
Cargo Development Sub-Total
$6,617,000
Special Facility Projects
Special Facility Sub-Total
•13
Airport
Complex
Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Connecting the Carolinas to the World
•14
What are the public’s expectations
about transportation?
Presentation to the Transportation Committee by CDOT
April 14, 2008
Purpose of Presentation:
To describe the results of the 2007
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual
Survey
conducted by the UNC Charlotte Urban
Institute for CDOT.
1
Survey Methodology:
– 858 Households in Mecklenburg County
– Selected at random for a telephone survey
– Topics include: existing driving conditions, possible
solutions to congestion, priorities for public sector
actions, bicycle travel, growth management, speeding
and safety concerns, financing for roads, air quality, and
household characteristics.
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Describe the route you take to work.
10.5%
30.9%
9.1%
20.1%
Very uncongested
Somewhat uncongested
Some days congested/Other days
uncongested
Somewhat congested
29.5%
Very congested
2
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
If the route you most frequently take to work is or were to become
extremely congested, which of the following actions would you
most likely take?
100
90
80
Percent (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Change route of
travel
Change time of
travel
Use alternative
modes of
transportation
Yes
Change
residential
location
Change
employment
location
No
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
If the route you take to work is or were to become extremely
congested, which of the following actions should the City of
Charlotte or the state of North Carolina take to relieve congestion?
100
90
80
Percent (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Widen existing streets Provide alternate modes
and roads
of transportation
Yes
Build more streets &
roads
Locate employers closer
to housing to lessen
commute time
No
3
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Of all the actions you think the City of Charlotte or the state of
North Carolina should take to relieve traffic congestion, which
actions would you like them to take 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?
50
45
Percent (%)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Provide Alternate modes of
transportation
Build more streets & roads
1st
2nd
Locate employers closer to
housing to lessen commute
time
3rd
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Do you own a bicycle?
Yes (44.4%)
No (56.6%)
4
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
How often do you ride a bicycle for school, work, or running
errands?
4.9%
1 or more times a week
6.0%
8.7%
1 or more times a month
Less than once a month
80.8%
Never
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
How often do you ride a bicycle for exercise or recreation?
1 or more times a week
18.6%
1 or more times a month
40.5%
Less than once a month
17.8%
Never
23.1%
5
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Which of the following would be most important in encouraging you or members
of your household to ride a bicycle for errands, school, or work?
11.9%
Bicycle lanes painted on streets
47.9%
34.5%
Bicycle paths separated from
traffic
Secure place to lock bike
Other
Nothing would encourage me
3.3%
2.4%
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Do you want sidewalks provided on all new or widened roadways?
9.1%
Yes
No
90.9%
6
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Do you believe roads should be designed to accommodate all
users including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
users?
18.5%
Yes
No
81.5%
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Are you aware of the City's growth management strategy known
as the "Centers, Corridors and Wedges?"
26.5%
73.5%
Yes
No
7
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
Should the City should steer growth towards areas where there is sufficient
infrastructure and steer growth away from areas where there is not
sufficient infrastructure?
23.0%
Yes
No
77.0%
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
How should the government pay for NEW roads?
1.3%
4.1%
Taxes
7.0%
Tolls
23.9%
Impact Fees for new
development
43.5%
20.2%
Combination of taxes,
tolls, & impact fees
The state should
already have the funds
to pay for new roads
Other
8
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
How should the government pay for road MAINTENANCE?
0.8%
3.5%
1.5%
9.6%
Taxes
Tolls
28.1%
56.5%
Impact Fees for new
development
Combination of taxes &
tolls
Anything but taxes
Other
2007 Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Annual Survey
• Responses to questions about safety and air
quality could be reported separately.
• Questions?
9
Introduction to CDOT’s
Connectivity Policy Initiatives
“We need the connectivity, and we need it bad!
We need to move the traffic!”
– Newell resident, 10/26/07
April 14, 2008
Presentation Outline
• Connectivity Overview: Definition and Functions
• The need for connectivity in Charlotte
• Goals of Street Connectivity Program
• Summary of Policy Initiatives
– Detailed discussions of Policy Initiatives to occur in
subsequent Transportation Committee meetings
1
Summary of
Recommended Connectivity Policies
1. Maintain existing opportunities for connectivity
2. Improve future opportunities for connectivity
and map strategic connections
3. Prioritize connectivity capital projects
4. Lessen hardships that prevent connectivity
5. Mitigate actual or perceived impacts of
connectivity
Connectivity Overview:
Definitions and Functions
2
Definitions
Connectivity
The degree to which a system of
streets provides multiple routes
and connections serving the
same origins and destinations.
Transportation Action Plan, Chapter 4
Connectivity Index (CI)
A quantitative measure of
connectivity, equal to:
Number of street segments
Numbers of Intersections + Cul-de-sacs
CI ranges from 1.00 (all cul-de-sacs) to
2.00 (perfect grid)
The Functions of Connectivity
1. Provide mobility to transportation network users
– Improved travel time and/or decreased distance
between Point A and Point B
2. Provide accessibility to abutting properties/land
uses
– Ease of reaching desired destinations
– More destinations to reach
3. Provide resiliency of transportation network
– Ability to accommodate unusual or stressing events
4. Provide redundancy of transportation network
– Multiple routes between Point A and Point B
3
Existing Policy and Ordinance
References to Connectivity
• Transportation Action Plan (TAP)
– Objective 2.9 specifically about connectivity
– 5 other Objectives incorporate connectivity
• Subdivision Ordinance
– Connections required unless a hardship exists
• Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG)
– Block spacing criteria (Policy recommendation #7)
• Infrastructure General Development Policies
Charlotte’s
Need for Connectivity
4
Trips
• 28% of all trips are 1 mile or less
• Trips ≤1 mile in length are local trips
– Have an origin, destination, or both in the neighborhood
– Local trips don’t need to be made on thoroughfares
– Thoroughfares are for longer-distance trips
• More connections allow for more route choices
• More choices = less traffic at any one intersection
All traffic must
go through this
intersection
Many route choices
Destination
Destination
vs.
Origin
Origin
Poor Connectivity
Good Connectivity
Charlotte Population 2005-2030
•
•
•
•
2030 City population expected to be 1,000,000
350,000 new residents will bring their cars
… But not their street networks
Charlotte needs a better network to handle that
additional traffic
Moss Rd.
CI = 1.04
We need less
network like this
Dilworth:
CI = 1.40
…and need more
network like this
5
More connectivity = Less congestion
CI=1.19
CI=1.45
Number of
Signalized
Intersections
Number of High
Congestion
Intersections
% of
Total
Inside Route 4
293
11
4%
Outside &
Including Route 4
383
57
15%
Objectives of Street
Connectivity Program
6
About the
Street Connectivity Program
• A new CIP program, started in 2007
• Funded by road bonds
• Specific policy in the TAP
Policy 2.9.5
By 2007, the City will consider implementing an annuallyfunded bridge/street creek crossing program to fund and
facilitate connectivity between new residential
subdivisions as they are permitted.
• Street Connectivity Program funds to be used for
local streets
• Other CIP programs build thoroughfares
Strategic Vision for Connectivity
Charlotte’s
Charlotte’s Future
Future Vision
Vision
To
To be
be an
an urban
urban community
community of
of choice
choice for
for living,
living, working
working and
and leisure.
leisure.
Centers,
Centers, Corridors,
Corridors, &
& Wedges
Wedges Growth
Growth Framework
Framework
Enhance
Enhance livability
livability while
while accommodating
accommodating 350,000
350,000 new
new residents
residents in
in Charlotte
Charlotte
Transportation
Transportation Action
Action Plan
Plan
Comprehensive
Comprehensive strategies
strategies to
to make
make Charlotte
Charlotte one
one of
of the
the premier
premier cities
cities
in
in the
the nation
nation for
for integrating
integrating land
land use
use and
and transportation
transportation choices
choices
Street Connectivity Program
7
Objectives of
Street Connectivity Program
1. Implement TAP Objective #2.9
By 2015, the City will maintain its
connectivity ratio of 1.45 inside Route
4, and increase its connectivity ratio
outside Route 4 from 1.19 to 1.35.
2. Create a denser street network
3. Reduce per-capita vehiclemiles of travel (VMT)
• Fulfilling these objectives will
– Address Charlotte’s needs for
connectivity
– Help handle traffic of 350,000 new
residents
Street Connectivity Program Objective #1:
Implement TAP Objective #2.9
• Designate a Street Connectivity Manager who:
–
–
–
–
–
Serves as connectivity advocate
Develops policy as needed regarding connectivity
Participates in land development reviews for connectivity
Leverages public and private money
Extends streets/builds new streets through CIP
• Collaborate on traffic calming and bike/pedestrian
connectivity projects
• Retain existing City rights-of-way
• Retain existing City land when appropriate
8
Street Connectivity Program Objective #1:
Implement TAP Objective #2.9
(cont.)
• Extend streets through CIP
– List of 60+ candidate
connectivity projects
• Some previously studied
in past Connectivity Study
• More projects always
added
– 4 projects currently
underway
– 1 feasibility study underway
– Feasibility studies about to
begin for 11 other candidate
projects
Street Connectivity Program Objective #1:
Implement TAP Objective #2.9
(cont.)
• Create more street network through
Land Development processes
– Vast majority of local streets built by
private sector
– CDOT in process of amending Subdivision
Ordinance to
• Use USDG Block Spacing criteria
• Link street networks to area plans
– Clarify Subdivision Ordinance language
regarding exemptions
– Obtain additional streets through
rezonings
9
Street Connectivity Program Objective #2:
Densify Street Network
• Inflated cost of street connectivity projects in TAP
is $532 million over 25 years
• Provide multiple parallel routes [redundancy,
resiliency]
– Many little (local) roads instead of a few big
(thoroughfare) roads
– Provide more route choices
• Remove local traffic from thoroughfares
[accessibility]
– Make local trips on local streets
– Make non-local trips on non-local streets
Street Connectivity Program Objective #2:
Densify Street Network
(cont.)
• Remove some traffic from signalized intersections
[mobility]
– Major intersection projects cost $4,000,000+
– New street connections cost about $500,000 $1,000,000
– 4-8 connectivity projects possible for the cost of ONE
intersection project
– Less risk/constraints in new connections than widening
intersections
10
Street Connectivity Program Objective #3:
Reduce Per-Capita VMT
• Make it easier to get to local destinations
[accessibility]
• Improves air quality [mobility]
– Less driving = Less traffic = Less pollution
• Increases use of multi-modal transportation
options [redundancy, resiliency]
– Walking
– Bicycling
– Transit
• Link transportation to land use
– More streets allow for more land uses
– Having closer land uses can decrease VMT
Connectivity Goals Summarized
Local Trips don’t need
to use thoroughfare
Local Trips need to
use Thoroughfare
Traffic can be
distributed
Traffic is
concentrated
11
Recommended
Connectivity Policies
Purposes of Connectivity Policies
• To have one unified list of policies
• To give guidance regarding connectivity
–
–
–
–
To
To
To
To
City Council
City staff
developers
the public
• To implement all Street Connectivity Objectives
5 Policies
Help
Implement
Street
Helps
Connectivity Implement
Objectives
TAP
12
Summary of
Recommended Connectivity Policies
1. Maintain existing opportunities for connectivity
2. Improve future opportunities for connectivity
and map strategic connections
3. Prioritize connectivity capital projects
4. Lessen hardships that prevent connectivity
5. Mitigate actual or perceived impacts of
connectivity
Detailed discussions of the
5 Connectivity Policies
will occur in subsequent presentations
to the Transportation Committee.
13
Questions?
14