Charlotte City Council
Transportation Committee
Meeting Summary for March 24, 2008
Agenda Topics:
I.
II.
III.
Final Recommendation of Focus Area Plan
Parking Collaborative and Wayfinding – Update
Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study – Phase 2
Committee Information:
Present: Anthony Foxx, Warren Turner, Nancy Carter, Michael Barnes
Additional Attachments:
1.) “Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study” PPT
Discussion Summary:
(Chairman Foxx called the meeting to order and asked everyone in the room to introduce
themselves.)
Council Member Foxx: We have three items to review. The first is the Final Recommendation of
the Focus Area Plan. There have not been a lot of changes, but there are a few since we last looked
at them. Would you like to go through the changes?
Council Member Barnes: I always find it helpful to go through the changes.
Danny Pleasant: Under Trans. 1 the last Target date was changed. On Trans. 2 we changed the
wording to annual hours of congestion per traveler, as measured by Texas Transportation Institute
(TTI). The idea is to keep us in our peer group of cities.
Barnes: Regarding Center, Corridors, and Wedges in Trans. 1, I have encountered confusion
among private developers and it’s not as clear as expected as to what our policy is so that they are
actually relying on information that is useful and well understood. So if you have clarified that,
then tell me. The second question I have relates to the ridership on Lynx Blue Line and the initial
number of 9,100 per day, do they encourage that number?
Pleasant: As far as Center, Corridors, and Wedges Framework, one of the items to be done is to
basically put some “meat” on the wording to clarify and clear up confusion. There is still work to
be on the Center, Corridors, and Wedges. As far as the Lynx Blue Line ridership is concerned, the
9,100 was an estimate used during the initial process. The number to really pay attention to is a 30
year long term.
Barnes: So we want to stick with the low number?
Pleasant: Yes sir.
Barnes: Is there a time in November 2008 where we should actually compare the actual ridership to
the bus number?
Pleasant: The bus number is kind of a metric for positive growth, over a period of time we will see
similar escalation.
Kimble: You did see during the CIAA tournament, one day was 31,000 riderships and during the
ACC tournament, one of the days had 30,000 riderships? I think we were near 12,000 – 13,000 on
normal days outside of the tournaments.
Barnes: Yes
Foxx: We are looking at the Northlake Area Plan, which is a greenfield type of development, and
we have an opportunity to put in an infrastructure there. I mention this because I think we need to
start working on aligning everything together.
Pleasant: (Reviews and describes other changes in Trans. 3, Trans. 4, and Trans. 5. - Refer to Focus
Area Plan in Agenda Package)
Foxx: Motion – I vote to approve the Transportation Focus Area Plan.
Motion passes (unanimous)
Kimble: From a process standpoint, this in on your agenda for tonight, Kim Eagle from Budget is
going to go upstairs and put everything in blue print and you can pass those out tonight.
Foxx: On to number two, Parking Challenges and Wayfinding Update
Jim Kimbler: (Reviews and describes Parking Challenges and Related Center City Transportation
Plan Policies in Agenda package.)
Barnes: Regarding pedestrians wayfinding signs, are they lighted?
Kimbler: No
Barnes: Under street lights?
Kimbler: They are in areas where they are visible in a storm. We use a reflective paint that meets
NCDOT standards. These are acceptable for pedestrian wayfinding. You don’t want them to be too
visible to motorist as it would be a distraction.
Barnes: One of the concerns I have is Uptown is becoming hostile to visitors. They don’t know
where to park. We’ve eliminated meter parking and street parking. I’m curious as you go through
your presentation; I’m looking to hear how we will let visitors know where and how to find a
parking space. Just want to hear your thoughts on what we are doing to make our City more visitorfriendly.
Kimbler: We have included making sure we begin schedules far enough out to intersect people who
are driving from I-77 and I-85 and begin to bring them into Center City using a color coding
system. We would bring them in at the most logical point so they travel the shortest distance to get
to the closest parking deck with available spaces.
Norm Steinman: One other reason we want Center City Partners to take the lead – they can also
take the website and organize the site in a way to help people know how to get to parking lots and
decks, the availability at the lots, and the cost.
Barnes: Follow up for you regarding the practicality of this, have you had people to walk the
sidewalk and follow those signs? For example, when I was making a left on 3rd and Davidson, the
sign said Left Marshall Park, is there a corresponding sign that says Marshall Park Here?
Kimbler: Yes, sir.
Council Member Carter: Are we linked with Central City Partners and Charmeck.org?
Kimbler: Not yet, but its high priority.
Carter: We’ve had this program on the books for a while, has the cost escalated?
Kimbler: I don’t believe so.
Carter: What is the estimated time of completion?
Kimbler: The signs would take about a year to fifteen months. We hope to have interim phase by
2009. I would like to first see this slowly get integrated into the parking system.
Foxx: First thing, the ACC tournament was a great success. I was able to walk home after the
tournament. I observed people parking almost to I-277. A lot of the pedestrian signs are more
interior and perhaps we need more towards the exterior. Second thing, I believe there is some way
to better separate our Wards; maybe a color coding system. Third thing, for someone who walks
Downtown a decent amount in the Trade and Tryon area, you can get anywhere you want, however,
when you venture further out the pathway is a lot less sensible. It’s worth looking into developing
sensible thoroughfares.
Carter: That was a subject of discussion at UNCC; they had the AIA design specialist who came
and talked about informal planning, which is following the routes that people choose. Cutting
through property for pedestrians is an important issue that could be a highlight. You mentioned
differentiating Wards; border colors sometimes do that in other cities. One of the other points I want
to make is integration with the Gold Rush and our other public transit services, make sure those are
part of this.
Kimbler: We are working with other partners on this. The goal is to get down to a single updatable
map.
Foxx: Item number 3 – Fast Lanes Study
Norm Steinman: I’ll do part and Tim Gibbs will do part. Mecklenburg County is the 10th largest
county in the Nation based on number of people with growth in 2006 – 2007. We added about
32,000 people in Mecklenburg County. With that pace of growth we need to figure out new ways
of adding capacity, not just the traditional way of adding more lanes. That’s the reason why we
started the Fast Lanes Study.
Tim Gibbs: The study began last year as a result of a discussion between the Rural Planning
Organization and Metropolitan Planning Organization and some others in Charlotte.
(Gibbs reviews the PowerPoint Presentation)
Carter: (Reference slide 6, “Types of Fast Lanes/HOV”) Why is the paint on the Continuous
Access picture different from the Access Prohibited pictures when it’s the same highway?
Gibbs: What happens is there is a determination where you can actually enter the lane. There are
specified points where you can enter and cannot enter the lane. The different paint indicate those
points.
Carter: So it’s not continuous?
Gibbs: The access is not continuous. The lane itself is continuous. You can travel it the whole 10mile stretch. You can only enter and exit at certain points.
Carter: I would love to see sketches of where those access points are. I think that’s very
interesting.
Steinman: They are usually about a mile. We use them to have a more controlled operation.
Carter: I appreciate those constrictions but I would like to know where they are sided and what you
are thinking because it seems like in certain areas they should have more access. That would be a
very good way to regulate the use.
Gibbs: In some instances we have buffers that separate the travel in the HOV lanes. It could be
with paint like on I-77, or it could be like in Houston on US 59, they have concrete barriers that
separate traffic from HOV lanes.
Carter: In some areas are those mixed. In other words are there some lanes outside the concrete
barriers?
Gibbs: Yes
Carter: As in Houston, are those reversible lanes?
Gibbs: One of the things they do in Houston is us a Zipper truck. The Zipper trucks move the
concrete barrier to adjust lane usages during peak periods. Assume there are 4 lanes going one
direction. They may change it to 3 inbound and 1 outbound in the mornings or vice versa.
Carter: I would be interested in seeing comparable costs.
Steinman: They are obviously higher operating costs for that kind of lane.
Gibbs: Other types of Fast Lanes are HOT (High Occupancy Toll). Folks use these lanes if they
prefer to pay to travel quickly, i.e. to get home to get to a soccer match on time. Lanes are
managed by eligibility and occupancy. Sometimes it varies by the number of people in the car or by
the time of day.
Foxx: With the I-77 HOV Lane – what steps do you have to go thru to get approved?
Gibbs: One is the Federal Highway Administration and you also have to work with the State DOT
and Local Transportation Authorities.
Foxx: Even in City limits?
Gibbs: Yes
Steinman: One of the things to think about is design exception. That can be the width of lanes –
are they far enough, too narrow, is there a shoulder? There is a whole series of design components.
Foxx: I raised the question because there are all kinds of trigger points, but one is we need to think
about how to get in front of the right folks.
Gibbs: In regards to the collections of tolls for the Proposed Monroe Connector Bypass project,
gone are the days where you hand money to someone or put money in a basket. Everything will be
electronic, thru a transponder, which is connected to a debit card or credit card. If you were not
able to purchase a transponder to go through, there will be devices placed to get your license plate
number. One of the questions I always get is if someone from Maine or West Virginia is coming
through to head to the beach, then how do you actually enforce that on those people. The Turnpike
Authority is working with the states and region on that issue.
Barnes: If I have a transponder in my car and driving thru the area visiting, would I have an
opportunity to pay the toll?
Gibbs: You would call prior to your visit and set that up with the Turnpike Authorities.
Barnes: I don’t think people will take the time to call the Turnpike Authority before hand. Is there
not a kiosk? Is there a practical or sensible way?
Gibbs: I agree. That is what the Turnpike Authority is looking at now. Every time we meet this
issue comes up and they are working on it.
(Carter pulls out her cell phone indicating they could call from their cell phone)
Steinman: More and more states using tolls are going to the electronic method of collections.
Probably what the states are working on is where to send the bill.
Barnes: Do you know how much that will cost?
Gibbs: It will vary by the time of day.
Barnes: Let’s just say it’s a buck each way. Collection cost would be $4 or $5.
Steinman: Chances are the cost would be $0.10 a mile or $0.20 a mile. Typically, in other cities
cost is $0.25 a mile.
Barnes: I think people should pay their tolls, but I don’t want folks to think I’m going to track you
down for a $1.50.
Steinman: But in the Managed Lanes case, people have a choice. They can travel in the free lanes
or pay to travel in a faster lane.
Carter: Referencing the Study Corridors page; these bypasses will truly be bypasses, correct?
There will not be permitted development on the access points, etc.
Gibbs: These are on the freeway.
Carter: And that’s a mutual agreement with all the entities along this area. So, we’ve established
buffer areas? I have great interest in this because we have two access points to our districts.
Kimble: I’m not too sure that’s the case. The Turnpike Authority has condemnation powers where
they can put in for the roadway they need and then sell off the excess land they have for
development purposes. I think they would use that reluctantly and infrequently.
Gibbs: Additionally we have to determine toll facilities in our area and if the Turnpike Authority
will be managing those. Those are some of the questions we are reviewing.
Council Member Turner: I want to go back to some of the other cities you have in your slide here.
How many of these cities had these roads built privately?
Gibbs: None of these roads were built with private funding.
Steinman: These are Fast Lanes. These are individual lanes so the answer is different for toll roads
as compared to Fast Lanes. None of the Fast Lanes operated in the United States are owned by a
private company. Toll roads are completely separate items in which you would have to pay the toll.
Turner: We are still talking about a road system that we don’t have. If we don’t have the lane
capacity to add one more lanes, then…
Steinman: Actually we do, and you will see that later in the presentation. We’ve already discussed
the physical feasibility of being able to add lanes on the freeways here in the Charlotte Region. The
point would be to add capacity but to add it in such a way that there would be more control over
who would use that additional capacity.
Barnes: To follow up on what Carter mentioned earlier regarding the lack of development along the
freeway, and the state allowing interchanges. To turn a toll road/freeway into a noted version I-485
it will turn into the same thing in Atlanta and we don’t want to do that. I know this is not totally in
our authority but the concern needs to be communicated.
Carter: But it impinges among our rights as well and if we want to impose those restrictions on
others, then we have to accept them also.
Gibbs: Currently there are over 130 Fast Lanes projects in U.S. and Canada. For our study,
initially the study corridors consisted of 334 miles and 39 different segments. The roadways we
have indicated in the presentation in green would be for Phase 2 of the study. Most-congested
corridors are recommended for Phase 2. HOV and HOT options are feasible on these corridors.
The corridor segments moving forward in Mecklenburg County are I-77, I-85, I-485, NC-16 and US
74. The corridors that do not move to Phase 2 still need attention using other congestion
management strategies; that may be signal improvements, intersection improvements, additional
transit service in the area, and preparing a menu of options for those communities to determine if
those corridors will benefit from any of those strategies.
Carter: You said something very important right there; to consult communities. So, there are plans
for looking at the Neighborhood Associations and businesses that are in the area as you discuss
this?
Gibbs: Any of those areas that are interested in looking at strategies will have a chance to do so.
Carter: You’ll have your first commentary on Thursday.
Gibbs: As we go through the process of Phase 2 we will determine the types of lane treatments,
operation strategy, policy, potential of trucks, revenue potential and connectivity.
Carter: Connectivity can also be how you blend in with those communities through which you pass.
I’m concerned about how much access is granted on and off these lanes. In other words, serving
our citizens locally as well as those who pass through our community.
Steinman: We want to talk about CDOT’s interest in Managed Lanes. We believe that we need to
look very seriously at this concept because we are interested in protecting the capacity or enhancing
the capacity that the freeways serve and Managed Lanes provides a way to do that. We want to do
this more so on the freeways rather than thoroughfares. Managed Lanes allow greater use of more
vehicles per lane and more persons per lane.
Carter: Do we have conflicting goals? In Planning our goal is to maintain the high population in
our city limit. By facilitating longer distance trips, we are pushing that population out. Is there a
conflict here?
Steinman: I’m not sure there is. Let’s use Union County as an example. There are the people that
want housing out there because they believe the property tax is lower or the schools are better, the
people are going to continue to want that even if there are no Managed Lanes. What we want to do
with the Managed Lanes is make sure they are designed so that Charlotte’s interests are well
represented. Obviously, without Charlotte City Council agreeing to the lanes, there isn’t going to
be Managed Lanes, so that’s one of the reasons why we are having this conversation.
Foxx: Has the full Council had this presentation?
Steinman: Yes, it was a quick presentation.
Foxx: I think we need to take another look at this. I would hate for us to do all this work and no
one remember it.
Steinman: That’s another reason why we are here. Okay, so onto the presentation, so, if there are
going to be toll charges, we want to make sure that revenues are applied to supplement what
NCDOT will do in the long run. And if there are tolls charged, money is collected; and some goes
to other parts of the state. We have to think from a political and technical standpoint.
Foxx: Does the Turnpike Authority have rules about that?
Steinman: The Turnpike Authority has even stronger rules because they have to get private
financing for their individual projects and they have to show enough revenue for a 40 year time
period to cover adequately the cost of operating and maintaining the road. They want to make sure
that the roadway doesn’t detereorate; the infrastructure of the roadway doesn’t deteriorate. Now if
we are going to be looking at a network of Managed Lanes, then we probably need to look at a
different type of arrangement which may or may not include Managed Lanes. We may need to look
at a local Managed Lanes.
Carter: That might be a positive thing to link and ally.
Steinman: So let’s look at the possible facts affecting implementation of Managed Lanes in
Charlotte. Some of them are going to be physical. Each corridor has its own constraints. There
will be questions of who gets to use the lanes and who decides who uses them, what are the prices,
what are the purposes of the revenue if there will be tolls charged. I’ve found that in the discussions
with the consultants so far it appears that what may be feasible is the Northern section of I-85 near
Graham Street, which we might have to do some design conceptions. It’s not going to be easy on I85. Conversely on I-77 to the North it should be relatively easy because the lanes are there already
and easy to convert to the correct type of lane. Perhaps the most costly of all the corridors would be
I-77 South of Uptown. The next lane, no matter what the purpose, added to that freeway would
mean that all bridges, bypasses and interchanges would have to be built. That would cost millions
of dollars. So what you might see come out of this for that amount of money and that turmoil, it
might as well be a massive rebuild of that freeway which would take years. The most difficult one
of all is Independence Boulevard. The reasons are it’s the only corridor in our entire region where
there is a direct competition for physical space. What we are learning is Managed Lanes and BRT
(Bus Rapid Transit) could be accommodated at a lower cost than Managed Lanes and LRT (Light
Rail Transit). One of the options is separating the Managed Lanes completely from the portion of
the cross-section that would be used by the BRT or LRT. One concern the consultant has is that the
design of the BRT may not make it possible for other vehicles to travel at a fast enough speed to
make it competitive. We may end up looking at a design where there would be construction of a
transit right of way and perhaps a separate right of way for the Managed Lanes.
Carter: For both modes, Bus and Light Rail?
Steinman: Yes, we’ll end up looking at both. We will meet with CATS to determine what changes
might still be feasible with BRT going forward, to see if other vehicles can mix with those lanes.
With LRT, there is no way of mixing.
Carter: Is there a possibility to make Independence more like the freeways, where you have 3 lanes
and one lane being dedicated to HOT.
Steinman: One of the things the consultant told us is it is very difficult to convert an existing free
lane into one where people would have to pay. Now, if we look at the contra flow operation on I-85
were we might have to make a design exception, we would be coming very close to that, but in that
case we can rationalize it by saying instead of having 4 free lanes we will have 3 free lanes and 2
special lanes. On US 74 that would be harder to say, well you use to have 3 free lanes now you’re
only going to have two free lanes and going to have to pay for the other lane. The other concern is
depending on the amount of traffic flow in a particular direction, converting an existing lane into
Managed Lane could severely harm the flow. That’s why these projects are usually accomplished
by adding a lane. There have been some questions about scheduling of various decisions, so I
wanted to explain here that we expect the technical findings from the consultants to be available in
November. The Phase 2 of the Independence Blvd. study will begin April 2008 and scenarios
defined by September 2008. We expect the scenarios will be evaluated by the end of the year.
Sometime in 2009 the Council will be asked to approve an Area Plan.
Turner: You’re not going to like this but, I’m saying it again. I can solve the problem by choosing
the Monorail System all the way to Monroe. Less destruction, less interruption, and it’s cheaper. It
makes no sense to put everything on the ground when we are running out of space. This is a huge
project and I can’t even imagine how much it will cost once we start running it down US 74. And
as you indicated earlier, we can’t just stop in our town; we will have to go all the way to Monroe. I
don’t know why people even get on US 74; they should all find another route.
Steinman: Well one thing that is not very clear on the map that we show here is that a new freeway
will be built; it’s just a matter of time, from I-485 to Union County pass Monroe. That’s the still to
be named connector/bypass. That will exist in 2014, maybe.
Turner: Where is the connection?
Steinman: (shows on the map) That bypass connects into I-485.
Turner: So they are still going to have to find a way to get into Center City?
Steinman: Yes, this will happen in about 6 years.
Gibbs: (shows on the map where the connection is located)
Turner: 20 miles? They are going to open the total 20 miles?
Gibbs: (continues to show the connection area on the map)
Carter: There are two exits, Idlewild Road and Rocky River Road for the connector. Am I accurate
on that?
Gibbs: There will be one at Rocky River Road and may be one at Indian Trail, which will be
parallel to Idlewild Road.
Carter: And there are no provisions in our Transportation Action Plan to widen either of those
roads?
Gibbs: That’s all in Union County. It is in the Transportation Plan, but it’s not in the
Transportation Action Plan for the City.
Turner: It’s still a bottleneck when you come into Mecklenburg County.
Steinman: At that point people can make a choice depending on where they are going. They can
travel on I-485 or proceed on Independence Blvd. That’s why we are looking at the Managed
Lanes.
Turner: We talked about that cost of just going I-77 to South Corridor with all the bridges and rail
line which crosses over, but that’s a huge cost. That’s one of the reasons why we probably didn’t
get anymore than what we got the first time we widened I-77.
Steinman: That’s why I said the next lane to be added, doesn’t matter if it’s general purpose lane or
special lane, it requires construction. That project has been in the long range Transportation Plan
and it just keeps moving back.
Turner: This should be discussed in the future with full Council. It seems to go against our land
plan use. We still have land being developed right up to I-77. At some point we are going to
condemn that property because we know eventually we are going to widen that area. So why would
we continue to allow Council or not suggest to stop those things that we are allowing to take place.
We have neighborhoods being built at Nations Ford and I-77 right up to the highway, literally, and
those are new neighborhoods, but we are going to have to remove those because you can’t go to the
right based on what we are doing on the other side. At some point we have to say we can’t do
anymore because this is our future right-a-way for widening. Are we prepared to make that
argument to full Council yet?
Foxx: There are a lot of complexities here. Our process of planning is happening in one place and
land use is happening in another place. Harmonizing is critical. My second point is we are in
danger of going over budget because of land cost. I think there is a value in looking forward in
going ahead and buying that real estate and maybe with the state we would have some leverage then
to work out acceleration on projects.
Turner: I concur with what you said. But this has been on our future road plan for over 20 years
and we’ve done nothing about it so it’s a shortfall on the Councils side. We should have reserved
that land when it was cheaper.
Steinman: All are tough choices. If we want to set up a Land Banking Account, which money has
to come from somewhere so this Council or future Council will have to agree that certain amount of
money will be used strictly to buy property in advance for the use of a roadway.
Turner: I have no problem with that.
Carter: There is another policy we could look at and that is the right-of-way restriction to the side
and that’s established. You should hear the citizens talk about it; it’s taking their property rights.
Norm: The transitional setback was set up to try to not have buildings be put where people
expected there to be space for future roads. And as Council Member Carter indicates, that creates
other kinds of problems. Taking the policy which is visionary and long term and actually
converting them day to day.
Foxx: I think this is great work. We have a lot of policy decisions to make as well as budgetary.
Kimble: We will do this again for full council if that is your request.
Foxx: It is.
(Foxx adjourned the meeting).
Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study
Presentation to
Council Transportation Committee
March 24, 2008
What Are Fast Lanes?
• Separate Dedicated Lane System
• One or More User Groups
• Strategies Used to Preserve Lane Operating
Capacity
• Unimpeded Travel during
Periods of Peak Demand
Before
Orange County, SR-91
After
STUDY PURPOSE
• Are there any potential corridors where
Fast Lanes are viable and/or might
yield sufficient revenue to justify their
installation
• Where and how these facilities might be
connected to form a system.
PROJECT STEERING TEAM
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Cabarrus-Rowan Metropolitan Planning Organization
Charlotte Area Transit System
City of Charlotte Department of Transportation
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
Lake Norman Rural Planning Organization
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
North Carolina Department of Transportation
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study
Rocky River Rural Planning Organization
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Town of Mooresville
Why consider Fast Lanes?
Transit Lane, NJ
• Travel demand is growing faster than
population
• Rush-hour congestion is expanding into
more hours
• Travel patterns are diverse
• Travel distances are increasing as
people choose housing farther from
work
Truck Lanes, NJ
Types of Fast Lanes/HOV
Example from I-77
Charlotte, NC
Access Prohibited
6-inch (painted) buffer
Continuous Access
10-inch (painted) buffer
Types of Fast Lanes/HOV
Buffer Separated
I-405 HOV, Orange Co., CA.
Barrier Separated
US 59, Houston, TX.
Types of Fast Lanes/HOT
I-394 Minneapolis
• Managed priced lanes
giving preference to
HOVs.
• Highest HOVs are
typically free.
• Offers unimpeded travel
and reliability benefits
during
peak periods
SR 91, Orange County
Forms of Lane Management
• Eligibility/Occupancy
• Access Restrictions
• Pricing
Proposed
Monroe Connector/Bypass
Toll Plaza
Where Are Fast Lanes Operating?
• Currently over 130 Fast Lanes projects in US and Canada
• 7 projects currently use pricing
I-394
I-15
I-25
SR-91 &
I-15
I-10 &
US-290
Study Corridors (334 miles)
Segments Proceeding to
Phase 2
•
Overall Screening Results
•
•
•
•
•
Most-congested corridors are recommended for Phase 2 study
HOV and HOT options are feasible on these corridors.
TOT probably not.
Corridor segments moving forward in Meck. County:
– I-77
– I-85
– I-485
– NC 16
– US 74
Corridors that do not move to Phase 2 still need attention using
other congestion management strategies.
Looking Ahead to Phase 2
Phase 2 will answer….
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Type of lane treatment
Type of operation strategy
HOV and HOT policy
Truck potential
Revenue potential
Access
Connectivity
Phasing
CDOT’s Interest in
Managed Lanes
• Protect freeway capacity for longer-distance,
peak-period commuter trips
• Encourage more/greater vehicle and person
usage of freeways
• If tolls are charged, use revenue to supplement
NCDOT revenues in local area
Possible Factors Affecting
Implementation of Managed
Lanes in Charlotte
Physical – Each corridor’s cross-section and
constraints
Modal – Carpools of 2 or 3, Express Buses, Trucks,
Vehicles paying tolls
Organizational – Who will decide which modal group?
1) At what cost?
2) At what price?
3) For what purpose?
I-85 Near Graham Street
I-77 North of I-485
I-77 South of Uptown
US 74 Near Idlewild Road
US 74 – Independence Blvd.
Possibly the most difficult decision for Charlotte City
Council
Why?
1) Only corridor where highway, managed lanes
and rapid transit options directly compete for
physical space.
2) Managed Lanes and BRT could be
accommodated at a lower cost than Managed
Lanes and LRT.
What will happen next?
Findings and recommendations from Fast
(Managed) Lanes Study—November 2008
Independence Blvd. Land Use and Infrastructure
Study – Phase 2
Begin...............................April 2008
Scenarios defined......September 2008
Scenarios evaluated....December 2008
Adoption of Plan........................2009
http://www.fastlanes.org/