APPENDIX A 2030 Plan Ranking Criteria for Major Road Projects Page A-1 1. Reduces Congestion Objective: To assess the relation between the amount of physical and operational capacity provided by the roadway project in comparison to the vehicular travel de- mand. Widening Projects * Could include widening pavement (without adding lanes), and/or building curb and gutter or shoulders ** Would include Left Turn Lanes New Roadway Alignment / Location Projects 2. Provides benefits that outweigh project costs Provides benefits (iincluding beneficial impacts) that outweigh project costs (including detrimental impacts) Compare the project’s accumulation of positive ratings to the project’s estimated construction costs and specific, very negative impacts Daily Vehicle Volumes (thousands) Points 3 to 6 1 >6 to 12 2 >12 to 18 3 >18 to 24 4 >24 5 Daily Vehicle Volumes Per Lane (thousands) Arterial Freeway Improved* 2-Lane Median (LTL)** Widen by 4-6 Lanes Widen by 2-4 Lanes Convert to Freeway or Expressway 4 to 6 8 to 12 1 1 1 1 1 >6 to 7 >12 to 14 1 1 1 2 2 >7 to 8 >14 to 16 1 1 2 3 3 >8 to 9 >16 to 18 2 2 3 4 4 >9 to 10 19+ 3 3 4 5 5 10+ 3 4 5 5 5 A . Plan Ranking Criteria
Transcript
APPENDIX A2030 Plan Ranking Criteria for Major Road Projects
Page A-1
1. Reduces Congestion
�� Objective: To assess the relation between the amount of physical and operationalcapacity provided by the roadway project in comparison to the vehicular travel de-mand.
Widening Projects
* Could include widening pavement (without adding lanes), and/or building curb and
gutter or shoulders
** Would include Left Turn Lanes
New Roadway Alignment / Location Projects
2. Provides benefits that outweigh project costs� Provides benefits (iincluding beneficial impacts) that outweigh project costs (including
detrimental impacts)
� Compare the project’s accumulation of positive ratings to the project’s estimatedconstruction costs and specific, very negative impacts
Daily Vehicle Volumes (thousands) Points
3 to 6 1
>6 to 12 2
>12 to 18 3
>18 to 24 4
>24 5
Daily Vehicle Volumes Per Lane (thousands)
Arterial FreewayImproved*
2-LaneMedian(LTL)**
Widen by4-6 Lanes
Widen by2-4 Lanes
Convert toFreeway orExpressway
4 to 6 8 to 12 1 1 1 1 1>6 to 7 >12 to 14 1 1 1 2 2
>7 to 8 >14 to 16 1 1 2 3 3>8 to 9 >16 to 18 2 2 3 4 4
>9 to 10 19+ 3 3 4 5 5
10+ 3 4 5 5 5
A. P
lan R
ankin
g C
riteria
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
A-2
3. Improves safety (and security)� Objective: to reduce or remove potential for accidents; to increase access control
� Pavement widening projects receive up to 2 points� Medians receive up to 3 points� Interchanges and roundabouts (replacing at-grade intersections) receive
up to 4 points� A project must improve safety and security to receive 5 points
4. Supports rapid & express bus transit
� Project provides direct access to express bus park & ride lot .........up to 3 points� Project not in rapid transit corridors .....................................................up to 3 points� Project leads directly to a rapid transit station ................................... up to 5 points� Project in “wedge” location (not in rapid transit corridor),
without express bus service ....................................................................0 points
5. Supports land use planning objectives and improves quality of life� To be defined by local (land use or transportation) planner(s); would include any
effects on urban environment and parks or other properties purchased for openspace purposes
6. Improves accessibility to a center city (either Charlotte or Monroe)� Projects receive up to 5 points, depending on distance from either center city
7. Increases accessibility to other economic centers in MUMPO and directly adjacentcounties� Economic centers are defined by employment magnitude and density as follows:
� Largest: 2000 employees within ¼ mile and 5000 employees within ½ milecurrently, or at least 100 employees per acre in the future
� Next largest: 2000 employees within ¼ mile or 5000 employees within ½ milecurrently, or at least 50 employees per acre in the future
Projects receive up to 5 points for “largest” center, up to 4 points for “next largest”center
8. Reduces negative impacts on air quality� 5 or more miles of HOV/HOT lanes receive up to 2 points� 4 or fewer miles of HOV/HOT lanes receive up to 1 point� Other roadway projects receive up to 0 points
9. Supports low income and minority communities� Positive connectivity/accessibility benefits or negative disruption impacts assessed� “Low income communities” defined by percentage of households below Federal
poverty in relation to total households in Census tracts� “Minority communities” defined by percentage of minority in relation to total popula-
tion in Census tracts
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page A-3
10. Improves intermodal connectivity� Number of points dependent on distance from intermodal site� Charlotte International Airport, West Trade Multimodal Station, NC Designated Freight
Terminal up to 5 points� US or NC numbered route next to freeway up to 3 points� Other sites with 100 or more truck trips per day up to 2 points� Projects with bicycle lanes or sidewalks up to 1 point
+5 Very High positive impact on this criterion
+4 High positive impact on this criterion
+3 Moderate positive impact on this criterion
+2 Some positive impact on this criterion
+1 Slight positive impact on this criterion
0 No impact on this criterion
-1 Slight negative impact on this criterion
-2 Some negative impact on this criterion
-3 Moderate negative impact on this criterion
-4 High negative impact on this criterion
-5 Very High negative impact on this criterion
Ranking values
A. P
lan R
ankin
g C
riteria
uu The following page contains:
Table A-1: Project Ranking/Selection List .......................... begins on Page A-4
288 Gribble Rd. Stallings Rd. to Indian Trail Rd. Widening (3) 2 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 3 123 Arlington Church Rd. NC 24/27(Albemarle Rd.) to Rocky River Ch. Rd. New Road (2), Median, Bike Lane 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 12
266 Huntersville-Concord Rd. Trails End Ext. to Cabarrus County Line Widening (2), Bike Lanes 3 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 3 12279 Faith Church Rd. Extension US 74 to Unionville-Indian Trail Rd. New Road (2),(24' 4' paved shoulders) 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 12198 Bailey Rd. US 21 to NC 115 Widening (2), New Road (2), Bike Lanes 3 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 12252 Airport Rd. Goldmine Rd. to NC 84 Widening (4), New Road (4) Median, Bike Lanes 2 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 12263 Beatties Ford Rd. Mt. Holly-Huntersville Rd. to NC 73 Widen (2), Bike Accommodations 1 2 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 2 11449 Brief Rd. NC 218 to Union County Line Improved 2 lanes 3 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 11152 NC 115 (Old Statesville Rd.) Bailey Rd. to Iredell County Line Widening (4) Median, Bike Lanes 5 3 4 -5 0 1 1 0 0 1 10287 Stevens Mill Rd. McKee Rd. Extension to Lawyers Rd. Widening (4), Median, Bike lanes 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 10194 Lebanon Rd. Eastern Circumferential to NC 51 Widening (2), Bike Lanes, Curb & Gutter 2 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 10299 Dorman Rd. Carolina Place Pkwy. to SC State Line Widening (4), Median, Bike Lanes 2 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1025 Griffith St. I-77 to NC 115 Widening (4), Bike Lanes 5 0 3 -3 0 2 1 0 0 1 9
142 Faith Church Rd. Extension Monroe Rd. to Potter Rd. New Road (2),(24' 4' paved shoulders) 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 911 Brief Rd. Union County Line to US 601 Improved 2 lanes 2 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
185 Prosperity Ridge Rd. Extension Eastfield Rd. to Davidson-Concord Rd. New Road (4), Median, Bike Lanes 5 3 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 863 NC 16 (Providence Rd.) Fairview Rd. to Old Providence Rd. Widening (6) 5 1 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 2 869 NC 27 (Albemarle Rd.) Central Ave. to Harris Blvd. Widen Median for Dual Left Turns, Wide Outside Lanes 4 1 0 -1 1 1 0 0 0 2 8
300 I-277 (Belk Frwy.) Mint Street Construct Freeway Off Ramp 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 8190 Weddington/Wed.-Matthews Rd. McKee Rd. to NC 84 Improvement (2) Lanes, Bike Lanes 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 8278 Monroe Southern Loop Stack Rd. to Monroe Northern Loop New Road (4), Median 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 8274 Monroe Southern Loop Rocky River Rd. to Stack Rd. New Road (4), Median 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 7275 M. L. King Jr. Blvd. NC 200 to Southern Loop New Road (4), Median, Bike Lanes 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6200 Davidson-Concord Rd. Davidson Eastside Connector to Bailey Rd. Widening (4) Median, Wide Outside Lanes 5 2 0 -4 0 1 0 0 0 1 5301 I-277 (Brookshire Frwy.) N. Caldwell St. to N. Tryon St. Revise Interchanges 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 4238 I-77/Westmoreland Rd. Interchange New Interchange -2 -2 1 4 0 1 0 0 -1 -1 0
Page B-1
APPENDIX BPublic Involvement Process
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Appendix B-1: Contact Database
The contact database contains over 10,000 individuals and 800 organization contacts through-out Mecklenburg and Union Counties. It was created by merging a variety of existing databaseswith more than 230 new Environmental Justice and traditionally under-served contacts.
Compilation MethodologyThe objective of the database was to be as inclusive as possible. Existing databases such as thefollowing were compiled and expanded:
� Business organizations and councils;� City and town neighborhood and homeowner associations representatives;� City and town planning boards, board of commissioners, and design review boards;� Master listing for community university participants;� City and town diversified mailing lists;� Members of the Charlotte Mayor’s International Cabinet;� Mayors, councils, boards of adjustment and city/town agencies;� Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian cultural, business, and advocacy
organizations; and,� Low literacy, limited English proficiency and low-income agencies, advocates and
organizations.
Research TechniquesA variety of local, state and federal organizations, agencies, alliances, and advocacy groups wereidentified using web-based searches, existing database membership lists and personal contactswithin the MUMPO area. Some of the information sources include:
� Websites;� National ethnic publications;� Local mainstream newspapers;� Local phonebooks;� Chambers of Commerce;� Charlotte Mayor’s International Cabinet;� Ethnic restaurants and shops, and ethnic newspapers and radio stations;� Administration on Aging;� U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Carolina Food Stamp contact;� North Carolina Department of Education;� National Center for Education Statistics; and,� Business alliances.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-2
Database Structure
The database features a form for easy data entry and allows for a number of queries that include,but are not limited to the following:
� Faith-based organizations;� Business, civic and community groups; and,� Environmental Justice and traditionally under-served contacts.
Future UseThe purpose of the database is not only to meet MUMPO’s immediate needs, but also to serve asa foundation for an evolving and expanding database for any MUMPO activity including futureLRPT updates.
Appendix B-2: Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held during October, 2004, and a Spanish interpreter was availableat each. In order to accommodate the schedules of as many residents as possible, the meetingswere held at three different geographic locations (south central Mecklenburg County in down-town Charlotte, northern Mecklenburg County in Cornelius, and northern Union County inStallings); on three different days of the week (Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday); and, at twodifferent times (morning/afternoon and evening). The meeting in downtown Charlotte coin-cided with the Worldplay Children’s Festival and benefited from wider exposure as a result ofthis already scheduled event.
Saturday, October 9, 2004, 11:00 AM – 2:00 PMWorldplay Children’s Festival at Wachovia Park500 Block of South Tryon Street, Charlotte
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 5:00 PM - 8:00 PMTown of Cornelius Town Hall21445 Catawba Avenue, Cornelius
Thursday, October 14, 2004, 5:00 PM - 8:00 PMTown of Stallings Town Hall323 Stallings Road, Stallings
Notification Procedure
The meetings were advertised in the Charlotte Observer on October 1, 2004, and in a mediaadvisory sent via fax to 45 media contacts throughout the MUMPO area on October 4, 2004. Acopy of the media advisory is found on page B-17, and a copy of the text of the advertisement ison page B-18.
Meeting FormatEach meeting was set up in a drop-in format to allow the public flexibility to attend the meetingand to gain information on the subjects in which they were most interested. Areas designatedto educate meeting attendees and to gather their input were set up as follows:
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-3
Sign-In Table – A sign-in table was provided where participants were asked to provide theirname and address to document their attendance. The table contained several informationalmaterials that were distributed to meeting attendees. These included:
� an MPO brochure providing an overview of the LRTP and MUMPO activities (a copy ofthe English and Spanish versions are included on page B-19 and page B-21, respectively);
� maps of the 2025 LRTP projects;� bicycle and pedestrian route maps;� transit route maps;� information about other individual transportation initiatives; and,� a survey to gather input into the 2030 LRTP update.
Educational Display Area – An educational display area was created that presented the publicwith informational items about MUMPO, the LRTP and other transportation initiatives. Theexhibits in this section of the meeting areas included the following:
� an informational display regarding the MUMPO policy board, membership jurisdictions,and transportation planning responsibilities;
� a map of the MUMPO jurisdiction;� an informational display with facts about the LRTP including, but not limited to, its
legal requirements, update cycle and impacts on the future of transportation improve-ments;
� a map of the proposed projects to be added into the LRTP;� a map of the Streets and Highways Thoroughfare Plan for the MUMPO area;� a map of the overall transit corridor plan for the Charlotte region;� a map of bicycle improvements planned throughout Mecklenburg County;� a corridor improvement map of the I-77 HOV lane project (Cornelius only); and,� a map of the proposed Monroe Connector project and proposed alignments (Stallings
only).
Public Input Display Area - A public input display area was also set up to allow interested meet-ing attendees to give their opinion on objectives and policies they felt were the most importantregarding streets and highways, public transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel, and environmentalissues.
Survey Table – A table was provided for meeting attendees who wished to fill out surveys thatwere distributed at the sign-in table. Extra copies of the survey were also available at the table.An educational display area was created that presented the public with informational itemsabout MUMPO, the LRTP and other transportation initiatives.
AttendeesStaff members from the Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte MecklenburgPlanning Commission, and Charlotte Area Transit System were present along with representa-tives from the consultant team to assist meeting attendees viewing the display areas andanswer their questions.
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-4
A total of 71 members of the public registered on the sign-in sheets for the three Public Meet-ings collectively. The number of persons who signed in at each of the individual locations is asfollows:
� 55 participants at first meeting (downtown Charlotte);� 7 participants at second meeting (Cornelius); and,� 9 participants at third meeting (Stallings).
Information ObtainedAs previously noted, surveys were distributed to meeting attendees to gather their input on the2030 LRTP update. A total of 33 surveys were received from meeting attendees. The questionspresented on the surveys as well as a breakdown of the responses received is provided below.
Survey ConductedThe survey was conducted at the three Public Meetings and placed on the MUMPO website. Itrequested that the public respond with a numerical ranking to six different sets of choices. Italso provided them with space to list any specific concerns. The survey, the results of therankings, and the concerns raised by the respondents are shown below.
1. Please rate the following objectives of the 2030 LRTP by their importance to the commu-nity and transportation network with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two ormore selections can have the same rating:
Average RankDevelop an efficient street and highway network capable of providingan appropriate level of service for a variety of transportation modes ........... 4.15 1
Promote a safe, efficient and diverse public transportation systemthat is accessible to various segments of the population ............................ 4.03 2
Develop a transportation system that integrates pedestrian andbicycle modes of transportation with motor vehicle transportationand encourages the use of walking and bicycling as alternative modes ...... 3.45 6
Maximize rail and air travel and transportation opportunities ....................... 4.03 2
Develop a transportation system that preserves and enhances thenatural and built environments ................................................................... 3.55 4
Make investment decisions for transportation modes to make the mostefficient use of limited public resources ...................................................... 3.55 4
2. Please rate the following roadway policies within the Charlotte region by their impor-tance with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selections can havethe same rating:
Average RankConsistency with adopted land use plans and improving access tocityand town centers ................................................................................. 3.67 3
Increased connectivity of the existing street network .................................. 3.30 5
Minimized travel times and distances along significant streets andhighways .................................................................................................. 3.79 1
Optimized capacities of major transportation corridors (such as I-85, I-77,and US 74) ............................................................................................... 3.48 4
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-5
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
3. Please rate the following public transit policies within the Charlotte region by theirimportance with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selections canhave the same rating:
Average RankEfficient transit service that minimizes travel times and distances ................ 3.94 1Land use strategies that maximize the potential for transit ridership ............ 3.39 2Programs and incentives that encourage ridesharing .................................. 3.39 2Convenient service to the elderly and transportation disadvantagedpopulations ................................................................................................ 3.36 5Increased transit patronage as a percentage of total trips ............................ 2.91 8Maximized coverage area for transit services ............................................. 3.24 6Transit services coordinated with other transportation modes ..................... 3.39 2Reserve designated rail and transit corridors for future needs ..................... 3.24 6
4. Please rate the importance of the following bicycle and pedestrian transportation poli-cies within the Charlotte region with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two ormore selections can have the same rating:
Average RankDesign sensitivity of transportation projects to the needs of pedestriansand bicyclists ............................................................................................... 3.64 2Improve the transportation system to accommodate pedestrian andbicycle access along roadways through design and facility standards ........... 3.61 3Public awareness programs to Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety .......... 3.06 4Linkages for pedestrians and/or bicyclists between neighborhoods, employ-ment centers, services, cultural facilities, schools, parks, and business ......... 3.88 1
5. Please rate the importance of the following air and rail transportation policies within theCharlotte region with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selectionscan have the same rating:
Average RankIncreasing the attractiveness of the Charlotte/Douglas InternationalAirport as a major passenger and cargo facility ........................................... 3.09 2
Enhancements to intercity rail service and high-speed rail service ............... 3.33 1
6. Please rate the importance of the following environmental policies within the Charlotteregion regarding transportation with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two ormore selections can have the same rating:
Average RankMaintaining or improving air quality ............................................................. 4.06 1Minimizing traffic noise to surrounding properties ........................................ 2.97 8Preserving and complementing the area’s natural features ......................... 3.70 3Protecting cultural and historic resources.................................................... 3.82 2Reinforce community standards of appearance .......................................... 3.16 5Minimize neighborhood disruption and related impacts ............................... 3.00 7Safe routes for the transport of hazardous materials ................................... 3.18 4Restricting truck access to neighborhoods and historic, cultural resources .. 3.06 6
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-6
The surveys also allowed for meeting participants to provide additional comments. Below is a listof the additional comments received.
� More funding should go towards sidewalks, build wider sidewalks, put more numericalcounting traffic lights at all intersections, and uniform street lamp policy.
� Need speed bumps on Double Oaks Road. Traffic goes too fast between Oaklawn andNewland Road.
� It is great that there are more bike routes. We see the bike route on 36th used daily! Goodjob.
� Need speed bumps in Rocky River Village. City did put down car counter, but at a badlocation. They missed seventy-five percent of the neighborhood traffic. There is too muchout of neighborhood traffic and it is fast.
� The City planners should do a better job of planning. When a new community is developed,the roads should be developed first to make sure that they could handle the traffic.
� Where are you on the Colony Road roundabout? This road should be more accessible forour students at MP and local traffic. The road shouldn’t have ever been blocked.
� You can’t alter natural traffic patterns at the expense of Charlotte taxpayers for a smallgroup. I’m a Charlotte native and live off of Colony and still think it should be open andaccessible.
� Rail to airport; get rid of Safelight and traffic “calming”.
� Please make stronger efforts to require any new development at the Mt Holly-HuntersvilleRoad/NC16 intersection to pay for alleviation of big box traffic onto 2-lane roads and to addappropriate ingress/egress for Wal-mart and possible Home Depot.
� Why can’t we make public transportation work? The buses take too long and I do not wantto go downtown to get where I want to go. I would also like my employees to ride publictransportation.
� Traveling by bike is unsafe. If there were a safe way to get to point A to B without gettinghit I would take it over driving.
� Keep disabled vehicles off the shoulders as efficiently as possible due to safety concerns.(Sorry if this does not relate to your objectives.)
� Better timing of traffic lights is also needed.
� Sidewalk access to public transportation routes is lacking.
� As a person from North, the transportation is Charlotte is not good. The local roads arejammed together without net-like design. There is nowhere to go without a car and thebuses seem hard to reach.
Public Information Display ResultsThere was very little participation in the display input area. The input provided on the publicinput displays ranged from five to nine responses per each of the display boards. Therefore, theresults of the display input area were inconclusive.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-7
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
A series of seven Small Group Sessions were held during December 2004 and January 2005 toprovide information and receive input on the upcoming 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan(LRTP). The meetings were held as follows:
Sunday, December 5, 2004, 1:00-2:30 PMOur Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church6212 Tuckaseegee Road, Charlotte(13 attendees)Conducted in both English and Spanish
Monday, December 6, 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMWest Service Center4105 West Wilkinson Boulevard, Charlotte(0 attendees)
Tuesday, December 7, 2004, 2:30-4:00 PMCharlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center600 East 4th Street, Charlotte(0 attendees)
Tuesday, December 7, 2004: 6:00-7:30 PMSugar Creek Library4045 North Tryon Street, Charlotte(1 attendee)
Wednesday, December 8, 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMMatthews Town Center230 Matthews Station Street, Matthews(2 attendees)
Monday, December 13, 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMNorth County Regional Branch Library16500 Holly Crest Lane, Huntersville(13 attendees)
Tuesday, January 25, 2005, 5:00-9:00 PMMonroe City Hall300 West Crowell Street, Monroe(38 attendees)
Notification ProceduresAn invitation letter was mailed to over 800 businesses, civic leaders, homeowner associations,community organizations and interested groups throughout Mecklenburg and Union Counties.Of the over 800 organizations, approximately 140 represented Environmental Justice popula-tions. The Hispanic groups were both English and Spanish versions of letters. A copy of the
Appendix B-3: Small Group Sessions
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-8
invitation letter in English is included on page B-23 and a copy of the invitation letter in Spanishis included on page B-24.
AttendeesThe seven small group meetings were attended by a total of 67 persons from throughout theMUMPO area.
Meeting FormatThe small group sessions began with a presentation followed by an opportunity for those inattendance to either ask questions about the information they had been presented with orprovide input on the transportation issues that were important to them or to the organizationthat they represented. The small group session layout, which consisted of areas designated toeducate meeting attendees and gather their input, was set up as follows:
Sign-In Table - A sign-in table was provided at which people were asked to provide their nameand the organization they represent, if applicable, to document their attendance.
Presentation Area – The main area of the work session was when the presentation was given andmeeting attendees were able to ask questions and provide their input. Staff members from theCharlotte Department of Transportation, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission andtheir consultant team attended all seven sessions and a member of the Charlotte Area TransitSystem attended some of the sessions. These staff members answered the attendees’ questions.Documentation of the input received during at five of the seven sessions is included in thefollowing pages. There were no attendees at the December 6, 2004 session at the West ServiceCenter or the December 7, 2004 session at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center .
Summary of Questions and Responses at Each MeetingThe following pages contain summaries of the questions raised by participants (in italic) andthe responses given.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-9
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
nn December 5, 2004 Meeting – Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, Charlotte
Q: Please clarify what is being done for a long-range plan.The long-range plan sets improvement priorities (for all modes of transportation) for the next 25years. Basically, it works like a household budget. MUMPO has to cost out, prioritize/budget trans-portation needs with a limited amount of funds.
Q: Are there plans for buses or light rail in the LRTP?Yes, there are transit projects in the LRTP (as stated before, the LRTP addresses all modes of trans-portation).
Q: On Saturday and Sunday, public transportation is limited. Can CATS work to meet our demand forweekend service?As CATS continues to expand its service, there will be more non-work hours service. Since 1998,the half-cent sales tax has helped CATS provide an increase in work and non-work hours serviceand connectivity. CATS also is working to link trains with buses when light rail comes on-line andto expand smaller circulator buses you currently see passing through neighborhoods.
Q: There was a request to extend the existing route directly to the Our Lady of Guadalupe CatholicChurch. Right now, parishioners have to walk from the nearest bus stop, which is an inconvenience.Many of the 4,000+ parishioners depend on public transportation to get them to church services on allnights of the week, but particularly on Sundays. For safety concerns, there was also a request thatsidewalks be put in place on both sides of Tuckaseegee Road.CATS is starting their 5-year plan for service extension and will make those responsible for devel-oping this plan aware of this request. Bob Cook indicated that CATS may not be able to accommo-date this request in the near future, but that CATS could work this service request into their futureexpansion plans. (Attendees decided that they are going to initiate a petition among the parish-ioners with this request and plan to forward to forward it to CATS).
Q: Are there any plans to broaden CATS service in the University area?Bob Cook indicated that he is aware that the University area is not well serviced and that he is notsure if and when service will be expanded to the area. Part of the problem of expanding serviceto this area is that it is not a densely populated urban area but, rather, the development is so dis-persed/sprawled, which is typically not ideal conditions for transit service.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-10
nn December 7, 2004 Meeting – Sugar Creek Library, Charlotte
Q: How are projects prioritized and funded within the CIP and TIP?Transportation projects initially come from MUMPO’s LRTP and Thoroughfare Plan. Engineeringstaff members review these lists and identify those projects that are needed most and recommenda list of project to be funded in the CIP, which has a three-year timeframe. The City Council thengoes through the list and prioritizes projects and finalizes the CIP project list. The State goesthrough a similar process for their roads although their TIP is a seven-year timeframe of fundedprojects. Projects that are not on the CIP, such as safety projects, receive funding from other sources.
Q: What types of accommodations do bicyclists prefer; the paved outside shoulder or bike lanes?Generally speaking, some bicyclists prefer wide outside lanes and some prefer bike lanes. Moreexperienced riders seem to prefer wide outside lanes while less experienced riders seem to preferbike lanes. These preferences depend on the speed limit of the roadway and the prevailing trafficspeeds and roadway conditions.
Q: How often is the LRTP updated and why?MUMPO’s LRTP gets updated every three years to comply with federal regulations of an MPO. AnMPO is defined as any municipality with a population of over 50,000 people. When federal agenciesreviewed their LRTP last time, they suggested the MUMPO have an improved public involvementprogram. So this small group meeting was part of that effort.
Q: When will be the next opportunity to provide input?There will be an opportunity in the spring to comment and review new information after somerecommendations have been made.
Comment: If he could recommend improvements, one area would be along Old Concord Road in theform of bicycle accommodations because of frequency of use by cyclists in the University Area.
Q: How is air quality going to be improved in the future?Most of the improvements for air quality in the region take place outside of the automobile, suchas with smoke stacks and other industrial sources of pollution. Newer automobiles have been emit-ting fewer pollutants and CATS is buying more hybrid buses to improve air quality. Transportationprojects are included in the LRTP to show conformity with the air quality regulations.
(A discussion of the prioritized bicycle and pedestrian improvements shown on a display mapoccurred. The map is an older map that will be updated soon and includes existing and proposedgreenway and on-road bicycle improvements. The attendee was interested in the University Area.)
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-11
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
nn December 8, 2004 Meeting – Matthews Town Center, Matthews
Q: Could you go over the Unified Planning Work Program a little more?(The Unified Plan Work Program was described in more detail.)
Q: Why are Lake Park and Marvin non-voting members of MUMPO?Those Towns do not have sufficient population to be voting members.
Q: Will the next meeting (Public Meeting) be similar to tonight?Yes, but they will also be advertised and open to the general public.
Q: Mr. Jim Carpenter of the Union County Chamber of Commerce requested that a speaker come talk tohis group.MUMPO will follow up on this.
Q: Will the project rankings be shown on the website?As soon as they are finalized, they will be posted.
Q: When will the CATS busway be done to Matthews?It depends on the funding but hopefully by 2013.
Q: Improvements to Independence by Idlewild were pushed back to 2010. Will it change again?It is not known if it definitely will change again or not.
Q: How about the Idlewild Road widening, when will that occur?The section from W.T. Harris Blvd to Margaret Wallace Rd. is scheduled to be completed by 2010 andfrom Matthews-Mint Hill Road to I-485 by 2025.
Q: What is the voting on the MPO now?The number of votes per member was explained.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-12
nn December 13, 2004 Meeting – North County Regional Branch Library,Huntersville
Q: Is anyone in attendance this evening representing any other areas within MUMPO besidesHuntersville?No one was.
Q: Who developed the surveys for the 2030 LRTP?MUMPO and PBS&J, MUMPO’s consultant, developed the surveys. Mr. Andersen then distributeda revised survey that he felt was non-biased (A copy of Mr. Andersen’s recommended survey isincluded on page B-28). Mr. Andersen also distributed written comments (see page B-30)thatdiscussed a variety of transportation-related issues and concerns.
Q: How will all of the input be used?Lower level staff will receive all the input and organize the comments. Ultimately all recommen-dations will need to be approved by the MPO
Q: How was the survey distributed and what is the cut-off date for replying to the survey?The survey can be found on the MUMPO website. At this point there is not an established datewhen all surveys need to be returned.
Q: Discussion concerning the congestion facing Beatties Ford Road due to new developments andschools in this area. Also if there was an emergency evacuation from Duke’s McGuire Nuclear StationBeatties Ford Road could not handle the traffic (mentioned again later in meeting). The request wasmade for a widening of Highway 73 to 4 lanes and the extension of Vance Road (A copy of a writtencomment is included on page B-31).
Q: When will Vance Road extension be built?The horizon year for the project is 2020, which is the latest the project shall be finished; however, itcould be completed beforehand. The extension of Vance Road was emphasized several timesduring the meeting.
Q: What happens to Kerns Road during the construction period?Kerns Road will remain open throughout the construction period except for maybe a couple of days,although it will operate with a lower capacity.
Q: All Federal and State roads in Huntersville need improvements, stressing· Widening of I-77· Widening of Highway 73 west toward Lincoln prior to east towards Cabarrus· Improvements to Old Statesville Road, Vance Road, and Prosperity Church Road· Repaving McCoy Road (mentioned several times during meeting).
The MPO representative for the Town of Huntersville stated that the funding of transportationprojects is a political process. Individuals and groups need to keep the pressure on their StateRepresentative.
Q: Is the new mall being taken into account in the ranking process of projects to be completed?Yes the traffic model that takes into account Mecklenburg County and several of the surroundingcounties is updated for new trip generators such as a mall or a new housing development.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-13
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Q: Is transportation planning being coordinated with the city’s growth plan, new utility construction,etc.? It seems that transportation projects do not take place until there is already a problem.Transportation planning does take into account information provided by the cities and countiesregarding their plans for growth. The planning is not the part of the process that is lagging;implementation is lagging because of the funding issues.
Q: What will be done with the comments that have been made in this meeting, because there is a realurgency for road improvements in this area?Every comment in this meeting is being documented. They will all be reported to the MPO.
Q: How will people be notified of upcoming meetings?Everyone who signed the attendance sheet will receive mailings. In addition to that informationregarding upcoming meetings will be placed in the newspaper and on the MUMPO website.
Q: Can a roundabout be placed at the intersection of McCoy Road and Beatties Ford Road to helpalleviate the difficulty of making a left turn from McCoy to Beatties Ford?Currently, there is a study underway in this area looking at either placing a roundabout or trafficsignal at this intersection.
Q: Are there a certain number of fatalities that have to occur at an intersection before a traffic signal isinstalled?That is only one of several warrants that must be met before a traffic signal can be installed.
Q: Who coordinates who the subcontractor will be for road maintenance?NCDOT
Q: Follow-up comment: Debris is still located in Gar Creek along McCoy Road.We will contact the division environmental officer for help.
Q: How many people are willing to raise their taxes?People in attendance were willing to have their taxes raised but only if the money was spent ontheir roads, money could not be sent to other parts of the state.
Q: What about toll roads?There is approval for the study of three toll roads in North Carolina. One has to be in the greaterCharlotte area, one has to be outside the greater Charlotte area, and the third can be anywherein the state. Also there must be a free alternative to the toll road.
Q: Where does the pool of money for transportation projects come from? Do counties have differenttax rates?Yes county tax rates are different. Most of the money for transportation projects however comesfrom the gas tax. Some Federal Gas Tax dollars are spent in other states.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
nn January 25, 2005 Meeting – Monroe City Hall, Monroe
Comment: Union County is our only concern. Things that are important to us include US interstate-quality, limited access roads; the bypass to 485; and getting major truck traffic out of car lanes. Highway601 is a death highway that should be 4-laned to the Hill Top intersection in southern Monroe. The 601connector to the bypass is less than 3 miles; we would rather that than 74 to 604. The pollution, the trucksgearing up and down, is a problem. Do something about moving traffic safely from Lake Lee. US 601 toUS 74 is the wrong way to bring traffic in; it is not cost effective or safe.
Comment: We need to address traffic to Myrtle Beach from the Hill Top intersection to 601 north to 74. Itis a bottleneck. Division 10 was 10th on payback. We want a bigger piece of the pie rather than theequity formula.Additional funding for the various roadway projects in the area will be sought, but the ultimatedecision comes from the DOT.
Q: How do priorities get decided in Raleigh?A detailed explanation was provided. The equity formula, “the decision of the legislators”, the size ofthe area’s population, and other items all play a part in setting priorities. The public was advised totalk to their local legislators.
Q: How do projects get put on the LRTP? The equity formula is inequitable to us.The staff and elected officials tell us what they want and a candidate project’s list is prepared. Oncea project is on the LRTP funding is allocated. Only 220 of the 260 projects have funding. The prioriti-zation of the projects is reviewed every three years and then Raleigh weighs in on the process.
Q: Why is the bypass on 74 and not directly to I-485?Although it would connect with US 74, it would be a freeway like access point to I-485 and not beanother intersection with a stop light.
MUMPO staff explained that the two maps at the front of the room represented those projects thatcurrently had funding. These were the larger and fewer projects such as 74 and I-77. The other maprepresented those projects that hoped to be funded.
Q: How do priorities change? Is everything on the map? Highway 16 was a priority, what happened to it?If funding is available from a developer, if a road is chosen for tolling, if the priority criteria changes,all of these can make a project move up or down on the priority list. Change happens at the bottommore than the top. Changing the financing assumptions will mean working with state legislators toget more money. The state uses an equity formula. MUMPO wants a population-based decider.One criterion was “access to economic centers”, now it is “access to economic centers of Charlotteand Monroe”. MUMPO’s boundary changed when it was expanded. I-485 to Rae Road extension wasfunded therefore it is not shown on either map. Rae Road and the Monroe bypass are part of theplan for 2021–2030.
Q: What can we do as the town to get Rae Road moved up the list?Talk to your legislators.
Q: Are tolls an optional way to get money for roads?Yes, they are one of the ways being looked at.
B-14
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-15
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Q: What is holding up the Monroe Connector?Environmental roadblocks are currently holding up the connector. The Heel splitter is a concern.NCDOT is writing an environmental document. The connector is scheduled to be completedbetween 2011 and 2020 and is estimated to cost approximately $200 million.
Q: Why was 601 to Marshville not considered for a toll Road, but 601 to Charlotte was? Why can’t we justhave the funding outright?Interstate designation. Money for the Monroe connector comes from a different pot because of thedesignation and being a toll road will get it built sooner.
Q: Will 601 east go out for bid this year?No. The east leg of the bypass is also being held up by environmental concerns and constructionwill be pushed back another year.
Q: What is happening on 74 from I-485 to Monroe?Only minimal improvements, like turn lanes at intersections.Comment: We are concerned about potential traffic hazards when the 601 south project is completedand it intersects with 74. The best way to alleviate a problem with that intersection is to extend 601 Southnorthward and have it connect on 74 for a few miles before being able to exit onto 601 North.
Q: Has DOT decided on a toll decision?In April, maybe. There are two toll projects and one of them will be in the Charlotte area. The de-cision between the Garden Parkway and the Monroe Connector will be made in April, 2005. Turn-pike Authority members should be contacted. There has been no recommendation from MUMPO.
Q: Are there any provisions for tolls to sunset?Yes in the legislation DOT would maintain roads with money other than from tolls.
Q: What is happening with the Garden Parkway?There is habitat for the Heel splitter along the Catawba River that could impact the Garden Parkway.The dispute resolution has elevated the discussion to the department head level. DOT says improv-ing existing 1-85, 29 and 74 are not feasible and the environmentalists do not want a new road.
Q: If the Monroe bypass were a toll facility would the Garden Parkway be eligible for loop funds? Yes.
Comment: We need to address infrastructure needs now along the bypass, not wait until the road is built.Comment: Union County Partnership for Progress is a unifying factor in Union County. The bypass is thelynchpin for development on this side of Charlotte. Do not delay this road.
Q: Who has votes on MUMPO board?The voting members and non-voting members were identified. Population plays a part in determin-ing the number of votes a municipality gets.
Q: What do the orange lines and green lines mean on the maps?They represent horizon years for project completion. The orange line is 2020, the green line is 2030.Comment: Union County looks all green!
Q: Why have a road on the 2030 horizon if it is going to be a toll facility?The decision has not yet been made.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-16
Page B-17 copy of media advisory notice
Page B-18 copy of advertisement text
Page B-19 brochure
Page B-21 Spanish-language brochure
Page B-23 letter to organizations
Page B-25 Spanish-language letter to organizations
Page B-28 survey revision suggested by citizen
Page B-30 written comments from citizen at Huntersville meeting
Page B-31 written comments from citizen at Huntersville meeting
Page B-33 written comments from official at Monroe meeting
Page B-34 letter and attachments from Bicycle Advisory Committee
Appendix B-4: Supplemental Material on Public Involvement uu
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-17
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-2:
Media Advisory Notice
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-18
Speak Up...
Have more input on how and where you drive, bike and walk. The MecklenburgUnion Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) wants citizen input on the2030 Long Range Transportation Plan for Mecklenburg and Union Counties.Citizens are encouraged to attend any one of the three public meetings planned inthe community to provide input on the plan which outlines where and how roads,transit and pedestrian facilities will be built up to the year 2030.
Public meetings are scheduled for:
Saturday, October 9, 11 am - 2 pmShops on The Green*500 S. College StreetCharlotte, NC
Wednesday, October 13, 5 - 8 pmCornelius Town HallCommunity Room21445 Catawba Ave.Cornelius, NC
Thursday, October 14, 5 - 8 pmStallings Town Hall323 Stallings Rd.Stallings, NC
*Parking for this meeting will be available in The Green underground parking deck(across from the Charlotte Convention Center). Parking will be validated for allmeeting attendees.
For more information, or if you are a person with disabilities in need of specialprovisions to attend this meeting (requires at least 48 hours notice), contact staffwith the Mecklenburg UnionMetropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) at (704) 336-2205.
Supplementary Material
from Page B-2:Text of newspaper advertisement
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-19
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-3:Brochure on MPO and Long-Range Transportation Plan
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-20
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-21
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-3:Spanish-Language Brochure on MPO and Long-Range Transportation Plan
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-22
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-23
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-8:Invitation Letter to Small Group Sessions
Date
Group Representative (If applicable)Group NameGroup AddressGroup City, NC 28—
RE: Invitation to Participate in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan UpdateProcess for the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization
Dear Group Contact:
The purpose of this correspondence is to:
· Invite your group to participate in the process to update the Mecklenburg-UnionMetropolitan Planning Organization’s (MUMPO) 2030 Long RangeTransportation Plan (LRTP); and
· Familiarize your group with the MUMPO and regional the transportation planningprocess within the Charlotte region.
The Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) is thedecision-making board responsible for transportation planning activities throughout allof Mecklenburg County and most of Union County. The Charlotte Department ofTransportation and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission provide staffsupport for MUMPO related activities, which include:
· Review and approval of transportation plans and work programs throughout theMUMPO region;
· Review and approval of transportation-related air quality planning and mitigation;and
· Any other duties required to further help the transportation planning process inaccordance with Federal law.
One of the most important duties of MUMPO is to update the Long RangeTransportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP sets the policies, programs and projects to becompleted during the next twenty-five years. The LRTP also serves two importantfunctions:
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-24
1. Help local government officials make transportation and land use decisionsbased on their available funds and community needs; and
2. Help private sector entities make business and related decisions based on futuretransportation and land use patterns.
The update of the 2030 LRTP is currently underway. Of the several activities to gathermeaningful citizen participation in LRTP update, MUMPO has been holding meetingsthat feature a collection of diverse groups to gather input on the policies, programs, andtransportation improvements to be implemented through the year 2030. As an activecivic and/or community group in the Charlotte region, MUMPO would like to extend aninvitation to your group to participate in our upcoming meeting.
January 25, 2005, 5:00 – 9:00 PMCity of Monroe City Hall300 West Crowell Street
Monroe, NC 28112
Thank you. I look forward to your participation in the MUMPO regional transportationplanning process.
Sincerely,
Robert CookTransportation Program Manager
P.S. - MUMPO will also be holding a series of public meetings to gather input on theLRTP. Feel free to contact me or check our website (www.mumpo.org) for the dates ofthese meetings once they are set.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-25
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-8:Spanish Language Invitation Letter to Small Group Sessions
Fecha
Representante del grupo (si existe)Nombre del grupoDirección del grupoCiudad del grupo, NC 28—
REF: Invitación para participar en el proceso de actualizar el Plan de Transporte aLargo Plazo del 2030 para la Organización de Planificación Metropolitana deMecklenburg y Unión
Estimado contacto de grupo:
El motivo de la presente es para:
· Invitar a su grupo a participar en el proceso de actualizacaión del Plan deTransporte a Largo Plazo del 2030 (LRTP por sus siglas en inglés, “2030Long Range Transportation Plan’) por parte de la Organización dePlanificación Metropolitana para Mecklenburg y Unión (MUMPO por sussiglas en inglés, Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization) y
· Familiarizar al grupo con MUMPO y el proceso de planificación local en laregion de Charlotte
La Organización de Planificación Metropolitana de Mecklenburg y Unión (MUMPO)es la instancia administrativa para toma de decisiones, responsable de las actividadesde planificación de transporte en todo el condado de Mecklenburg y en la mayor partedel condado de Unión. El Departamento de Transporte de Charlotte y la Comisión dePlanficación de Charlotte Mecklenburg suministran personal de apoyo para realizaractividades afines al MUMPO, las cuales incluyen:
· Revisión y aprobación de planes de transporte y programas de trabajo en todala región de MUMPO
· Revisión y aprobación de la planificación y mejoramiento de la calidad delaire relacionados con la transportación
· Cualquier otra tarea del proceso de planificación del transporte, requerida porla ley Federal
Una de las responsabilidades más importantes de MUMPO es actualizar el Plan deTransporte a Largo Plazo (LRTP). El LRTP define políticas, programas y proyectos adesarrollarse en los próximos veinticinco años. El LRTP sirve también en dosimportantes funciones:
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-26
1. Ayudar a las autoridades del gobierno local a tomar decisiones sobre transporte y deuso de terreno basadas en los fondos disponibles y en las necesidades de lacomunidad; y
2. Servir como soporte para que las entidades del sector privado tomen decisionesrelacionadas con negocios y otros asuntos contemplados en los parámetros detransporte y uso futuro de terreno.
La actualización de LRTP 2030 está actualmente en proceso. De las numerosasactividades diseñadas para recopilar información valiosa de los ciudadanos queparticipan en la actualización, MUMPO está realizando varias reuniones en las cualesespera la participación de diversos grupos para obtener opiniones y sugerencias acercade las políticas, programas y mejoras de transporte que serán implementadas hasta elaño 2030. Por ser un activo grupo cívico/comunitario de la región de Charlotte,MUMPO extiende una invitación a su grupo para participar en estas reuniones.
Las reuniones se realizarán en las siguientes fechas y lugares:
5 de diciembre del 2004, 1:00 PM*Iglesia Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe Our Lady of Guadalupe6212 Tuskegeee Road, Charlotte, NC
6 de diciembre del 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMWest Service Center4105 West Wilkinson Boulevard, Charlotte, NC
7 de diciembre del 2004, 2:30-4:00 PMCharlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center600 East 4th Street, Charlotte, NC
7 de diciembre del 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMSugar Creek Library4045 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC
8 de diciembre de 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMMatthews Town Center230 Matthews Station Street, Matthews, NC
13 de diceimbre del 2004, 6:00-7:30 PMMatthews Town Center 230Matthews Station Street Matthews, NC
* La reunión se realizará en inglés y español.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-27
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Robert CookMUMPO - Organizacion de Planificación Metropolitana de Mecklenburg y Unión600 East 4th StreetCharlotte, NC 28202Teléfono: (704) 336-8643Fax: (704) 336-5123E-mail: [email protected]
Gracias por su atención. Espero su participación en el proceso de planificación deltransporte regional de MUMPO.
Atentamente,
Robert CookGerente del Programa de Transporte
P.D. – MUMPO también llevará a cabo una serie de reuniones públicas para recopilarcomentarios sobre el LRTP al principio del 2005. Por favor, póngase en contactoconmigo o revise en nuestra página en Internet (www.mumpo.org) las fechas de estasreuniones, una vez determinadas.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-28
Supplementary Material
from Page B-12:Survey Questions with revisions suggested by citizen at Huntersville Small Group Session(suggested revisions are shown in italic)
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) UpdateSurvey on Goals, Objectives and Policies (REVISED)
1. Please rate the following objectives of the 2030 RTP by their importance to the community andtransportation network, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selectionscan have the same rating:
___ Develop an efficient street and highway network capable of providing an appropriate levelof service for a variety of transportation modes (including bicycles and walking).
___ Develop an efficient street and highwaynetwork capable of providing an appropriate levelof service primarily for motor vehicles (excluding bicycles and walking).
___ Develop a transportation system that integrates pedestrian and bicycle modes of transpor-tation with motor vehicle transportation and encourages the use of walking and bicyclingas alternative modes.
___ Promote a safe, efficient and diverse public transportation system that is accessible tovarious segments of the population.
___ Promote a safe, efficient and diverse bus transportation system that is accessible tovarious segments of the population.
___ Maximize rail and air travel and transportation opportunities.
___ Maximize road travel facilities.___ Invest the necessary funds to build the proposed rail transit system and develop the tax
structure necessary to subsidize that system.
___ Develop a transportation system that preserves and enhances natural and built environ-ments.
___ Make investment decisions for transportation modes to make the most efficient use oflimited public resources.
2. Please rate the following roadway policies in the Charlotte region by their importance, with 5being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selections can have the same rating:
___ Consistency with adopted land use plans and improving access to city and town centers.
___ Increased connectivity of the existing street network.
___ Increased connectivity of the existing street network only when it is not necessary to addhumps and bumps to slow down the resulting cut-through traffic in residential areas.
___ Minimized travel times and distances along significant streets and highways.
___ Optimized capacities of major transportation corridors (such as I-85, I-77, and US 74).
___ Accessibility to or compatibility with multiple modes of transportation.
___ Development of visually attractive roadway corridors.
___ Increased safety.
3. Please rate the following public transit policies in the Charlotte region by their importance, with5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selections can have the same rating:
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-29
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
___ Efficient transit service that minimizes travel times and distances.___ Land use strategies that maximize the potential for transit ridership (higher density
housing).
___ Land use strategies that emphasize zoning and plans supported by citizens.
___ Programs and incentives that encourage ridesharing.
___ Disincentives that encourage ridesharing (such as taxes on parking).
___ Convenient service to the elderly and transportation disadvantaged populations.
___ Increased transit patronage as a percentage of total trips.___ Maximized coverage area for transit serices.
___ Transit coverage area for transit services determined by cost effetiveness.
___ Transit services coordinated with other transportation modes.
___ Reserve designated rail corridors for future needs.
___ Reserve designated road and bus transit corridors for future needs.
4. Please rate the importance of the following bicycle and pedestriantransportation policies in theCharlotte region, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selections canhave the same rating:
___ Design sensitivity of transportation projects to the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.___ Design transportation projects for the needs of motor vehicles.
___ Accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access along roadways through design and facilitystandards.
___ Public awareness programs to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety.
___ Linkages for pedestrians and/or bicyclists between neighborhoods, employment centers,services, cultural facilities, schools, parks and business.
5. Please rate the importance of the following air and rail transportation policies in the Charlotteregion, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selecctions can have thesame rating:
___ Increasing the attractiveness of the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport as a majorpassenger and cargo facility.
___ Increasing the accessibility of the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport by road.
___ Enhancements to intercity rail service and high-speed rail service.
6. Please rate the importance of the following environmental policies within the Charlotte region,regarding transportation, with 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest. Two or more selec-tions can have the same rating:
___ Maintaining or improving air quality.___ Minimizing traffic noise to surrounding properties.
___ Preserving and complementing the area’s natural features.
___ Protecting cultural and historic resources.
___ Reinforce community standards of appearance.
___ Minimize neighborhood disruiption and related impacts.
___ Safe routes for the transport of hazardous materials.
___ Restricting truck access to neighborhoods and historic and cultural resources.
7. Please provide any additional comments:
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-30
Supplementary Material
from Page B-12:Citizen Comment distributed at Huntersville Small Group Session
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page B-31
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-13:Citizen Comment distributed at Huntersville Small Group Session
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-32
(continued from preceding page)
Page B-33
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Supplementary Material
from Page B-14:Follow-Up Comment to Monroe Small Group Session
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-34
Supplementary MaterialLetter and Attachments from Bicycle Advisory Committee
Page B-35
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Bicycle Advisory Committee (continued)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-36
Bicycle Advisory Committee (continued)
Page B-37
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Bicycle Advisory Committee (continued)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-38
Page B-39 Public Hearing Notice Postcard
Page B-40 Monroe Enquirer-Journal Legal Notice
Page B-41 Monroe Enquirer-Journal Affidavit of Publication
Page B-42 Charlotte Observer Legal Notice and Affidavit of Publication
Page B-43 Citizen Comment
Page B-44 Charlotte Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 30, 2005)
Page B-48 Monroe Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 31, 2005)
Page B-50 Charlotte Public Hearing Comment Sheet (March 30, 2005)
Page B-51 Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing(March 30, 2005)
Page B-56 Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center commentingon the 2030 LRTP and Conformity Report
Page B-58 Response to Letter from SELC commenting on the 2030 LRTPand Conformity Report
Appendix B-5: Public Comment/Hearing Material uu
Page B-39
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Public Hearing Notice Postcard(10,000 mailed)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-40
Monroe Enquirer-Journal Legal Notice
Page B-41
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Monroe Enquirer-Journal Affidavit of Publication
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-42
Charlotte Observer Legal Notice and Affidavit of Publication
Page B-43
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Citizen Comment (received via e-mail)
Charlotte Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 30, 2005)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-44
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
&Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
Public HearingMeeting Summary4:30 pm – 6:30 pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center (Room 267)March 30, 2005
A public hearing was held on Wednesday, March 30 to receive public comment on the draft2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan and the draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis andDetermination Report of the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization(MUMPO). The hearing lasted from 4:30 PM until 6:30 PM and was held in Room 267 ofthe Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center located at 600 E. Fourth St in Charlotte.
MUMPO Staff Present:Robert Cook MUMPO SecretaryDavid McDonald Transit Planning Program Manager, CATSEldewins Haynes Air Quality Specialist, CDOT
The following is a summary of the hearing:
Mr. Cook opened the hearing with an explanation of the purpose of the public hearing. Heexplained it was to receive public comment on the draft 2030 Long-Range TransportationPlan and the draft Air Quality Conformity Analysis and Determination Report of theMecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). He further noted thatthe hearing was related to the one-hour ozone standard, and that a second round of publichearings would be necessary to receive public comments on a conformity determinationrelated to the eight-hour ozone standard. Mr. Cook introduced Eldewins Haynes of theCharlotte Department of Transportation.
Mr. Haynes worked with a Power Point presentation to explain what air quality conformityis and what it means to the Charlotte region. He noted that the conformity process wasestablished by the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a way to ensure that transportation projects andfunding conform to air quality goals. Mr. Haynes’ presentation was followed by an exten-sive question and answer period.
continued next page
Page B-45
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Charlotte Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 30GG, 2005) continued
NOTE: Some questions were not audible on the audiotape. Therefore in some cases thenature of the question is based upon the context provided by the staff response.
Q: What is a conformity lapse?A: A conformity lapse is what happens when an area has an expired conformity determina-tion. Generally, a lapse means no new federal funding. Only certain projects can proceedduring a lapse.
Q: Apparently a request for clarification of the above question.A: Generally, no new federal funding can be implemented, no new Transportation Improve-ment Programs (TIP) can be adopted without a conforming Plan.
Q: What about the $6 billion that is at risk for transportation? You did not figure it in yourpresentation. That is the figure that Mecklenburg County Air Quality staff determined.That is a lot of money for the region.A: As to the $6 billion, perhaps you are referring to the transportation reauthorization billpending in Congress. If we are not in conformity when that is approved, we will not receivefunds for new projects. But we will likely be in conformity before Congress finally acts.
Q: Explain the difference between conformity and nonattainment?A: Nonattainment is directly linked to air quality standards and is determined by readings atair quality monitors. It means we are no attaining the air quality standards for the region.Conformity is a process that is started when a region has shown it is not achieving theestablished air quality standards. It is the process by which an area demonstrates its trans-portation plans and programs conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Q: Was there a miscalculation in transportation planning that lead to the air qualitynonattainment?A: Nonattaiment is caused by concentrations of ozone being too high and is the result ofseveral factors, transportation being one of them. Power plants and weather are two otherfactors. Cool, wet summers will result in better air quality.
Q: Why has North Carolina chosen not to continue tail pipe testing? (The questioner wasparticularly concerned with older vehicles without on-board diagnostic technology.)A: Leslie Rhodes of Mecklenburg County Air Quality noted that she had information on thismatter that she would provide to Mr. Cook to distribute to those present. Mr. Cook mailedthe information on April 4, 2005.
continued next page
Charlotte Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 30, 2005) continued
Q: How can we be in conformity in 2010, 2020 and 2030 when vehicle miles traveled (vmt)are outgrowing population and the population is going to double? I can’t personally under-stand how we can ever be in conformity or attainment.A: The projections are for technology to allow vehicle emissions to decrease. For much ofthe time period of the Plan, technology actually matches or exceeds the vmt growth. By thetime we reach 2030 the emissions start to come back up, but they are not nearly what theyare today; they are less than 2010. So, even though vmt is increasing, technology up through2030 is sufficient to match that growth.RESPONSE from questioner: This is the first time I have heard that and I would like for theair quality commission to have a report on this because everything I have heard says, yes,technology is getting better but vmt is going to overcome any technology.
Q: We have not conformed to the Clean Air Act for how many years?A: David McDonald noted the difference between “conformity” and “nonattainment.”Conformity is meeting established emissions budgets and nonattainment is related to exceed-ing ozone levels as measured at monitoring sites.
C: The problem is the public has to know the public health is being degraded by our own selfpollution.
Q: David Pasik of northwest Mecklenburg County asked if fuel cell technology has beenexamined as a potential way to reduce pollution.A: Mr. McDonald stated that it was something that was being looked into.
Q: Councilmember Nancy Carter noted that the National League of Cities subcommittee onenergy, environment, and natural resources is conducting research on energy. She noted thather concern was that many of the things proposed to meet air quality standards are beyondlocal control: state funding in both highways and transit, as well as federal funding. Whathappens if we don’t get the funding we need?A: Mr. McDonald discussed the three-year cycle that must be maintained for updating long-range plans and the assumptions that the plans are based upon. This provides some flexibil-ity in responding to funding changes.
Q: John Nielson asked whether or not all the projects include bike lanes.A: Robert Cook replied that many of the projects include provisions for bike lanes, or wideoutside lanes.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-46
continued next page
Charlotte Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 30, 2005) continued
Q: Question regarding the status of Old Concord Road and why it was ranked in the 2010horizon year in the 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan, yet fell to the 2030 horizon yearin the draft 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan.A: Staff could not answer the question without checking the score received by this projectduring the ranking process for both plans. Staff reviewed this matter after the meeting andresponded to the questioner via email on April 4, 2005. At the meeting, it was also notedthat the MPO requested funding for bike lanes on Old Concord Road through the Conges-tion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ) program.
Q: Question regarding various maps on display.A: Mr. Cook explained that the Thoroughfare Plan represents a very long-term plan tobuild the complete road network necessary for a given region. He also explained thatCATS’ transit map depicted the future rapid transit network planned for the five rapidtransit corridors.
The meeting concluded with staff answering discussing issues and answering questions ona one-on-one basis.
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess
Page B-47
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Monroe Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 31, 2005)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-48
Meeting Participants:Staff: Eldewins Haynes, Tim GibbsCitizens: Robert Smith, Mark Donham, Paul DeVries
Q. What is the status of the Secrest Short Cut Road Moving Ahead project?A. Staff was unable to answer the question, but took the citizen’s contact informa-tion and promised to find the answer and contact the citizen with a response to thequestion.
Q. Is North Carolina the only state going to the eight-hour conformity standard?A. No, all states must adhere to it.
Q. Is CO a concern for Union County?A. No, just Ozone.
Q. What is CO caused by?A. Automobiles are the biggest problem.
Q. How is CO measured? Does Union County have a CO measuring device?A. CO is measured in accordance with reference procedures specified in AppendixC of 40 CFR Part 50 or by an equivalent method established under 40 CFR Part 53.Union County does not have a CO measuring device
Q. What is the biggest contributor to our air quality problem?
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)2030 Long Range Transportation Plan
&Conformity Analysis and Determination Report
Public HearingMeeting Summary5:00 pm – 7:00 pm
Monroe City Hall – Council ChambersMarch 31, 2005
continued next page
Page B-49
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Monroe Public Hearing Meeting Summary (March 31, 2005) continued
A. Coal fired plants, like Allen and Marshall in our region. The Clean SmokestacksLaw requires the addition of scrubbers at these plants, will help the situation. Also,cars, truck and lawn equipment are major contributors.
Q. What happens to an area’s federal money when a lapse occurs?A. No capital projects (e.g., road construction, major transit vehicle purchases) canbe funded after the lapse date. Projects that were funded before the lapse dateor that have been declared exempt are allowed to continue. Exempt projectsinclude roadway safety projects, traffic control devices, lighting improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements and transit operating assistance.
Q. Is the intent of the Conformity Plan to not make things worse?A. Yes.
Q. Are there measures in place to evaluate the impacts of the Plan proposals?A. In terms of conformity, we must estimate the Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT),vehicle age, etc., and those things are updated regularly.
CITIZEN COMMENT: Finer grain projections are needed. Benefits would be gained bymore detailed analysis.
Q. How does the use of alternate fuels, the planting of more trees, etc. make a differ-ence in emission reductions?
A. Some vehicle fuels, because of physical or chemical properties, create lesspollution than do today’s gasoline. These are called “clean fuels.” Emissions fromelectricity, natural gas, or alcohol-powered vehicles can be as much as 90 percentlower in toxics and ozone-forming hydrocarbons than emissions from vehiclesfueled with conventional gasoline. The planting of trees or other vegetation do notreduce pollutant emissions; however, they can absorb some of the pollution from theair.
CITIZEN COMMENT: Make validation measures a component of the Conformity Plan.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-50
Charlotte Public Hearing Comment Sheet (March 30, 2005)
Page B-51
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing (March 30, 2005)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-52
Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing (March 30, 2005) continued
Page B-53
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing (March 30, 2005) continued
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-54
Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing (March 30, 2005) continued
Page B-55
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Responses to Citizen Comments at Charlotte Public Hearing (March 30, 2005) continued
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-56
Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center commenting on the 2030 LRTP andConformity Report
Page B-57
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center commenting on the 2030 LRTP andConformity Report (continued)
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
B-58
Response to Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center commenting on the 2030LRTP and Conformity Report
Page B-59
B. P
ub
lic Invo
lvemen
t Pro
cess2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Response to Letter from Southern Environmental Law Center commenting on the 2030LRTP and Conformity Report (continued)
B-60
Page C-1
C. Freig
ht P
lan In
form
ation
APPENDIX CFreight Plan Support Documents
Benchmarking of National Freight Plans
The first activity in data analysis was to benchmark current approaches to planning for freightand goods movement, and use the information as a guideline for Charlotte’s 2030 LRTP freighttransportation effort. The intent was to create a plan that meets the needs of regional custom-ers; to learn how neighboring cities and/or states achieved this goal and, where appropriate,incorporate those techniques that serve the needs of MUMPO; and, finally, to include a freighttransportation component in the 2030 LRTP.
The benchmarking phase identified studies that specifically focus on expanding freight trans-portation components in regional transportation plans. The reports chosen illustrate how toestablish methodologies, solicit input from regional partners, and implement improvements.Studies used in the benchmarking activity are from states that are peer cities or competitors inthe warehousing and distribution industry.
Charlotte is located in the Piedmont Crescent, which spans North Carolina and the northwestcounties of South Carolina. The Charlotte region is the largest manufacturing region in thePiedmont Crescent and fourth largest in the nation. A chart of leading Southeast manufactur-ing centers (see page 6-43 in this document) indicates Charlotte’s principal competitors areAtlanta, Nashville, Tampa andNorfolk.
Carriers can travel from Charlotte to all of these areas, except Florida, in one day; therefore, theareas chosen in the benchmarking exercise were Virginia, Tennessee, and Georgia. These threestates provided useful resources. The Virginia Transportation Research Council provided infor-mation on establishing freight plan methodologies; the Tennessee Department of Transporta-tion provided insight on soliciting feedback from regional partners; and the Atlanta RegionalCommission served as an example of implementing a plan update.
nn Virginia Transportation Research Council
In 2001, the Virginia Transportation Research Council (a cooperative organization sponsoredjointly by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the University of Virginia) prepared theApplication of a Statewide Intermodal Freight Planning Methodology. The document focused oncomplying with federal freight requirements and creating a methodology to identify problemsand evaluate improvements to Virginia’s freight infrastructure. Virginia’s methodology includessix steps: (1) inventory the system, (2) identify the problem, (3) establish performance measures,(4) collect data and define conditions for specific problems, (5) develop and evaluate improve-ment alternatives, and (6) select and implement improvements.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
C-2
The Virginia study provides a guide for the initial phase of MUMPO’s freight transportation plan,assessing the freight transportation environment and developing a freight transportation plan.The first step is to inventory the system for existing freight data, create databases and evaluatethe data collected. Second, it recommends organizing committees, with both public and privateparticipation, to help facilitate the process; this step also serves to identify an active customerbase concerned with the impacts to freight environment. Third, performance measures shouldbe established.
nn Tennessee Department of Transportation
In 2003, the Tennessee Department of Transportation issued a Summary of Interactions withTennessee Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Development of the Rail System Plan, geared toensuring involvement of the nine Tennessee MPOs in the Rail System Plan. Throughout theTennessee process, MPO surveys are the primary source of information.
TDOT conducted two rounds of MPO freight activity surveys. The first (2001) assessed the mag-nitude of rail plans on the MPO level. In 2002,TDOT’s second round of surveys for the Rail Sys-tem Plan gathered input from the MPOs to help identify and describe the rail infrastructure inthe state. Three key questions on the survey focused on freight data issues:
1. What types of freight and goods movement data do you use in your planningprocess?
2. What assumptions do you use for growth of truck and rail freight traffic in yourplanning process and how are these reconciled with State planning assumptions?
3. What types of freight and goods movement data will be helpful?
Although most MPOs do not have substantial freight or goods movement plans, they did iden-tify the freight data needs. These include (a) the access to private data sources, (b) interstatetruck traffic analysis, (c) state level freight volumes, and (d) intermodal yard capacity analysis.
nn Atlanta Regional Commission
In 2004, the Atlanta Regional Commission produced a Draft Mobility 2030 Regional Transporta-tion Plan. This was ARC’s first attempt to address freight in a stand-alone section in the plan andprovide specific examples of projects to remedy freight related problems.
ARC established a Freight Advisory Task Force to guide the process of incorporating freightplanning into the transportation planning process. The task force’s roleis to provide input toMobility 2030 and freight’s connection with other components of Mobility 2030, such as ITS andSmart Corridor Systems. Specifically, the task force (a) identifies regional freight characteristicsand needs, (b) prioritizes regional freight transportation needs, and (c) provides continuinginput in the planning process.
In addition to including a freight planning section in the draft 2030 Regional Transportation Plan,the ARC has also included a “Regional Goods and Services Study for 2005” in their 2005 projectlist.
Page D-1
APPENDIX DTitle VI Approval Compliance Review Letter D
. Title VI C
om
plian
ce
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
Page E-1
E. Review
Ag
ency C
orresp
on
den
ce
APPENDIX EReview Agency Correspondence
Appendix E-1: MUMPO Response to Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) Comments on 2030 LRTP Project Plan
March 9, 2005(MUMPO comments in italics)
MUMPO Project List
n The following projects that are regionally significant are also exempt:B-4779
MUMPO is asking that one additional lane be included on the replacement bridge. Thus we feelthat this project should not be exempt.
n The following projects should be regionally significant:P-3800;R-2555A;Lawyers Road Ext.;US-29/NC-49 (Graham St.);NC115 (Old Statesville Rd.-Harris Blvd to I-485);NC-24 (Harris Blvd.);NC115 (Old Statesville Rd-I-485 to Verhoeff Dr.);Gilead Rd (McCoy Rd to Boren St.);W. Catawba Ave. (Jetton Rd to NC 73);Lawyers Rd. (Albemarle Rd to McAlpine Creek);Lawyers Rd. (McAlpine Creek to NC 51);NC27 (Mount Holly North Loop-Mt. Holly-Huntersville Rd to Catawba River) ; andEastway Dr. (Kilborne Dr. to Sugar Creek Rd.).
The following are comments on the draft publication of the MUMPO 2030 Long Range Transpor-tation Plan received from:
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),• North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality
The Federal Transit Administration did not comment on the report. Comment responses fromMUMPO are shown in italics.
• P-3800 (High Speed Rail): will be shown as regionally significant.• R-2555A (W. Catawba Ave.-Index #314): will be shown as regionally significant.• Lawyers Road Extension (Index #317): this is not a regionally significant project. It will serve
as reliever to an intersection, and as a collector facility.• US 29/NC 49 (Index #116): will be shown as regionally significant; is currently under construc
tion.• NC 115 (Harris Blvd to I-485, Index #57): will be shown as regionally significant.• NC 24 (Harris Blvd., Index #27): will be shown as regionally significant.• NC 115 (I-485 to Verhoeff Dr.-Index #455): will be shown as regionally significant.• Gilead Road (Index #162): will be shown as regionally significant.• W. Catawba Ave. (Jetton Rd to NC 73-Index #209): will be shown as regionally significant• Lawyers Road (Albemarle Road to McAlpine Creek-Index #51): will be shown as regionally
significant• Lawyers Road (McAlpine Creek to NC 51-Index #155): will be shown as regionally significant• NC 27 (Index # 303): will be shown as regionally significant• Eastway Drive (Index #20): will be show as regionally significant
n The following projects should be regionally significant and not exempt:R-3807
This project was undertaken to eliminate a hazardous curve and is considered exempt underTable 2 of the conformity regulations. This project is now complete and will be removed from theproject list.
n The following projects should be exempt:W-4801
W-4801 does not exist in MUMPO’s planning area. It may have been confused with W-4081which is complete. The project resulted in improvements to the intersection of NC 16 and Mt.Holly-Huntersville Road.
n The following projects should not be exempt:Zion Ave. Extension/Improvement (Mayes Road to Catawba Ave.);Zion Ave. Extension/Improvement (Catawba Ave to South Main Street (Davidson);Bailey Rd (NC115 to Davidson-Concord Rd);Pleasant Plains Rd. (McKee Rd. to Old Monroe.);Hambright Rd. (McCoy Rd. to Mt. Holly-Huntersville Rd.);Stumptown Rd. (Hugh Torance Pkwy. to NC115);Potter Rd (Old Monroe Rd. to Chestnut Ln.);Johnston-Oehler Rd. (Prosperity Ridge Rd. to Mallard Creek Rd.);Huntersville-Concord Rd. (NC115 to Trails End Ext.);Verhoeff Dr. East (US21 to NC115);Wilgrove-Mint Hill Rd. (NC51 to Albemarle Rd (NC 24-27); andMt. Holly-Huntersville Rd. (US 21 to Hambright Rd.)
• Zion Ave. Extensions/Improvements (Index #’s 192 and 133): MUMPO agrees that this projectis not regionally significant and is not exempt.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
E-2
• Bailey Road (Index #5): MUMPO agrees that this project is not regionally significant and is notexempt.
• Pleasant Plains Road (Index #285): MUMPO agrees that this project is not regionally significant and is not exempt.
• Hambright Road (Index #164): this project involves improving an existing two-lane road andwill not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO therefore believes thisproject is exempt.
• Stumptown Road (Index #104): this project involves improving an existing two-lane road andwill not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO therefore believes thisproject is exempt.
• Potter Road (Index #284): this project involves improving an existing two-lane road and willnot result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO therefore believes this projectis exempt.
• Johnston-Oehler Road (Index #99): this project involves improving an existing two-lane roadand will not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO therefore believesthis project is exempt.
• Huntersville-Concord Road (Index #265): this project involves improving an existing two-laneroad and will not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO thereforebelieves this project is exempt.
• Verhoeff Drive East (Index #260): this project involves improving an existing two-lane roadand will not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO therefore believesthis project is exempt.
• Wilgrove-Mint Hill Road (Index #193): this project involves improving an existing two-laneroad and will not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO thereforebelieves this project is exempt.
• Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road (Index #177): this project involves improving an existing two-laneroad and will not result in an increase in the number of travel lanes. MUMPO thereforebelieves this project is exempt.
MUMPO LRTP Comparison to the 04-10 TIP:
n There are differences in the project length. Explain:I-3311: TIP=14.4 and LRTP=17.92I-3803: TIP=12.8 and LRTP=6.46R-0211: TIP=16.6 and LRTP=0R-2555: TIP=3.4 and LRTP=0.9U-0209B: TIP=1.4 and LRTP=5.06U-2507: TIP=4.1 and LRTP=2.39U-3603: TIP=0.9 and LRTP=1.29U-4401: TIP=0 and LRTP=0.28U-2512: TIP=5.21 and LRTP=11.3U-2508: TIP=2.6 and LRTP=2.27
• I-3311, I-3803, R-2555, U-209B, U-2507, U-2512 and U-2508 are each identified on the projectlist is a subset of a larger project identified in the TIP. The TIP does not identify components ofa project, only combined mileage totals.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page E-3
E. Review
Ag
ency C
orresp
on
den
ce
• R-0211 is identified on the project list is as subset of a larger project that is found in the TIP. Ithas been funded under the auspices of the larger freeway project. The segment number forthis portion of the project will be added to the project list.
• The LRTP segment length for U-4401 is correct. The NCTIP segment length is in error.• The project lengths on the revised project list for U-3603 will be changed according the length
noted in the TIP.
n The following projects are in the TIP but not in the LRTP:I-4048, R-4413, R-3329, R-2420, U-4440, U-4426, R-2123, U-3321 and U-3809• I-4048 (I-85): this is a weigh station and not normally programmed in the LRTP, therefore we
believe it is exempt.• R-4413: this is a NHS guardrail project and not normally programmed in the LRTP, therefore
we believe it is exempt.• R-3329 (Monroe Connector): listed as Index #271 in 2020 horizon year; currently only partially
funded. Mileage will be updated to reflect project length noted in the TIP.• R-2420 (City Blvd. Ext.): listed as Index #74 in 2010 horizon year; was on list but didn’t have TIP
number. The TIP number will be added on the project list.• U-4440: ITS project; project is complete.• U-4426 (Senator Royall Pl.): project is complete.• R-2123 (I-485): will be added to Committed and Funded and 2010 horizon year lists.• U-3321 (Garden Pkwy): listed as Index #131 in 2020 horizon year.• U-3809 (Indian Trail Rd.): listed as Index #231 in 2030 horizon year.
n The following projects are in the LRTP and not in the TIP:R-2559, R-2616, R-4050, U-3412, U-3447 and U-4024
• The following projects are not in the MTIP due to the expansion of the urban area boundaryfurther into Union County following the issuance of the 04-10 TIP: R-2559; R-2616; R-4050; U-3412; U-4024. All projects can be found in the Union County portion of the STIP.
• U-3447(NC 51-Pineville) is in the TIP, page 10-17.
n The following projects have project scopes that are different (TIP versus LRTP):U-2507, U-2512A and E-3810
• Projects U-2507 (Mallard Creek Rd.) and (U-2512) as identified on the project list are subsetsof larger projects identified in the TIP. The segment designation (A) for the U-2507 project willbe added to the project list. The segment designation is currently shown on the project list.
• E-3810 is an Enhancement Program project that along the Mallard Creek Greenery. Theproject description will be revised to reflect the TIP description.
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
E-4
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page E-5
Appendix E-2: MUMPO Response to Division of Air Quality (NCDepartment of the Environment and Natural Resources)Comments on 2030 LRTP Project Plan
March 9, 2005(MUMPO comments in italics)
E. Review
Ag
ency C
orresp
on
den
ce
MUMPO 2030 Plan Projects
n B-4779 is a bridge replacement. If the project does not also include adding additional lanes,I believe it should be exempt.
• MUMPO is asking that one additional lane be included on the replacement bridge. Thus, thisproject should not be exempt.
n Following are widening projects on a principal arterial and should be regionally significant:R-2555ALawyers Road Ext.US-29/NC-49 (Graham St)
• R-2555A, Index #314 (W. Catawba Ave.) and Index #116 (US 29/NC 49-Graham Street) will benoted as regionally significant.
• The Lawyers Rd. Ext. is a two-lane connector that is proposed as a part of an intersectionimprovement between Albemarle Rd. (NC24-27) and Harris Blvd. (NC 24). This project will bea local city street that will function as a collector and is not regionally significant.
n I do not think U-4025 or U-4401 should be regionally significant.
• Project U-4025 (Index #711) is complete and will be removed from the project list.• Project U-4401(Index #307) is a realignment of Reedy Creek Rd. to move its intersection a
greater distance away from the Harrisburg Rd. /I-485 Northbound Ramps. It will improveefficiency and safety but not add capacity. We concur that it is not a regionally significantproject and will change the designation in the final report.
n W-4081 Sounds like it may be an exempt project.
Project W-4081, Index #318 is complete and will be removed from the project list.
n Indexes 111, 110, and 109 are all widening projects on US 21(Statesville Rd) on a minorarterial. Similar scoped projects were deemed regionally significant. Why not these threeprojects?
Statesville Road (US 21) is one of three parallel facilities in northern Mecklenburg County. Thefunctional classification of parallel facilities, I-77 (Interstate) and NC 115 (Principal Arterial)indicate that they serve the regional traffic, while Statesville Road (US 21) primarily providesaccess for local traffic. Thus this facility should remain “not Regionally Significant.”
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
E-6
n Indexes 57, 27, 235, and 455 are projects are principal arterials and as such should be region-ally significant.
Indexes #57, 235 and 455 (each along NC 115-Old Statesville Road) and Index #27 (NC 24-HarrisBlvd.) will be identified in the revised project list as regionally significant.
n Why is the Zion Ave Extension/Improvement exempt (Indexes 133 and 192)? Part of it is anew road.
These projects will not be identified in the revised project list as exempt.
n The following are projects on principal arterials and should be regionally significant: Indexes162, 209, 51, 155, 303, and 20.
These projects will be identified in the revised project list as regionally significant: GileadRoad (Index #162, McCoy Rd. to Boren St.), W. Catawba Ave. (Jetton Rd to NC 73-Index #209),Lawyers Road (Albemarle Road to McAlpine Creek-Index #51), Lawyers Road (McAlpine Creekto NC 51-Index #155), NC 27 (Index # 303), Eastway Drive (Index #20).
n Why are indexes 5 and 182 exempt? Both contain widening in addition to new roads.
Indexes #5 (Bailey Rd.) and # #182 (Prosperity Church Rd.-western leg) will not be identified in therevised project list as exempt.
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization TIP
n R-0211 in the plan is just an interchange project. TIP is four lane freeway on new location.Please explain.
R-0211 is an outer-loop project. It was broken into multiple segments for construction. TheWeddington Road Interchange (R-211EC) is the last segment of the R-211 project. It has beenfunded under the auspices of the larger freeway project. The segment designation (EC) for thisportion of the project will be added to the project list.
n I could not find R-2123 in the plan. This project is part complete and part under construc-tion in 2008.
This project will be added to the project list.
n The length differs greatly from TIP (3.4 miles) and the Plan (0.9 miles) for R-2555. Pleaseexplain.
The 3.4 mile length is for the entire R-2555 (W. Catawba Ave.) project. The project segmentidentified as R-2555A on the project is 0.9 mile.
n R-2420 is not in the Plan. It is part complete and part being constructed in 2004. Pleaseexplain.
2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan APPENDICES
Page E-7
E. Review
Ag
ency C
orresp
on
den
ce
R-2420 is divided into three segments. Project Index #74, City Blvd. will be changed on the projectlist in the Committed and Funded and 2010 horizon year to include the NCTIP number.
n Scope and or lengths differ for the following projects:U-0209BU-2507U-2508U-2510AU-2512
Each of the noted projects is identified on the project list as a subset of a larger project identifiedin the TIP. The TIP does not identify components of a project, only combined mileage totals.
n I could not find the following projects in the plan. They are either under construction orconstruction is expected in time for them to be open by the first horizon year.U-3603U-4401U-4426U-4025U-3447
• These projects can be found in the Funded & Committed and the 2010 Network project lists:U-3603, Index # 229 (NC 27-Albemarle Rd.)U-4401, Index #307 (Reedy Creek Rd.)U-3447, Index #228 (NC 51-Pineville)
• Project U-4025, Index #711 is complete and will be removed from the project list.• Project U-4426 (Senator Royall Pl.) is complete and was not included in the project list.
n I could not find the following projects in the TIP:B-3544B-4293B-4294B-4295B-4649B-4825
These projects, which are now within MUMPO’s jurisdiction, were not in MUMPO’s jurisdictionwhen the 04-10 TIP was adopted. They can be found in the Union County listing of the 04-10 TIP.
(continued next page)
B-4826R-2559R-2616R-4050U-2547U-3412
APPENDICES Mecklenburg-Union MPO
E-8
n I need clarification on project numbers 117, 127, 128, 131, 132,153 and 155. All of these areidentified as either exempt or not regionally significant, but they appear to be large thor-oughfares that do have significancein the region even though they may be collectors orminor arterials.
• Index # 117-Billy Graham Parkway/Morris Field Drive Grade Separation: This project removesan at-grade intersection by constructing a grade separation between these two roads.Typically, this kind of project reduces traffic by reducing access and results in less conflict anda reduction in accidents. It is also specifically listed as an exempt project within the confor-mity guidance due to the safety benefit. This project should remain as “exempt.”
• Index #127-Harris Boulevard, Reames Road to I-485: This project is currently under construc-tion. MUMPO concurs that this facility no longer functions as a collector street. We will list itas “regionally significant” and work with NCDOT and FHWA to reclassify the road as a princi-pal arterial from I-77 to I-485.
• Index # 128-Vance Road Extension, Mt. Holly-Huntersville Road to Hambright Road: Thisfacility is not functionally classified. We believe this roadway will ultimately serve as acollector or minor arterial when classified. However, it will predominately serve the local landit abuts and not carry regional traffic. Therefore, we do not believe it meets the test of being a“regionally significant” facility.
• Index #131-Garden Parkway, I-485 to Gaston County Line: This project is a 1.89 section of asouthern loop in neighboring Gaston County and is noted as regionally significant
• Index #132: MUMPO’s 2030 Plan does not contain a project with this index number.
• Index #153-NC 24, Harris Boulevard, NC 49 to The Plaza: This project did not make the finalfinancial constraint list and is not included in the LRTP. It is regionally significant and will belisted as such if added in the future.
• Index #155-Lawyers Road, McAlpine Creek to NC 51: MUMPO agrees that this project iscurrently classified as a principal arterial and we will change its status to “regionally signifi-cant.”
Appendix E-3: MUMPO Response to Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Comments on 2030 LRTP Project Plan
![Title 9A RCW - Washingtonleg.wa.gov/CodeReviser/RCWSelectedTitles/Documents/2016/9A.pdf · 9A.04.040 Title 9A RCW: Washington Criminal Code [Title 9A RCW—page 2] (2016 Ed.) (3)](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f10764b7e708231d4493a23/title-9a-rcw-9a04040-title-9a-rcw-washington-criminal-code-title-9a-rcwapage.jpg)
