Sustainable Transportation Networks

Charlotte’s Experience

Danny Pleasant, AICPKey Business Executive/DirectorCharlotte Dept of TransportationJune 13, 2009

Topics

• Overview of Charlotte• Charlotte’s Growth Framework• Urban Street Design Guidelines – Networks• Implementation Challenges and Successes• Public Outreach - Helping Elected Officials Make

Good Decisions• Benefits of Robust Networks

About Our City• Charlotte is the fifth largest urban region and

the 20th largest city in the U.S. in total population.

• More than 683,000 residents rely on the City of Charlotte.

• We are a high growth city.

Our City at a Glance

Like adding another…– St. Louis (348,000) or– Pittsburgh (335,000) or– Cincinnati (331,000)

Charlotte’s Population Growth2000 – 2030

Growth Framework

Centers,

Corridors and

Wedges

Land Use

Transportation

Infrastructure& Open SpaceNeigh

borhoods

Transit

Environme

nt

Econ.

Devt.

The best transportation strategy is the right land use strategy!

Centers, Corridors & Wedges

Charlotte’s TAP

“Charlotte will be the premier city in the nation for integrating land use and transportation choices.”

- TAP

1. Continue implementation of the Centers and Corridors strategy

2. [provide] …transportation facilities to improve safety, neighborhood livability, promote transportation choices and meet land use objectives

3. Collaborate…4. Communicate land use and transportation

objectives… 5. Seek financial resources…

Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG)

USDG are the “streets” component of the TAP

The USDG Philosophy

• Public Space• Image• Development “Bones” • Context-Based• Multiple Users• Providing Choice• Design as Group

Process• Enhanced Network of

Complete Streets

400’ blocks

500’ blocks

600’ blocks

500’ -800’ blocks(depends on land use)

Issues identification (small group interviews)

Draft written

Draft reviewed/revised

1st public review

Stakeholder group review

Public meetings

Developer workshops

Policy alignment

Cost study

2002 2003 2004 2005 20072006

Visual Opinion Survey

“Getting Started”

Public Outreach

• Visual Opinion Survey• Stakeholder Groups• Focus Groups• Developer groups• City Planning Department• NCDOT

Public Outreach

Visual Opinion Survey

Interviewees’ Most Preferred Street

Interviewees’ Least Preferred Street

Most Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)

Least Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)

Topics Discussed with Stakeholder Group in 2005

• Sidewalk width• Planting strip width• Bicycle facilities• Utilities• Traffic calming• Designing signalized

intersections

• Block length• Criteria for local street

cross-sections• Applying the USDG• Cost implications• Environmental

implications

Developers’ Objections 2005 - 2007

• Planting strip width• Block length (more

streets)• “Environmental

implications”• Cost implications

400’ blocks

500’ blocks

600’ blocks

500’ -800’ blocks(depends on land use)

“Getting it Adopted”

• Additional (2007) Public Involvement:– Two Public Briefings– On-line survey– Meetings with apartment and office developers– Comments received at Council Meetings

Developers Questioned:

• Whether the USDG would hurt the environment (water quality)

– Streets represent 15-20% of urban areas’ impervious surface – site-specific cost study showed very small effect from new streets

– Potential 1-3% overall increase in impervious surface

– Various strategies can minimize impacts of creek crossings

Developers Questioned:

• Whether the USDG would increase maintenance costs

– CDOT’s current budget for local street maintenance is ~$25 million

– USDG may result in 1-3% more linear miles of local streets

– Increased annual maintenance cost estimated at $250,000

– State gas tax share may offset some of the increased costs

Developers Questioned:

• Whether NCDOT would accept the USDG

– Positive reaction from NCDOT Division Engineer regarding Local Streets

– Key differences related to:• Narrow cross-section options• Curb radii

– Inconsistent history on thoroughfare projects – agreements and disagreements

Developers Questioned:

• Whether costs would affect affordable housing

– Affordable neighborhoods also deserve good streets

– Cost study findings similar across studies ($1900 - $2900 avg. increase per residential lot)

– Previous policy/ordinance changes generated same concern

Building a Network

1928

2008

Conclusions

• There is a business case for having better connectivity

• Connectivity CIP projects/Land Development– One-time capital cost, plus occasional maintenance– Enhanced connectivity helps avoid expensive

thoroughfare widening– Connectivity through Land Development essential

• Fire Stations

Comparison of 8 Fire Stationsin Charlotte

Fire Stations Studied

N

• 8 fire stations

• Areas all generally built-out• Land generally

developed• Street network

generally complete

• Distance from Center City generally correlates negatively with connectivity

Service Area Size(Based on 2½-mile travel distance)

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

14.1

12.5

13.5 13.4

11.5

12.5

11.8

8.0

9.3

Fire Station

Serv

ice

Are

a (s

q. m

i.)

Dilworth

McKee Rd.

Cotswold Eastway

Derita

Sardis Ln.

Highland Creek (2)

Carmel/51

Group Average

Service Area as a Function of Connectivity Ratio

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.56

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

R² = NaN

Connectivity Ratio

Logarithmic (Connectivity Ratio)

Station 2

Station 9

Station 14

Station 15

Station 19

Station 22

Station 24

Station 31

Station 31 w/ Shelley Ave. Connection

Connectivity Ratio

Resp

onse

Are

a (s

q m

i)

Households per Fire Station

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,00026

,930

26,4

53

20,7

93

15,3

45

14,9

32

13,6

04

7,3

06

5,7

79

6,4

97

Station 2

Station 15

Station 14

Station 24

Station 22

Station 19

Station 9

Station 31

Station 31 w/ Shelley

Fire StationGreater connectivity Less connectiv-

ity

Annualized Per-Capita Life Cycle Costs(based on 2-apparatus station)

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$159 $162

$206

$279 $287 $315

$586

$740

$659

Station 2

Station 15

Station 14

Station 24

Station 22

Station 19

Station 9

Station 31

Station 31 w/ Shelley

Fire Station

Greater connectiv-ity

Less connectiv-ity

Average Citywide Response Time and Connectivity Ratio

500 1000 1500 20000

1

2

3

4

5

6

# of Fire Stations Opened

Linear (# of Fire Stations Opened)

Average Response Time (minutes)

Linear (Average Response Time (minutes))

Fiscal Year

October 2001:

Subdivision Ordinance amendment to require

connectivity

Conclusions

• Degree of connectivity directly affects Fire Station service area size– Higher connectivity ratios = larger service areas

• Larger service area distributes fixed costs over more households

• Fire station costs are fixed

• Good connectivity = Financial efficiency

Conclusions

• Degree of connectivity directly affects Fire Station service area size– Higher connectivity ratios = larger service areas

• Larger service area distributes fixed costs over more households

• Fire station costs are fixed

• Good connectivity = Financial efficiency

Since Adoption

• Implementing USDG through:– Area plans– CIP projects– Rezoning reviews

• “Monitoring” applications of:– Stub streets– Creek crossings– Block length exceptions

• Implementing through Code – now comes the hard part!– Public review likely to raise similar questions

Cost?

Value?

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

  --  Albert Einstein

Summary

Thank You!