The document summarizes Charlotte's efforts to implement sustainable transportation networks through urban street design guidelines (USDG) and increased connectivity. It describes Charlotte's growth, centers and corridors strategy, the USDG approach and philosophy, challenges overcome through public outreach and addressing developers' concerns about costs, environment and adoption. Comparisons of fire station service areas show higher connectivity ratios increase service area sizes and distribute fixed costs, improving efficiency. The USDG continue being implemented through plans, projects and reviews, with monitoring of ongoing applications and public code reviews likely raising similar questions about costs and value.

1. Sustainable Transportation Networks Charlotte’s Experience Danny Pleasant, AICP Key Business Executive/Director Charlotte Dept of Transportation June 13, 2009

2. 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

3. 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

5. Pittsburgh (335,000) or

7. Centers, Corridors & Wedges

8. Charlotte’s TAP “Charlotte will be the premier city in the nation for integrating land use and transportation choices.” - TAP Continue implementation of the Centers and Corridors strategy [provide] …transportation facilities to improve safety, neighborhood livability, promote transportation choices and meet land use objectives Collaborate… Communicate land use and transportation objectives… Seek financial resources…

9. Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG) USDG are the “streets” component of the TAP

11. Image

12. Development “Bones”

13. Context-Based

14. Multiple Users

15. Providing Choice

16. Design as Group Process

18. 600’ blocks 500’ -800’ blocks (depends on land use)

20. “Getting Started” 2002 2003 2004 2005 2007 2006 Issues identification (small group interviews) Draft written Draft reviewed/revised 1st public review VisualOpinionSurvey Stakeholder group review Public meetings Developer workshops Policy alignment Cost study

21. Public Outreach Visual Opinion Survey Stakeholder Groups Focus Groups Developer groups City Planning Department NCDOT

22. Public Outreach Visual Opinion Survey

23. Interviewees’ Most Preferred Street

24. Interviewees’ Least Preferred Street

25. Most Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)

26. Least Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)

27. 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

28. Developers’ Objections 2005 - 2007 Planting strip width Block length (more streets) “Environmental implications” Cost implications

29. 400’ blocks 500’ blocks

30. 600’ blocks 500’ -800’ blocks (depends on land use)

31. “Getting it Adopted” Additional (2007) Public Involvement: Two Public Briefings On-line survey Meetings with apartment and office developers Comments received at Council Meetings

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. Building a Network 2008 1928

38. 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

39. Comparison of 8 Fire Stations in Charlotte

41. Areas all generally built-out

42. Land generally developed

43. Street network generally complete

44. Distance from Center City generally correlates negatively with connectivityN

45. Service Area Size(Based on 2½-mile travel distance) Dilworth Cotswold Eastway Group Average McKee Rd. Derita Carmel/51 Sardis Ln. Highland Creek (2)

46. Service Area as a Function of Connectivity Ratio

47. Households per Fire Station

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

49. Average Citywide Response Time and Connectivity Ratio October 2001: Subdivision Ordinance amendment to require connectivity

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. Cost? Value?

54. Summary Thank You!