C N U17 S T N Pleasant


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

C N U17 S T N Pleasant

  1. 1. Sustainable Transportation Networks<br />Charlotte’s Experience<br />Danny Pleasant, AICP<br />Key Business Executive/Director<br />Charlotte Dept of Transportation<br />June 13, 2009<br />
  2. 2. Topics<br />Overview of Charlotte<br />Charlotte’s Growth Framework<br />Urban Street Design Guidelines – Networks<br />Implementation Challenges and Successes<br />Public Outreach - Helping Elected Officials Make Good Decisions<br />Benefits of Robust Networks<br />
  3. 3. About Our City<br />Charlotte is the fifth largest urban region and the 20th largest city in the U.S. in total population.<br />More than 683,000 residents rely on the City of Charlotte.<br />We are a high growth city.<br />Our City at a Glance<br />
  4. 4. Charlotte’s Population Growth2000 – 2030<br />Like adding another…<br /><ul><li>St. Louis (348,000) or
  5. 5. Pittsburgh (335,000) or
  6. 6. Cincinnati (331,000)</li></li></ul><li>Growth Framework<br />The best transportation strategy is the right land use strategy!<br />
  7. 7. Centers, Corridors & Wedges<br />
  8. 8. Charlotte’s TAP<br />“Charlotte will be the premier city in the nation for integrating land use and transportation choices.”<br /> - TAP<br />Continue implementation of the Centers and Corridors strategy<br />[provide] …transportation facilities to improve safety, neighborhood livability, promote transportation choices and meet land use objectives<br />Collaborate…<br />Communicate land use and transportation objectives… <br />Seek financial resources…<br />
  9. 9. Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG)<br />USDG are the “streets” component of the TAP<br />
  10. 10. The USDG Philosophy<br /><ul><li>Public Space
  11. 11. Image
  12. 12. Development “Bones”
  13. 13. Context-Based
  14. 14. Multiple Users
  15. 15. Providing Choice
  16. 16. Design as Group Process
  17. 17. Enhanced Network of Complete Streets</li></li></ul><li>400’ blocks<br />500’ blocks<br />
  18. 18. 600’ blocks<br />500’ -800’ blocks<br />(depends on <br /> land use)<br />
  19. 19.
  20. 20. “Getting Started”<br />2002<br />2003<br />2004<br />2005<br />2007<br />2006<br />Issues identification (small group interviews)<br />Draft written<br />Draft reviewed/revised<br />1st public review<br />VisualOpinionSurvey<br />Stakeholder group review<br />Public meetings<br />Developer workshops<br />Policy alignment<br />Cost study<br />
  21. 21. Public Outreach<br />Visual Opinion Survey<br />Stakeholder Groups<br />Focus Groups<br />Developer groups<br />City Planning Department<br />NCDOT<br />
  22. 22. Public Outreach<br />Visual Opinion Survey<br />
  23. 23. Interviewees’ Most Preferred Street<br />
  24. 24. Interviewees’ Least Preferred Street<br />
  25. 25. Most Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)<br />
  26. 26. Least Preferred Residential Street Image (VOS)<br />
  27. 27. Topics Discussed with Stakeholder Group in 2005<br />Sidewalk width<br />Planting strip width<br />Bicycle facilities<br />Utilities<br />Traffic calming<br />Designing signalized intersections<br />Block length<br />Criteria for local street cross-sections<br />Applying the USDG<br />Cost implications<br />Environmental implications<br />
  28. 28. Developers’ Objections 2005 - 2007<br />Planting strip width<br />Block length (more streets)<br />“Environmental implications”<br />Cost implications<br />
  29. 29. 400’ blocks<br />500’ blocks<br />
  30. 30. 600’ blocks<br />500’ -800’ blocks<br />(depends on <br /> land use)<br />
  31. 31. “Getting it Adopted” <br />Additional (2007) Public Involvement:<br />Two Public Briefings<br />On-line survey<br />Meetings with apartment and office developers<br />Comments received at Council Meetings<br />
  32. 32. Developers Questioned:<br />Whether the USDG would hurt the environment (water quality)<br />Streets represent 15-20% of urban areas’ impervious surface – site-specific cost study showed very small effect from new streets<br />Potential 1-3% overall increase in impervious surface<br />Various strategies can minimize impacts of creek crossings<br />
  33. 33. Developers Questioned:<br />Whether the USDG would increase maintenance costs<br />CDOT’s current budget for local street maintenance is ~$25 million<br />USDG may result in 1-3% more linear miles of local streets<br />Increased annual maintenance cost estimated at $250,000<br />State gas tax share may offset some of the increased costs<br />
  34. 34. Developers Questioned:<br />Whether NCDOT would accept the USDG<br />Positive reaction from NCDOT Division Engineer regarding Local Streets <br />Key differences related to:<br />Narrow cross-section options<br />Curb radii<br />Inconsistent history on thoroughfare projects – agreements and disagreements<br />
  35. 35. Developers Questioned:<br />Whether costs would affect affordable housing<br />Affordable neighborhoods also deserve good streets<br />Cost study findings similar across studies ($1900 - $2900 avg. increase per residential lot)<br />Previous policy/ordinance changes generated same concern<br />
  36. 36. Building a Network<br />2008<br />1928<br />
  37. 37.
  38. 38. Conclusions<br />There is a business case for having better connectivity<br />Connectivity CIP projects/Land Development<br />One-time capital cost, plus occasional maintenance<br />Enhanced connectivity helps avoid expensive thoroughfare widening<br />Connectivity through Land Development essential<br />Fire Stations<br />
  39. 39. Comparison of 8 Fire Stations<br />in Charlotte<br />
  40. 40. Fire Stations Studied<br /><ul><li>8 fire stations
  41. 41. Areas all generally built-out
  42. 42. Land generally developed
  43. 43. Street network generally complete
  44. 44. Distance from Center City generally correlates negatively with connectivity</li></ul>N<br />
  45. 45. Service Area Size(Based on 2½-mile travel distance)<br />Dilworth<br />Cotswold<br />Eastway<br />Group Average<br />McKee Rd.<br />Derita<br />Carmel/51<br />Sardis Ln.<br />Highland Creek (2)<br />
  46. 46. Service Area as a Function of Connectivity Ratio<br />
  47. 47. Households per Fire Station<br />
  48. 48. Annualized Per-Capita Life Cycle Costs(based on 2-apparatus station)<br />
  49. 49. Average Citywide Response Time and Connectivity Ratio<br />October 2001:<br />Subdivision Ordinance amendment to require connectivity<br />
  50. 50. Conclusions<br />Degree of connectivity directly affects Fire Station service area size<br />Higher connectivity ratios = larger service areas<br />Larger service area distributes fixed costs over more households<br />Fire station costs are fixed<br />Good connectivity = Financial efficiency<br />
  51. 51. Conclusions<br />Degree of connectivity directly affects Fire Station service area size<br />Higher connectivity ratios = larger service areas<br />Larger service area distributes fixed costs over more households<br />Fire station costs are fixed<br />Good connectivity = Financial efficiency<br />
  52. 52. Since Adoption<br />Implementing USDG through:<br />Area plans<br />CIP projects<br />Rezoning reviews<br />“Monitoring” applications of:<br />Stub streets<br />Creek crossings<br />Block length exceptions<br />Implementing through Code – now comes the hard part!<br />Public review likely to raise similar questions<br />
  53. 53. Cost?<br />Value?<br />
  54. 54. Summary<br />Thank You!<br />