Public Comments Summary
September 28, 2000
Sugaw Creek Recreational Center, Charlotte, NC

A.  Purpose of the meeting:  To gain public input for the scoping process.  In a formal public presentation, the study team for the corridors detailed the purpose of the major investment studies in the Corridors, presented preliminary alignments for the corridors and explained the importance of transit-oriented development as it relates to the success of rapid transit.  Members of the Countywide Transit Services team also defined the short-term goals for transit through the expansion of transit services throughout the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region.

B.  Attendees: 25

C.  Staff Present:

1)  City of Charlotte Lead Staff

• Kelly Goforth, Project Manager, CATS

• Jonathan Wells, Land-Use Manager, C-M Planning Commission

• Kathy Cornett, Land-Use Manager, C-M Planning Commission

• Jessica Stipe, CR specialist, CATS

• Brian Nadolny, Transit Planner, CATS

• Jon Downing, CATS

2)  Consultant Team

• Myrna Valdez, PBQ&D

• Debbie Porter, PBQ&D

• David Holden, LDR

• David Miller, PBQ&D

• Dan Boyle, TMD

• Mary Hopper, Hopper Communications

3)  Assisting staff

• Brad Schulz, CR specialist, CATS

• Randy Bass, CATS

• Lauren Kimsey, Hopper Communications

• Keith Richardson, Corp. Communications

D.  Public Comments

1)  Questions Following Presentation

Q:  What characteristics define the corridors?

A:  The corridors were defined in the 2025 Plan.  It's essentially a five –corridor, county system, and paralleling roads, such as I-77, I-85, defined the corridors.  Transit will provide an alternative to using these roads.

C:  My biggest concern is the bus routes.  Ones that you pointed out already have bumper to bumper traffic.  I think that additional money should be used on HOV lanes. I just don't see people on the bus.  I don't see people on the train.

A:  At this point in the study, all things are still being considered such as HOV lanes. And ultimately, we need to test where people are coming from and where they are going to and what the probability is that we can get some of those people out of their automobiles and onto mass transit whether it be light rail, commuter rail or busways.

Q:  Has anyone considered using multiple transit methods for these corridors?  I've heard there is trouble in the negotiations with the railroad.  Any truth to that rumor?

A: Yes, we will be looking at issues of joint uses in transit development in all the corridors.  In dealing with railroad companies, we have been contact with Norfolk Southern.  They have provided us input on all of our alternatives as to whether they are feasible or non-feasible, given their current operations.  They have indicated some concerns about the use of lighter rail vehicles in their right-of-way.

Q:  Are there other places where drivers have evolved into transit users.  If so, please describe this evolution?

A:  In San Diego, state legislators were so convinced that rapid transit would work that they paid for their first line.  Citizens were skeptical and dubbed it the "Tijuana line," thinking the only riders would be day laborers.  This line has attracted a cross section of riders, is considered a success and has resulted in additional lines.

In Portland, where they have coordinated transit and land-use, 60 percent of trips are made by transit.  In Ottawa, they have experienced similar successes but instead of using rail, they use bus rapid transit.

Q:  What will be the attraction to use transit?

A:  It will take the transit operator's education of the public about transit services.  It will mean reaching out to the private sectors such as employers, who may assist in paying for transit services for their employees and developers who will construct on areas near or even owned by the transit operator.

2)  Breakout Session (Group 1)

• Major Investment Study Questions

• What are your goals/issues for the North Corridor related to transit and land-use? (listed in priority)

• Bike and ride along corridors; green space within corridor—greenways; trails (2 votes)

• Connect  neighborhoods, retail, pedestrian friendly, mixed-use development (1 vote)

• Improve service to Derita area—good location, consider a transit stop (1 vote)

• Direct access to the airport (1 vote)

• Coordinate with high speed rail to Raleigh (1 vote)

• Preserve green space and open space in the wedges and protect from future development

• UNCC is isolated (large student population) need university "Village Rider."

• North Corridor; Park-n-Ride facilities for commuters

• Nevin Derita Area (Bus only at Peak)—Would like to see bus 7 days a week/extended hours (Route 13)

• What areas should be served by transit in the future? (listed in priority) (Note:  This group commented on the NE corridor only.)

• Amtrak Ctr. (1 vote)

• Old Concord and Harris Blvd. East (1 vote)

• UNCC (1 vote)

• Collegeview MHP and U.S. 49 (1 vote)

• North Davidson (1 vote)

• What additional alternatives should be considered?

• See map

• Other comments

• What about radial alignment?

• Is UNCC's administration interested in transit?

• Comment:  There's got to be education as well as to helping people realize what will happen once they arrive at their destination on transit.

3)  Breakout Session (Group 2)

• What are your goals/issues for the North Corridor related to transit and land-use? (no prioritization)

• Good blending of N/NE uses (Rail or BRT)

• Connections from North Corridor to NE corridor

• Future planning for transit stations (environmental concerns in the Northeast corridor)

• Look at corridor extension to Cabarrus County like South Iredell

• What areas should be served by transit in the future? (listed in priority)

Northeast Corridor

• Old Concord and Rocky River (3 votes)

• Hwy 29 and Collegview MHP (2 votes)

• Hwy 49 near University area (2 votes)

• University City Blvd. (1 vote)

• University Research Park (1 vote)

• Sugar Creek and Tryon St. (1 vote)

• US 29 and Eastway (1 vote)

• Sugar Creek and I-85 (1 vote)

North Corridor

• N. Graham near Sugar Creek (3 votes)

• Downtown Davidson (1 vote)

• Old Statesville

• What additional alternatives should be considered?

• Bus mixed w/HOV or rail

• Tryon Street use/if there's a bus lane

• Other comments

• Give us connectivity between corridors

• Identify what a corridor is

• Continue comprehensive approach

• Look at outreach

• Ads and maps not large enough, should be more prominent, looked too much like real estate maps

• Meeting not well advertised

4)  Comment Sheets (3 returned)

Q:  Why do you think improved transit services are needed in this corridor?

• The North/Northeast corridors are growing tremendously.  Trips are getting longer and stress levels from driving frustrations are increasing.

• The roads are congested.  I would feel more freedom, if I knew I could use transit and not worry about getting stuck in traffic.

Q:  To date, several technology and alignment alternatives have been defined for review and evaluation as part of the project.  Do you think any of these are not worth studying?  (Please explain)

Q:  Are there other alternatives that should be considered?  (Please describe)

Q:  Which alternatives should have the highest priority for consideration?  Why do you think these should have high priority?

• I think the idea of creating diverse land-use development around stations is ambitious (not impossible), but park and ride options seem more feasible for those concerned with going from smaller towns in North Corridor and downtown.

• Rail for North Corridor and BRT for NE.  The 77 Corridor is extremely congested and there seems to be a lot of interest in rail along the (north) corridor especially in the (Mecklenburg County) towns.

Q:  Which alternatives should have the lowest priority for consideration?  Why do you think these should have low priority?

Q:  Do you have any concerns about the type of development that may occur or that may be needed to support a transit system?

• Density needed along with walkability and bikability.

• No concerns.  I think TOD makes great sense and helps preserve open space in other areas, which is so important to quality of life.

Q:  Which of the key issues, if any, are of particular interest or concern to you?  (These include ridership, capital cost, operating cost, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, environmental impacts, and achievement of goals and objectives, land-use/development, role of the private sector)  Are there any issues you feel the study should address?

• Very concerned about cost in general, especially considering how much this will cost and the possibility of low ridership

Q:  Which of the Environmental Areas, if any, are of particular interest or concern to you?  (These include socioeconomic conditions, cultural resources, visual impacts, traffic and parking, noise and vibration, ecology, energy, contamination, air quality, land development).  Are there other areas you would like to see studied?

• Air quality, ecology, open space and land development

Q:  Have you any other comments you would like to make?

• Advertising—These efforts will be ineffective if people are not informed.  For example, I drive by the parking lot for Concord Express every day.  I had no idea what this was until I heard about it on the radio.  A sign appeared at the lot (small sign (and) no number to contact) only a few weeks ago.  The radio dubbed this project a failure—no wonder.