Public Comments Summary
September 26, 2000
Mallard Creek Presbyterian Church, Charlotte, NC

A.  Purpose of the meeting:  To gain public input for the scoping process.  In a formal public presentation, the Northeast Corridor study team for detailed the purpose of the major investment studies in those transit corridors, presented preliminary alignments and explained the importance of transit-oriented development as it relates to the success of rapid transit in the areas.

B.  Attendees: 10

C.  Staff Present:

1)  City of Charlotte Lead Staff

• Kelly Goforth, Project Manager, CATS

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

• Jessica Stipe, CR specialist, CATS

2)  Consultant Team

• Myrna Valdez, PBQ&D

• Debbie Porter, PBQ&D

• David Holden, LDR

• David Miller, PBQ&D

3)  Assisting staff

• David, Leard, Project Manager, CATS

• Jennifer Green, CR specialist, CATS

• Keith Richardson, Corp. Communications

D.  Public Comments

1)  Questions Following Presentation

Q:  Why wasn't heavy rail technology discussed for this study?
A:  Heavy rail technology is used mainly for higher density areas, in addition to being very expensive. Preliminary studies also concluded that this technology wasn't right for this area. 

Q:  Is there anything in particular driving these studies, whether it's business or growth.
A:  There are several reasons, which were outlined in the 2025 Plan.  First is the economic health of Charlotte's uptown.  If uptown jobs become too difficult to get to, these employment centers will begin to drift out of the county leading to the center city's decline. Also, this transit will be designed to also get workers to jobs in the University area and even Moorseville where employers struggle to get their workers to and from work.  Finally, it is important to sustain the quality of life in this area, by providing an alternative to the traffic congestion that currently ails the region.

Q:  How does an alignment/technology get picked?
A:  The MIS process helps the study team choose the right alignment, technology and land-use patterns.  By talking with the community, we learn about the public's goals and needs.  Once clearly defined, we have evaluation criteria to measure those items, which in the end will determine mode and alignment.

Q:  How do we give input without studies being done first?
A:  We need public input to conduct these studies to help shape a system for this corridor by hearing your needs and goals for this area.  At the end of the process, we will have a recommendation, but we can't start formulating a financial plan until we determine the alignment/technology that is suited for this area.

Q:  With this input, how we will know which corridor is next?
A:  At this point, we have not determined which corridor will follow the South Corridor.

Q:  What was meant by this corridor being a pioneer?
A:  The University area is very unique.  We will need to adapt examples of other cities to this corridor and develop the area and place transit stations appropriately to help shape the transit corridor.

2)  Breakout Session (Group 1)

• Major Investment Study Questions

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

• Efficient access to jobs (5 votes)

• Large special event developments need to be connected by transit (3 votes)

• Feeder bus needed as part of a total transit system. (2 votes)

• Good coverage of NE area (2 votes)

• East-West mobility needed.  Better connections needed from corridor to corridor.  Increase emphasis on traffic coming from all over to NE corridor (2 votes)

• Linkage needed from Uptown to University Research Park and access between retail areas (2 votes)

• How to get from major employment centers to Uptown faster (1 vote)

• Improved mobility on I-85 and other major arterials (Harris Blvd., Concord Mills, and Kings Grant)

• Need to get people from North (Cabarrus Co.) to the NE Corridor

• Economic impacts/benefits should be considered.

• Short term and long term emphasis needed.

• Shuttle service to hubs

• Regional linkages needed through efficient transit connections.

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

• W.T. Harris/University area (3 votes)

• UNCC (3 votes)

• Charlotte Douglas Airport (2 votes)

• Concord Mills (1 vote)

• Kings Grant (1 vote)

• Hidden Valley (1 vote)

• TIAA (1 vote)

• Amtrak Center (1 vote)

• Transportation Center (1 vote)

• Blockbuster Pavilion (1 vote)

• What additional alternatives should be considered?

• See map

• Other comments

• Lower N. Tryon and Sugar Creek Road not suitable for transit.

• System should have a commuter rail mainline which will act as a spine, which will be fed by light rail and bus connectors.

• Commuter rail would be better for longer, faster trips (from Cabarrus into Charlotte).

• BRT is acceptable if service is efficient.

• LRT would be a better system to haul larger numbers of people; maybe even less environmental impacts; may attract more economical development.

• HOV lanes with buses may be effective.

• Rail in freeway corridor is not conducive to economic development or good land-use planning.

• Consider costs of systems

• Longer-term vision needed for entire system.

• Incremental benefits are important of transit.  Some transit service sooner has advantages for area.

3)  Comment Sheets (1 returned)

Q:  Why do you think improved transit services are needed in this corridor?
A:  Growth.  Roads and highways are not large enough for 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)
A:  No

Q:  Are there other alternatives that should be considered?  (Please describe)
A:  Not sure at this time.

Q:  Which alternatives should have the highest priority for consideration?  Why do you think these should have high priority?
A:  Too early for me to say at this time.  I'm still trying to learn the choices and process.

Q:  Which alternatives should have the lowest priority for consideration?  Why do you think these should have low priority?
A:  Too early for me to say this time.  I'm still trying to learn the choices and process.

Q:  Do you have any concerns about the type of development that may occur or that may be needed to support a transit system?
A:  Yes.  Because of cost, land-use, environmental impacts and then river load factor.

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?
A:  Land-use, environmental impacts, costs and overall coverage within this district.

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?
A:  All of the above

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