Table II.B.3.1: Regional Trends, Concord-Kannapolis UA. Year Pct Ch Pct Ch

Transcription

1 3. Concord-Kannapolis-Rowan A. Regional trends The Concord-Kannapolis region, situated about 20 miles northeast of the greater Charlotte region, was until the 1970 s a largely independent region with a textile and manufacturing economic base. The completion and later widening of I 85 through the region, economic shifts away from textiles and toward bio-technology and retail trade, growth of racing-industry activities, and significant increases in retail employment, as well as rapid growth in northeast Charlotte, has resulted in strong growth locally. The two-county population has increased about 24.8 percent over the prior decade; households and workers have increased slightly less rapidly. This compares with a NC average growth of 21 percent. The growth has been fueled by the region s proximity to Charlotte, the expansion of the racing industry and the Concord Regional Airport that supports it, and the development of the Concord Mills Mall, a 1.8 million square foot shopping center which has become the #1 tourist destination in the state 1. The MPO region was recently expanded to include portions of Rowan County. This created a Transportation Management Area with a population of over 200,000 persons, but with a relatively small urban core. As a result the region has just recently prepared its Congestion Management Plan, which is dealt with as a portion of the longrange plan. The following table shows projections of basic information for the Concord- Kannapolis region. The data are based on statistics provided by the MPO and by the state to FHWA. Table II.B.3.1: Regional Trends, Concord-Kannapolis UA MPO Data FHWA Data Year Pct Ch Pct Ch Population ( in 2-co area) Employment in 2- co area 198,000 (450,000 in 2- co area) 194,000 in 2- co area) , , Daily VMT, K Network Size, mi %Congested/ Miles Congested Transit Work Share Regional growth has been substantial in the last decade, about 25 percent, and is expected to continue at a rapid pace. The MPO forecasts percent growth in the next 25 years as the area becomes more attractive as a Charlotte suburb; our forecast for the Reason Foundation predicts less rapid but strong growth, on the order of 40 percent. Table II.B.3.1 summarizes the likely changes in commuting within the core (urbanized 80 1 Cabarrus-Rowan LRP, p. 18.

2 area) portion of the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO area. Continuing past trends, the area is likely to increase about 41 percent in population and commuters over the next 25 years. Indeed, it may accelerate as the region accommodates the new biotech research and education center in Kannapolis and the increasing NASCAR industry presence. In short, the region is likely to become more affluent, more auto-oriented, and more spread out. B. Commuter characteristics Since no recent travel survey is available for the region, we rely on data from the 2000 and 1990 Census for information about commuters. The following table shows combined (Cabarrus and Rowan) journey-to-work data for the region. 2 The region is increasingly auto-oriented in commuting patterns. About 6.4 percent of households have no vehicle, a share which has declined substantially in the past decade as the region s wealth increases. Table II.B.3.2: Cabarrus-Rowan Profile of Resident Commuters Pct 1990 Pct 2000 Pct Change Population Households Vehicle Workers Drove Alone Carpooled Public Transportation/Taxi Bike/walk Motorcycle/other Work at Home Mean Travel Time * Drove Alone 24.6 Carpooled 29.4 Public Transportation/Taxi 39.5 Bike/Walk 11.7 Motorcycle/other 33.2 *ave of Co s From a mode choice perspective, the 2-county region is overwhelmingly dependent on the automobile for commuting, with about 93.2 percent of workers either Census, Journey to Work, Cabarrus and Rowan Counties, NC.

3 driving alone or carpooling. Modal shares for transit are very small, about 0.3 percent of regional commuting and declining. The percentage of walk-to-work has also been falling, while work-at-home has been increasing rapidly. Among motorized modes, public transit and carpooling have the longest travel times. Mean travel time in the region has increased about 4.6 minutes between 1990 and 2000; this is the average for the 2 counties, with Cabarrus (closer to Charlotte) having slightly longer times and Rowan (farther away) a more localized economy and therefore shorter times. In short, the data suggest a mobile population with considerable dependence on the private auto. This trend is not likely to abate as the region grows and becomes more integrated with the greater Charlotte area, incomes rise and strong suburban development merges with changing economic mix. C. How much delay needs to be saved to hold congestion? Although there are several routes in the region that are regularly overloaded, congestion is not seen as a major issue today. However, the significant increase in future population means that congestion is likely to grow in seriousness in the future. The region s current congestion index is 1.04, and delay is estimated to more than double, to 1.10, by Average travel times within the region will increase from about 18.5 minutes to about 19.4 minutes (urbanized area only, hence shorter than regional travel time averages), adding 7.8 hours of delay per year to the average commuter s travel. While this does not seem like much, over workers it can be significant. The region s daily commuting hours is presently about 39,246 hours daily. Total regional commuting time will increase about hours, or about 48 percent, to hours. This is in line with the estimates of VMT growth which cover a larger region that is growing somewhat more rapidly. Of this increase, most (about hours) will be due to the growth of population and workers, and about 3443 hours of the increase in commuter travel time will be caused by increases in congestion. In other words, if planners want to hold commuting delay to its overall 2003 levels they would need to take actions that in total save about 3443 daily vehicle-hours of commuting travel time, enough to keep up with the increasing congestion index and the regional growth. These numbers are probably conservative (low) since they do not account for additional traffic coming into the region on a daily basis. As we describe in the next several sections, this goal is achievable, with focus. Table II.B.3.3: Projected Increases in Commuting Delay, Concord- Kannapolis UA Cabarrus-Rowan UA (core area) Item Change Pop Commuters TTI Mean Travel Time Free Flow Tr Time Free Flow DVHT Delay DVHT

4 Total DVHT * Ave Hrs Del/yr *89865 commuters * 2 trips/day * 19.4 minutes/trip /60 min per hour D. What does the TIP and LRP say about Congestion? The region s long range transportation plan 3 provides modest focus on congestion. Based on a survey of residents, the LRP recognizes the dominance of the automobile in personal travel patterns, but observes that no consensus was reached on exactly what needs to be done regarding transportation need; there is a high desire to protect the environment and improve the existing transportation system as opposed to building new facilities 4. Despite this uncertainty, the Plan identifies five goals, three of which are congestion-related: Street system: develop an efficient street-highway network (improve connectivity and handle capacity deficiencies) Congestion management: minimize traffic congestion (through improved signal timing/its measures, and minimized travel times and distances) Bicycle and pedestrian: develop a network of sidewalks and bicycle routes; accommodate pedestrian and bike access. Public transportation: Improve mobility for residents (increase awareness of transit services, support expansion of transit services, support exploring options); Environmental: Preserve the natural and built environments (better land use planning, support multi-modal projects, increase vehicle occupancy rates and mode splits and reduce congestion). The long range plan identifies 7 prioritized congested corridors in the greater Concord Kannapolis area 5 : Priority Section On TIP? 1. US 601, from Miami Church Rd to NC 49, Concord No 2. I-85, from Concord Mills Blvd to Rowan Co. Line Yes-unfunded 3. Cannon Blvd, from Concord City Limits to Rowan Co No 4. HY 73, from Trinity Church Rd w to City Limits, Concord Yes-Unfunded 5. Branchview Dr. from Corban Ave to I-85, Concord No 6. Cabarrus Ave. from Hwy 601 to US 29, Concord No 7. S. Main St, from Dale Earnhardt Dr s to City Limits, Kan. No However only two of these projects are on the current TIP, as unfunded (the current TIP provides partial funding). This lack of concern for congestion is supported by the Plan s chapter on congestion management. The chapter describes congestion in the region as minimal at best within the urban core and existing primarily on the periphery towards the Charlotte metro area, but is primarily a function of peak hour work trips into and out of 3 Cabarrus County Economic Development Commission, Report with 2030 Needs, at 4 Ibid, p Ibid, Table 1, congested corridors.

5 Mecklenburg County 6. Not only is this factually not the case, as demonstrated by the above list, but it misunderstands the impact that Charlotte-oriented traffic congestion is having on the quality of life in the county, which is highly dependent on Mecklenburg for jobs and bring home salaries. Further on, the CMP notes that not all congestion is bad, particularly as it relates to shift in mode choice or transit attractiveness, demonstrating significant disconnect between the goals of the Plan and that of the region s commuting population who are dropping transit, walking and carpooling. It also suggests a planners agenda view of congestion, rather than a citizen s view. In addition, the congestion management plan identifies only $7 million over 7 years for modest actions 7 : Access management Intelligent transportation systems Roadway system operations Public transit operations and capital Public transit connectivity to Charlotte and between systems Highway capacity Non-motorized transportation improvements Special event congestion (racetrack events) Of these, only one (highway capacity) has the potential to impact congestion significantly, and the proposed dollar amount is too small to be of major impact. Contrary to the apparent lack of attention to present congestion, the LRP itself predicts that future congestion is expected to overload many of the existing facilities 8. The Plan provides several maps showing present and future facilities expected to be congested. These include the following major facilities: I-85 through both Cabarrus and Rowan Counties; NC 150 in western Rowan County; Major portions of NC 29 and 49 in Cabarrus County; NC 73 in western Cabarrus County; Portions of the Westside Bypass west of Kannapolis. Figures II.B.3.1 and II.B.3.2 show the lower portion of the region (Cabarrus County only) and the present facilities overloaded and those predicted facilities to be overloaded in Figure II.B.3.1: Facilities Presently Overloaded, Cabarrus County, Ibid, p Ibid, p Ibid, p. 20.

6 Figure II.B.3.2: Facilities Predicted Overloaded, Cabarrus County, 2030 These maps demonstrate the emerging seriousness of the impending increasing congestion problem in the Cabarrus-Rowan area.

7 E. TIP and Long-Range Plan Savings in Delay The Cabarrus-Rowan Long Range Plan estimates that about $1.74 billion 9 will be available in federal, state and local funds for highway transportation purposes over the next 25 years. Of this, about $ 792 million is expected to be capital, the remainder maintenance. Against this projection of resources, they propose about $1.42 billion in capital expenditures over 25 years for highway transportation improvements in the greater region, considerably more than the $792 expected. The following table summarizes the costs of the recommended projects. Table II.B.3. 4: Estimated Cost of Cabarrus-Rowan Highway Projects ($M)* TIP LRP LRP Total Div 9 (Rowan) Div10 (Cabarrus) Total $ $ $ $ Source: Long Range Plan. To determine the potential congestion impacts of the TIP and LRP, we first updated the TIP to the current ( ) version, both with major projects and costs where available. The following Table II.B.3.4 summarizes the major projects identified in the TIP and LRP, with both major projects and updated costs using the current ( ) TIP. The specific projects evaluated for each table are listed in Appendix 3. Figure II.B.3.3 shows these projects. Figure II.B.3.3: Projects Affecting Congestion, Concord-Kannapolis Area 9 Ibid, Table 7-4 (viz. Table 9).

8 These are not all the projects on either list, just the major ones likely to have an impact on congestion (we removed several projects on the edges of the region and in rural areas). Together, these projects would cost about $1.19 billion, slightly less than the $ 1.4 estimated cost of major projects but considerably more than the $792 estimated to be available for capital. This implies that the capital portion of the TIP and LRP may not have enough funding. Table II.B.3.5 quantifies the potential savings in congestion travel time for these projects. In total, the TIP and LRP have the potential to save about 23,449 daily hours of travel time for the region s residents. This is considerably more potential savings than the above estimate of the growth in delay for the region, 3443 hours. It is important to remember that these are not the only projects on the TIP or LRP, only those that are in the immediate Cabarrus-Rowan urbanized area and likely to result in a significant travel time savings for commuters. Other projects, including projects in the nearby Charlotte region, will also save some time, in addition to network effects, so travel time savings in total would likely be higher than estimated below. On the other hand, the commuting market is also likely to be larger. LRP TableII.B.5: Potential Savings in Delay from the Cabarrus-Rowan TIP and TIP LRP Total

9 Number of Projects Lane-Miles Added Total Cost, $M $ $ $ Estimated commuter DVHT Saved The following table shows the savings by project type The TIP is dominated by the widening of I-85 through Cabarrus County, the #1 project in the region, and signal optimization, primarily along US 29. Further out, the Long Range Plan places more focus on urban arterial widening. Neither plan places much savings on intersection improvements. UA TableII.B.3.6: Potential Savings in Delay by Project Type, Cabarrus-Rowan TIP LRP Total 01-New Frwy New Arterial New Exit/ramp Frwy widening Urban Arterial Widening Rural Arterial Widening Intersection Improvements Signal Optimization HOV/HOT Bridge Art to Frwy upgrade Minor Improvements; No widen Lane Reduction Total Based on the analysis above, we find that no additional savings in delay needs to be found in the Cabarrus-Rowan area LRP and TIP to meet the goal of significantly improved congestion. This finding, however, rests on the presumption that the projects identified in the TIP and LRP are both targeted at congestion relief and are located so as to provide that relief to the maximum number of commuters. While many of the projects are appropriately located, there is probably not enough attention placed on potential increases in congestion on major interstates and arterials through the heart of the Concord, Kannapolis and Salisbury. Another critical assumption is the reasonableness of the funding forecast for the region. In the LRP, several alternative scenarios are presented for additional funding, based on both a change in the state funding formula to provide additional funds to urban regions over rural regions, and an increase in the proportion of federal funds returned to North Carolina from 90.5 percent to 95 percent. It is difficult to determine the accuracy of these assumptions. On balance, the change in the state formula seems more likely, since it is already written into state highway law; the likelihood of significant changes in

10 the federal program after 2008 is clearly less. However, neither of these assumptions would make huge changes in Cabarrus-Rowan s expected highway funds. A third critical assumption, noted in the tables of the LRP, is that only $792 M will be available for capital actions. This is considerably short of the $1.2 B identified for major delay-saving projects in the TIP and LRP. This means that, unless the project list is shaved or more funds are found, the Plan is under-funded. If this is the case, then the potential savings in congestion from the LRP and TIP are also too high. F. Recommendations This assessment finds that the Cabarrus-Rowan MPO region has the potential, within the current TIP and LRP expenditures and projects, to implement actions that have the effect of reducing congestion delay. However, the analysis is based on several unlikely assumptions that need to be evaluated more carefully. These include: Sufficient funding will become available through funding changes; Funds sufficient for capital actions Accuracy of inter-county traffic forecasts. Therefore, we suggest: Capacity Provision and Management Review revenue and expenditure assumptions. The critical underpinning assumption of the TIP and LRP that more funds will somehow become available to the region seems unlikely. State formulas are unlikely to produce changes large enough to make a substantial difference, and federal changes are even more unlikely. Most of all, the projection of capital funding is considerably less that that identified in the LRP. The TIP and LRP should be reviewed for consistency with these revenue projections, particularly projections of capital and maintenance revenues. Quantify the impacts of the TIP and LRP on Congestion. The analysis in this report should be repeated with the draft TIP and the revised LRP. If the results are similar, then actions to ensure that the TIP and LRP are implemented should be pursued. Deal with bottlenecks. Numerous specific road sections in the region need attention now. Among these are: o I-85 and Poplar Tent Road o Speedway Blvd and Weddington Rd o Odell School Rd and NC 73 o Concord Parkway and Carolina Mall o US 29 and Harris Blvd (in Mecklenburg County, but on Cabarrus County commuting paths) While the specific locations change over time, and some of these are on the present TIP, the evolving traffic pattern and development in the region means that new sites of congestion will continue to emerge. Put teeth in the Congestion Management Plan. The region s Congestion Management Plan was found to be only partially sufficient. The CMP needs to focus more on the impact of specific action on congestion relief. Most seriously, it fails to provide a current

11 estimate of congestion, or a forecast of congestion levels such as a regional congestion index, if the LRP is implemented, so it provides no basis for monitoring progress. The CMP needs to be updated, identifying the amount of congestion relief that each project will provide, and eliminating projects that are not effective. The Plan s modest mention of transit service is appropriate. The major specific actions in the Plan should be specific projects that actually relieve congestion. Increase attention to intersections and ramps. Although the LRP and CMP speak of congestion relief in general terms and identify some locations of current congestion, most of the congestion problems in the region can be located at specific interchanges and intersections within the street system. More attention should be placed on relief of congestion at these locations. Implementation of a signal optimization system, an important step, does not go far enough because it does not provide enough additional capacity. Every major intersection, ramp, and interchange in the region should be reviewed for specific needs such as longer turning lanes and weaving sections, left turns and double left turns, and then plans should be put forward on the TIP to correct the problems. Raise the importance of congestion reduction in selecting projects. The present TIP and LRP planning process has no formal mechanism for selecting projects. The process should be quantified and congestion relief given considerable weight, compared with other goals, in project selection. Demand Reduction or Management Implement a flexible/staggered work hour program. There is no mention in the LRP or TIP of the importance of flexible work hour programs in spreading out peak-hour traffic. To our knowledge there is no flexible work hour program in the region. Cities the size of Concord-Kannapolis-Rowan is large enough to have some focus on peak spreading as a strategy. It should not be the main strategy but it can be surprisingly effective in conjunction with other actions. This effort should start first with a coordinated residential-based carpooling program with the Charlotte MPO, then be expanded to cover other nearby communities (Salisbury and Statesville particularly). Major employer sites within the region (e.g., Concord Mills, Medical Center, Concord Mall, Kannapolis biotech campus, International Drive) should also be reviewed for applicability of employer-based or employee-based flex time or staggered hours. Some of these may need help with reverse commuting services from the Charlotte region. Drop reliance on transit as a congestion reliever. The transit systems in the region are too small, less than 0.3 percent of commuters, and its riders almost entirely cardependent, so it can have no effect on congestion reduction in any foreseeable circumstances. The role of transit in congestion reduction should be eliminated from the reports; and certainly de-emphasized as an effective part of the program. Planning and Administration

12 Review the project mix and move up on the schedule those projects that are major congestion relievers. Obviously, projects that relieve congestion should be increased in funding and moved up in time. Coordinate some project selection with Charlotte. As the greater Charlotte region becomes more integrated, more coordination between MPO areas in project selection will be needed. The region has taken initial steps in this direction by building a cooperative regional model for forecasting needs. The next step is to use that model to determine, jointly, the most important congestion-reducing projects in the projects in the region and move them up in priority. The details of this exercise are left to the two MPO s but we believe that the result will increase the importance and priority for the following major projects: o Widening of I-85 from Concord Mills Bvld to Rowan County Line; o Completion of the Charlotte Outer Belt, specifically the section from I-85 west to I- 77. This section, in particular, will serve to remove a major bottleneck in Mecklenburg County that affects Cabarrus County.. o US 29 turn lanes and signal optimization from Harris Bvld. in Mecklenburg County to I-85 in Cabarrus County.

13