External Scoping, CP1 & CP2 Meeting Minutes

�d �c STATE
G'/ "' y"� � 't 4�� `�a
�'Q 7
J� fI�ti ��
��u ��c,.Y��°4�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PAT MCCRORY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
ANTHONYJ.TATA
SECRF.TARY
Apri19, 2015
Meeting Participants
Keith Lewis, Project Manager, VHB
Don Brown, Senior Project Planner, VHB
SUBJECT: Meeting Summary — External Scoping Meeting and
CP1 and CP2 Meeting for STIP No. U-2509 — US 74
(Independence Blvd.) Improvements, Conference
Drive to I-485 in Mecklenburg County
TIME & LOCATION: March 19, 2015; 10:00 AM-2:15 PM
NCDOT Structures Design Conference Room C
Raleigh, North Carolina
In Attendance:
Mitch Batuzich
David Wainwright
Crystal Amschler
Marla Chambers
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Renee Gledhill-Earley*
Candice Leonard
Tricia Sergeson
Michael Turchy
Carla Dagnino
Scott Cole*
Stuart Basham
Warren Cooksey
Jordan Ashley*
Jennifer Harris
Wilson Stroud
Stacy Oberhausen
MEETING SUMMARY
FHWA
NCDWR
USACE
NCWRC
USEPA
SHPO
CRTPO
FHWA
NCDOT— PDEA/NES
NCDOT— PDEA/NES
NCDOT— Div 10
NCDOT— Div 10
NCDOT— Div 10
NCDOT— Div 10
NCDOT— PDEA/PDU
NCDOT— PDEA/PDU
NCDOT— PDEA/PDU
*attendance by phone and webinar
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAI� SERVICE CENTER
Rn�EicH NC 27699-1548
Greg Brew
Kirby Pendergraft
Bill Zerman
Mark Staley
Elise Groundwater
Jim Dunlop
Anil Panicker*
Simone Robinson
Elizabeth Shay
Van Argabright*
Ralph Messera
Tim Gibbs
Keith Hines*
Tommy Register
Keith Lewis
Jimmy Goodnight
Don Brown
TELEPHONE: J1J-7O7-6000
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT/PE/
NCDOT— Rdwy Des
NCDOT - Hydraulics
NCDOT - Hydraulics
NCDOT — REU
NCDOT -Cong Mgmt
NCDOT -Cong Mgmt
NCDOT-TPB
NCDOT— PDEA/HES
NCDOT— PDEA/HES
NCDOT — Prog Dev
Town of Matthews
CDOT
CDOT
TGS Engineers
VHB
VHB
VHB
LOCATI ON:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
'IOOO BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH, NC 27610

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
Overview:
The main purpose of this meeting was to introduce the project to the NEPA/404 Merger Team.
Following the External Scoping portion of the meeting, the Project Study Area and the Purpose
and Need of the project (Concurrence Point 1) and the Detailed Study Alternatives to Be
Carried Forward (Concurrence Point 2) were discussed. Concurrence was reached on CP1, but
further coordination will need to be done to reach concurrence on CP2. Both concurrence
forms are attached.
More information on the project can be found on the project website:
http://www. ncdot. gov/projects/U-2509/.
External Scopin� Meetin�
Wilson Stroud (NCDOT— PDEA/PDU) began the meeting with introductions. Keith Lewis (VHB)
then led a PowerPoint presentation, a hard copy of which was provided to attendees prior to the
meeting. That presentation included a project overview, an introduction to express lanes,
project data sheet with existing conditions information, photos of the project corridor, discussion
of concept development meetings with local stakeholders (City of Charlotte, Town of Matthews,
and CRTPO), environmental features map, preliminary stream and wetland impacts, traffic
estimates, and a map showing the proposed express lane and toll road projects in the Charlotte
region. Comments were solicited immediately following the External Scoping portion of the
meeting. Comments received, responses, and follow-up discussion are presented below, by
topic.
Mecklenbur� Sportsplex:
Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) asked if the Independence Pointe Parkway extension through the
Mecklenburg Sportsplex will be a Section 4(f) issue.
Ralph Messera of the Town of Matthews stated that the proposed road extension is part of the
park project; thus, that road will not be a 4(f) issue.
Bicvcle and Pedestrian Accommodations:
Renee Gledhill-Earley (SHPO) requested that if sidewalks are proposed as part of this project, we
provide data showing that sidewalks would be used.
Sidewalks were shown on some photo simulations in the presentation, since they currently
exist along US 74 in some areas.
Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) stated that the question could be posed to Lauren Blackburn, Director of
the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation at NCDOT.
• Tim Gibbs (CDOT) stated that the use of sidewalks depends on the land use where the
sidewalks are located. He noted that if there are motels and restaurants nearby, sidewalks
are used.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
• Wilson Stroud (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) noted (1) the need for sidewalk will be investigated
during the project development process, (2) NCDOT's policy is to replace any existing
sidewalk that is removed as part of the project, and (3) if the Town of Matthews or the
City of Charlotte wants sidewalk where none currently exists, there would have to be a
cost sharing agreement between NCDOT and the municipality, and the municipality will
need to demonstrate that sidewalks are warranted.
• Elizabeth Shay (NCDOT — PDEA/HES) noted that bicycle and pedestrian needs will be
evaluated.
Preliminary Concept Development:
Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA) asked if cost and level of service were considered when NCDOT
was developing the preliminary concepts.
• A detailed capacity analysis was not prepared as part of the concept analysis. The
preliminary concepts were compared based on cross street access, commercial business
access, general traffic flow on US 74, and whether a parallel road system would be
required.
Express Lanes:
Marla Chambers (NCWRC) asked that we explain the term "variably-priced tolling."
• Keith Lewis (VHB) stated that the toll amount would vary in order to accommodate as
many vehicles as possible, while keeping the flow of traffic in the express lanes moving at
an average speed of 45 mph or greater. Signs would be posted before the entrance to the
express lanes to show the toll amount.
• Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) added that the general purpose lanes are going to become
congested over time and there is no way to widen them enough to be able to prevent
congestion. He noted that the purpose of express lanes is to ensure that if someone needs
trip time reliability, they can get it, if they are willing the pay the toll.
Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA): Are express lanes currently in use elsewhere in the United States?
• Many cities across the country are utilizing express lanes. (Atlanta, Miami, Washington,
D.C., Dallas, Houston, and others)
• Warren Cooksey (NCDOT - Division 10) gave information on the express lanes system in
Miami. He added that during peak travel times, the toll allows an express lane to process
more vehicles than a general purpose lane. The toll ensures that the demand for an
express lane never exceeds the capacity of the lane.
Wilson Stroud (NCDOT— PDEA/PDU) noted that NCTA is working on developing a unified approach
in North Carolina for express lanes. A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is being
prepared.
• Post meeting follow-up — the FAQ document has been completed, see attachment.
Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA) asked if left exits from the express lanes will be allowed (i.e.,
whether express lane traffic will be allowed to merge with general purpose lane traffic).
• Jim Dunlop (NCDOT— CM) noted that possible ingress and egress points have not yet been
studied.
• Wilson Stroud (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) added that (1) express lane access points will be
addressed in the coming months, during the preliminary design phase and (2) the City of

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
Charlotte has requested that direct connectors to and from the proposed express lanes be
constructed at Conference Drive.
• Scott Cole (NCDOT - Division 10) noted that if left exits are not allowed, vehicles exiting
the express lanes will have to cross two general purpose lanes before entering the third
general purpose lane, from which right-turns could be made.
• Greg Brew (NCDOT - Roadway Design) noted that it is important for the express lanes to
operate efficiently; otherwise, the public will not use them.
Preliminarv Stream and Wetland Imaacts and Natural Environment Considerations:
Keith Lewis (VHB) presented preliminary stream and wetland impacts by location, noting the
following:
• The majority of the impacts are associated with the proposed parallel road connections.
• The environmental screening maps in the packet showed anticipated stream and wetland
impacts for each area in which they are encountered.
• A table summarizing stream and wetland impacts was also included in the packet. Those
impacts were based on GIS data and calculated by the right-of-way width to obtain an
order-of-magnitude comparison.
• The project team will evaluate the proposed parallel road connections so as to avoid
and/or minimize the impact to jurisdictional resources.
Marla Chambers (NCWRC) (1) reiterated that impacts to stream and wetlands should be minimized
and (2) suggested that because the project would add a tremendous amount of pavement,
impervious pavement and enhanced stormwater treatment be considered.
Michael Turchy (NCDOT — PDEA/NES) noted that there is not a substantial amount of natural
environment with this corridor. The major impacts to the natural environment would be related
to the parallel road connections.
CIA, ICE, and Water Quality Analyses:
David Wainwright (NCDWR) asked (1) when a refined impact assessment will be conducted and (2)
as the project appears to meet the threshold for a cumulative impact analysis, when such a study
would be conducted.
• Elizabeth Shay (NCDOT— PDEA/HES) replied that cumulative impacts will be studied.
• David requested that NCDWR be kept in the loop with regard to the cumulative impact
analysis.
• Elizabeth noted (1) a quantitative water quality analysis is not necessarily needed, just a
screening and (2) if the screening shows that a quantitative water quality analysis is
needed, that analysis will be performed.
• Elizabeth noted also (1) access to businesses and churches will be of prime concern and
(2) stand-alone ICE and CIA documents will be required.
Environmental lustice:
Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA) asked if environmental justice considerations and indirect and
cumulative impacts will be addressed.
• Both issues will be addressed in the environmental document.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
• Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) suggested that the project team consider the findings of the CRTPO
environmental justice analysis.
Public Transit:
Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA) asked whether there are existing bus routes in the US 74 corridor.
• CATS buses follow this segment of US 74 (local and express).
• Adjacent project U-5526 on US 74 (to the west) will convert existing and under
construction bus lanes to express lanes (from I-277 to Wallace Lane).
Ralph Messera (Town of Matthews) serves on the CATS transit board and noted that CATS is
evaluating possible enhanced bus service for the proposed express lanes on US 74. Ralph also
noted the CATS Southeast Corridor Rapid Transit Study is currently underway, noting that rail is
being considered but that it will likely be in the Old Monroe Road corridor rather than the US 74
corridor.
Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) asked that we show proposed City of Charlotte and/or Town of Matthews
existing and proposed park and ride lots on the project maps.
• Post meeting follow-up — because the Southeast Corridor Study is still looking at this
issue, CATS has requested that U-2509 project maps not include proposed park and ride
lots at this time.
There was discussion about bus stops along the US 74 corridor. It was noted that CATS will develop
a policy concerning express bus service and local bus service within the US 74 corridor, given the
proposed addition of express lanes. It was noted bus stops are not anticipated on US 74 after the
completion of U-2509.
Elizabeth Shay (NCDOT— PDEA/HES) noted that transit impacts will be evaluated.
Traffic Estimates and Traffic Operations Analysis:
Keith Lewis (VHB) noted there will be between 61,000 and 75,000 vehicles per day in the design
year (2040) on US 74. He also noted the project data sheet includes results from the mainline
traffic capacity analysis that was performed for each project segment. A majority of the segments
of road through this corridor are anticipated to be at unacceptable levels of service in the design
year.
Jim Dunlop (NCDOT - Congestion Management) stated that AECOM will be performing the traffic
operations analysis for both the U-5526 and U-2509 projects, but their concentration is on U-5526
at this point.
Section 106:
Wilson Stroud (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) noted that Section 106 coordination with SHPO will also be
conducted, if needed.
Parallel Road Network:
Tim Gibbs (CDOT) and Ralph Messera (Town of Matthews) presented a joint letter (attached)
that stated that the parallel road connections need to be part of this project. They also provided

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
a handout (PowerPoint slide) that showed that there had been a 30 percent decline in retail in
the City of Charlotte along the corridor (towards uptown Charlotte, STIP Project U-209) after it
was made into an expressway (also attached). Tim and Ralph provided the following elaboration
on this topic:
• The local governments want to prevent that from happening again with this project. The
Town of Matthews has actively protected land in theirjurisdiction forthese parallel roads
and in many cases has required developers to construct segments of these roads.
• The parts of the connector roads that exist today were built by developers. Conditional
zoning has been in place for 25 years or more. Businesses are aware that they must
connect to the parallel connectors and that they will eventually lose access to US 74. There
is a required setback.
• Ralph provided a list of rezonings that show that approximately 66 percent of properties
have this access (attached).
• There is dedicated right-of-way for these roads, even where the parallel roads are not yet
built.
• The proposed concrete barrier in the median separating eastbound and westbound traffic
on US 74, along with the proposed express lanes, will eliminate traffic movements from
side roads across US 74.
• There have been 30 years of planning for these connector roads to be part of this project.
A"US Highway 74 Special Project Plan" was completed in 1987 and was adopted by the
Charlotte City Council and the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners. The plan
was shared with the Merger Team (attached).
Design and Traffic Estimate Alternatives:
Greg Brew (NCDOT Roadway Design) noted that the number of design alternatives is limited, but
the need to evaluate potential ingress and egress points will increase the number of traffic
estimate iterations. We want to limit the number of alternatives that need to be studied and only
present those that are viable. Some of the concepts were not financially feasible.
Environmental Studies and Preliminary Design:
Wilson Stroud (NCDOT PDEA) noted that environmental field studies will be conducted in the next
phase of this study, and preliminary designs will also begin soon.
CP 1 Meetin� (Project Study Area, Purpose and Need)
Following the External Scoping Meeting, all in attendance agreed to continue the meeting for CP 1
discussions, without a break. Renee Gledhill-Earley (SHPO) asked for the forms to be sent to her
after the meeting for her signature, stating that she had to leave the meeting early.
Concurrence Point 1: Studv Area
Keith Lewis (VHB) presented the proposed study area for the project. Comments and questions
were solicited, but none were raised. All team members agreed with the study area statement as

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
presented on the CP 1 form and as depicted on the mapping that was provided before and
displayed during the meeting. The agreed-upon study area statement is as follows:
Project study area:
The study area for this project includes proposed improvements to existing US 74
(Independence BoulevardJ and an existing network of parallel roads and their proposed
connections. The study area ranqes from 500 to approximately 2,000 feet on either side of the
existing US 74 centerline. The study area also includes an expanded area around the 1-485
interchange to evaluate express lanes connection alternatives and an extension to the
southeast along US 74 to include connection alternatives to the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass toll lanes.
Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need
Keith Lewis read the proposed purpose and need statement from the CP1 form which had been
sent to the Merger Team prior to the meeting. The statement as initially proposed read as follows:
Initial purpose and need statement:
The need for this study can be summarized as follows:
• Existing US 74 does not provide reliable travel time and connectivity for residents,
business patrons, and commuters in Southeastern Charlotte and Matthews.
• Traffic estimates indicate that US 74 will require additional capacity to provide
adequate LOS for users by the design year (2040J.
• This project is needed to provide a reliable travel time, system sustainability, and
connect to a system of express lanes planned on US 74 to the northwest,1-485 to the
south, and the Monroe eypass/Connector toll road to the southeast.
The purpose for the proposed action is as follows:
• To provide reliable travel time and improve mobility along the US 74 corridor, provide
system sustainability, and maintain and improve connectivity across and along US 74
to, from, and between adjacent communities within the study area.
The following comments and questions were raised with regard to the proposed purpose and need
statement:
Marella Buncick (USFWS) was not able to attend the meeting. She provided the following
comment prior to the meeting on the purpose and need statement.
o I also think that the purpose and need should be more specific and
measurable. The first bullet is somewhat confusing because I would think that for
the folks who live in the area orthe local businesses being served by the driveways,
etc. travel reliability is not an issue. It seems to me that the unreliable travel times
are for those who are merely commuting though and travelling on to destinations
further away--like the town of Matthews. If the proposal is implemented, it looks

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
to me as though the local traffic would have a harder time navigating the area and
take more time to do what they do now. This concern is further illustrated by the
description in the third bullet when you expand from the very local area to the
subregional system connections.
• Crystal Amschler (USACE) asked what was meant by "adequate level of service".
o Jim Dunlop (NCDOT - CM) noted that "adequate level of service" is no less than
LOS D. He also noted that a traffic operational analysis will be performed to
determine how many general purpose lanes will be needed.
• Crystal asked what "reliable travel time" meant.
o Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) noted that reliable travel time is a standard purpose and
need for express lane projects. By law, an average minimum speed of 45 miles per
hour has to be maintained in the express lanes.
o Jim noted that vehicle speeds can be measured.
• Crystal asked if the purpose and need statement as currently written would allow the team
to consider and eliminate other alternatives.
o Mitch noted that if US 74 is widened without constructing the express lanes, trip
time reliability cannot be provided, as there would be no way to control
congestion.
• Crystal suggested rewording the "maintain and improve connectivity° phrase.
o Warren Cooksey (NCDOT - Division 10) offered the following wording: "while
maintaining access to properties along US 74."
o Jennifer Harris (NCDOT— PDEA/PDU) noted that we should not discount what had
been gleaned from coordination efforts with the local stakeholders. She noted
that local traffic circulation is important, not just access to and from US 74.
o Stuart Basham (NCDOT - Division 10) noted that rezoning approvals in Matthews
stipulate that access will change with improvements to US 74.
o Ralph Messera (Town of Matthews) added that the parallel connector roads will
keep the community together.
o Crystal clarified that she agrees the parallel road extensions are a good idea,
noting she simply wants the project purpose to be clarified.
o Wilson Stroud (NCDOT - PDEA/PDU) suggested "communities within the study
area" be added.
o Jennifer noted that the connectivity component of the project purpose and need
is mainly for areas on either side of US 74 in the study area, not for those traveling
through on US 74.
o Scott Cole (NCDOT - Division 10) suggested adding the wording "across and along
US 74 to, from, and between adjacent communities."
o It was suggested that "reliable travel time" is a euphemism for express lanes.
o Mitch suggested that continually widening US 74 is not a prudent solution.
o Mitch noted there is an underlying need for additional revenue.
• Marla Chambers (NCWRC) noted that "express lanes" is mentioned in the draft purpose
and need statement. She asked if including that term is "putting the cart before the horse"
and if including that term might give the impression that this is a toll lane project with no
other options.
o Don Brown (VHB) noted that this project would be part of an express lane system.
o Marla and Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) stated that the connectivity of the toll and
express lanes should part of the project need.
o Jim Dunlop (NCDOT - CM) added that providing express lanes is the only way to
provide reliable travel time.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
o Greg Brew (NCDOT- Roadway Design) noted that express lanes on this project
would provide system sustainability.
• Marla Chambers (NCWRC) and Crystal Amschler (USACE) stated that including "express
lanes" in the purpose and need makes it a pre-determined outcome.
o Stacy Oberhausen (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) stated that adding a second Build
alternative that would require extra general purpose lanes (to ensure trip time
reliability in the absence of express lanes) would be unnecessarily expanding the
range of alternatives.
o Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) noted that federal law requires that all alternatives be
based upon a fiscally constrained plan. We cannot propose something we cannot
afford to build.
o Jennifer Harris (NCDOT— PDEA/PDU) added that there is precedent with the I-77
project for including the term "express lanes" in the purpose and need statement.
■ Crystal Amschler (USACE) indicated she will pull the I-77 file to review the
purpose and need statement for that project.
■ Stacy Oberhausen (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) indicated she will provide that
statement to Crystal. Post meeting follow-up — Stacy provided the
following purpose and need statement from the 1-77 project to Crystal
on April 7, 2015.
� Project Purpose - The purpose of the proposed action is to
provide immediate travel time reliability along 1-77 from
Uptown Charlotte to the Lake Norman area. Because the project
is designed to address an immediate need, the opening and
design years are both proposed for 2017.
• Need for the Project - As discussed in more detail in Section 2.1,
the primary needs for the proposed project are summarized
below.
0 1-77 is part of the national Interstate Highway System
and is a critical, north-south transportation corridor for
the Charlotte-metro region and beyond. Within the
immediate study area for this project, 1-77 links the
major employment center of downtown Charlotte,
known locally as "Uptown'; with the rapidly growing
residential communities of northern Mecklenburg and
southern Iredell counties. 1-77 serves traffic demands
and travel patterns for commuters (single-occupant
vehicles, carpools, and transitJ and other travelers
within and outside of the project study area, and is a
vital route for regional commerce. Currently, heavy
traffic occurs during peak periods within the project
limits, resulting in frequent congestion and delays.
o The project study area has grown faster than the
financial resources available to complete long-term
transportation improvements. Existing traffic
congestion within the 1-77 corridor results in
unpredictable delays, as well as excessive travel times
for commuters and travelers. Predicted growth in the
northern communities of Mecklenburg County will
continue to increase these delays and travel times.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
As the purpose and need discussion appeared to be in gridlock, Mitch Batuzich (FHWA)
suggested that the discussion be elevated to the Merger Management Team. It was noted
that Crystal Amschler (USACE) would have to write up the appeal.
o Elevation to the Merger Management Team was discussed by David Wainwright
(NCDWR), Marla Chambers (NCWRC), Crystal Amschler (USACE), Mitch Batuzich
(FHWA), and Jennifer Harris (NCDOT - PDEA/PDU).
o It was agreed that it will not be necessary to elevate this to the Merger
Management Team, so long as the wording can be adjusted to everyone's
satisfaction.
o The purpose and need statement was revised by the team, including removal of
the arrowhead bullet points. All agreed with the revised statement, which is as
follows:
Revised purpose and need statement:
The need for this study can be summarized as follows:
• Existing US 74 does not provide reliable travel time and connectivity for
residents, business patrons, and commuters in Southeastern Charlotte and
Matthews.
• Traffic estimates indicate that US 74 will require additional capacity to achieve a
goal of LOS D for users by the design year (2040).
• This project is needed to provide reliable travel time, system sustainability, and
connect to a system of express lanes planned on US 74 to the northwest, 1-485 to
the south, and the Monroe eypass/Connector toll road to the southeast.
The purpose for the proposed action is as follows:
• To provide reliable travel time and improve mobility along the US 74 corridor,
provide system sustainability, and maintain and improve connectivity across and
along US 74 to, from, and between adjacent communities within the study area.
After a 15-minute break, the revised CP1 form was handed out and reviewed by the Merger Team.
Following this brief review period, Stacy Oberhausen polled the Merger Team, and concurrence
was achieved on the Study Area and Purpose and Need (CP1). All Merger team members present
at the meeting signed the CP1 form. Wilson Stroud (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) sent the signed form to
the non-present Merger team members (SHPO and USFWS) after the meeting for their review
signatures. Renee Gledhill-Earley (SHPO) and Marella Buncick (USFWS) signed and returned the
CP1 form, which is attached.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
Concurrence Point 2 Meetin� (Alternatives to be
Carried Forward for Detailed Study):
Keith Lewis (VHB) presented the proposed alternatives to be carried forward for detailed study as
stated on the CP2 form and as shown on mapping that was sent to the Merger team prior to the
meeting. After extensive discussion, concurrence was not reached on CP2. The main points of
the discussion are as follows:
• Marella Buncick (USFWS) was not able to attend the meeting. She provided the following
comment prior to the meeting on the alternatives:
o I'm not sure the project would work if there aren't service roads but I can't tell for
sure. What I would encourage is that you use the "concepts" you describe on the
Initial Scoping Comments page perhaps as alternatives considered but dropped so
that there is more of a range of alternatives and the rational for the single concept
you are developing is stronger.
• There was discussion on what the definition of the term "expressway" is.
o Freeways have fully-controlled access, and the only way to get on and off such
roads is at interchanges. Traffic on a freeway is free-flowing, with no signals, at-
grade intersections, side streets, or driveways. All road crossings on freeways are
grade-separated. Expressways (the concept proposed for U-2509) are similar to
freeways, but allow a limited number of at-grade intersections, side road
connections, or driveways. U-2509 will allow right-in/right-out access from minor
side-streets and driveways, except near interchanges, where full access control
will be acquired. No left-turning traffic will be allowed onto or off of US 74.
• Marla Chambers (NCWRC) stated that other alternatives should be evaluated, not just the
one Build alternative and the No-Build alternative proposed on the CP 2 form.
o Keith Lewis (VHB) noted that the project will be improving an existing facility. He
also reiterated that the project team developed and evaluated different concepts
during the early project development phase, in coordination with local
stakeholders. He noted those concepts will be discussed in the environmental
document.
• David Wainwright (NCDWR) stated that NEPA requires that different alternatives be
considered.
o Jennifer Harris (NCDOT - PDEA/PDU) reiterated that we will explain in the
environmental document why the preliminary concepts were ruled out.
o David and Marla Chambers (NCWRC) stated that the preliminary concepts should
be evaluated as part of the Merger process, in order to meet NEPA requirements.
o Jim Dunlop (NCDOT - CM) noted that preliminary alternatives are developed and
fatal flaws are identified, as is the case with U-2509, there is no sense going
forward with those alternatives.
o Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) stated that for an EA, it will be acceptable to have one No-
Build alternative and one Build alternative.
o Carla Dagnino (NCDOT — PDEA/NES) noted that the potential for stream and
wetland impacts associated with the parallel road connections is what put the
project into the Merger process. Improvements to US 74 itself would not have
required an Individual Section 404 Permit and thus would not have required that
the project be processed through Merger.
• Jennifer Harris (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) suggested that two Build alternatives could be (1)
Upgrade and widen US 74 with the parallel road connections and express lanes and (2)
Same as above, but without the parallel road connections.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
o Jim Dunlop (NCDOT — Congestion Management) stated that the parallel roads,
once completed, would take traffic off US 74.
o Crystal Amschler (USACE) would like to include both "Build" alternatives suggested
by Jennifer.
o Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) suggested that the Build alternative without the parallel
road connections is essentially the No Build alternative, as it would not provide
the connectivity across and along US 74 and thus would not meet the full purpose
and need.
• Greg Brew (NCDOT - Roadway Design) asked if a non-toll alternative should be studied.
o Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) stated that analysis of a non-tolled option is not required,
as the CRTPO long-range transportation plan calls for toll roads in the US 74
corridor. Mitch will provide a FHWA memo that states that we only need to
analyze a toll facility (attached).
• There was discussion on the number of general purpose lanes and express lanes that will
be needed on US 74, with respect to whether we could consider varying numbers of lanes
to satisfy the "range of CP2 alternatives" issue.
o Jim Dunlop (NCDOT CM) noted that it would be premature to define the number
of general purpose lanes prior to the traffic operational analysis. He stressed that
the traffic analysis will inform the decision on the number of required lanes.
o Marla Chambers (NCWRC) suggested that we analyze two Build alternatives, (1)
Widen and upgrade US 74, connect parallel roads, and construct one express lane
in each direction and (2) same as above, except provide two express lanes in each
direction, which would allow the number of general purpose lanes to be left
undetermined.
• Crystal Amschler (USACE) stated that more information would be needed before we can
reach concurrence on the detailed study alternatives (CP2). She suggested postponing CP2
until more information could be gathered and provided to the team.
o Cynthia Van Der Wiele (USEPA) stated that there is not a lot of data being
presented with regard to alternatives to carry forward for detailed study.
■ Keith Lewis (VHB) pulled up a slide from an earlier preliminary concept
review meeting with local stakeholders and briefly reviewed the
preliminary concepts with the team.
■ Cynthia noted that the information from the concept review coordination
did not include whether or not each design concept meets the purpose
and need.
• Marla Chambers (NCWRC) asked if the three concepts from the earlier concept
development meetings could be the alternatives to be studied.
o Ralph Messera (Town of Matthews) stated that the concept of the elevated
express lanes came from him, but the Town of Matthews is not supportive of that
concept.
■ Crystal Amschler (USACE) stated that more information would be needed
on the elevated express lanes concept, regardless of the Town's
preference.
o Cynthia stated that concepts should not be screened out before coming to the
Merger Team.
■ Mitch noted that concepts that are not feasible can be ruled out.
o Wilson Stroud (NCDOT — PDEA/PDU) suggested that the CP 2 form be
supplemented with a comparison of the preliminary concepts (as provided to the
local stakeholders) and rationale for not carrying those concepts forward as
detailed study alternatives.

U-2509
March 19, 2015 External Scoping and CP1 and CP2 Meeting
April 9, 2015
• Stacy Oberhausen observed that the CP 2 discussion appeared to be at an impasse.
o Stacy and Mitch Batuzich (FHWA) agreed that another meeting would be needed
to reach CP 2 concurrence.
o Marla Chambers (NCWRC) suggested that covering CP2 and CP3 at a next meeting
may be feasible.
o Michael Turchy (NCDOT— PDEA/NES) noted that this project does not fit what the
Merger Process was intended to address and that there will be problems
throughout the Merger Process on this project.
Next Steps:
Wilson Stroud (NCDOT— PDEA/PDU) summarized the meeting and stated that a meeting summary
would be prepared and circulated within two weeks. He also noted follow-up Merger team
meeting will be scheduled for two months out (May 2015) to further discuss CP 2. The meeting
was adjourned at 2:15 PM.
Please direct any comments or questions about the meeting summary to Wilson Stroud, 919-707-
6045, wstroud@ncdot.�ov; Keith Lewis, 919-334-5619, [e-mail]; or pon Brown, 919-
334-5609, [e-mail].
DB/WS
Attachments: Express Lane FAQs
Meeting Handouts:
City of Charlotte/Town of Matthews letter (3-18-15)
U.S. Highway 74 Special Project Plan (CDOT) (August 1987)
Declining retail PowerPoint slide (CDOT)
Parcel access list (Town of Matthews)
CP 1 Form (with signatures)
CP 2 Form (concurrence not reached)
FHWA Guidance on NEPA Analysis of Toll Roads

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS . NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. 74 Ex p ress La n es �� Turnpike Authority
Question: What are Express Lanes?
Answer: Express Lanes are designated lanes that allow you, the driver, to avoid traffic congestion by offering
you a choice—pay a toll and ride the express lanes for more reliable travel times, or continue using
general purpose lanes for free. Entrance and exit points are constructed along the express lanes
to save you time. You have the option to use the express lanes for short segments of a trip, for the
whole length or not at all.
Question: Why Express Lanes?
Answer: In growing urban areas such as Charlotte, new, free general purpose lanes only temporarily relieve
congestion, especially during rush hours. As growth continues, more and more drivers will use
the same major commuting routes. Highway lanes that usually flow freely can come to a standstill
when many people are trying to get to work or home from a busy day. This is especially true when
a crash occurs. When highway lanes are overwhelmed with more cars than they can handle, there
is congestion. Tolls ensure that express lanes are not overwhelmed, so trafFic flows freely in them.
When time matters most to you, Express Lanes are available to take you out of congestion and get
you to your destination at a more reliable, predictable time.
Question: How is the price determined?
Answer: Ultimately, the market drives the toll rates. Toll rates are based on how many drivers choose to avoid
the congestion in general purpose lanes at a given time. When the number of cars in an express lane
is low, the toll is lower in order to encourage use. As the number of cars in an express lane increases,
the toll rises to prevent the express lane from being overwhelmed with congestion. Traffic in the
express lane is kept flowing smoothly, and you can be more confident in knowing how long your trip
will take. Current toll rates will be posted on signs located before the entrance point of the express
lane segments. The toll you pay will not change after you enter the express lane segment. Free
general purpose lanes will still be available.
Question: How do you pay?
Answer: The most convenient thing about North Carolina's Express NC ��
Lanes is you never have to stop and pay at a toll booth. Tolls �v,�'�
are captured electronically at highway speed. If you decide to
take advantage of the reliability express lanes offer, you have ASS
two options to pay. The first option is to purchase a Quick Pass° transponder. The use of a Quick
Pass° will allow you to ride at a discounted rate and will automatically deduct the toll from your pre-
paid account. The second option is Bill by Mail. Bill by Mail allows drivers without a Quick Pass° to
use the Express Lanes. Overhead toll equipment will capture a picture of the vehicle's license plate,
and an invoice will be mailed to the owner's address on file with the DMV.
Question: Can you use the Express Lanes for free?
Answer: NCDOT is currently evaluating what is best for each express lanes project and will announce details
on whether carpools, motorcycles, transit vehicles or others can drive free at a later date.
Question: Who develops, manages and operates the express lanes?
Answer: NCDOT is in charge of the Express Lanes projects and will oversee the planning, construction,
management and operations of the express lanes. Electronic toll systems and toll collections are
managed by the North Carolina Turnpike Authority.
For more information, please contact Wilson Stroud at 800-861-7441 or [e-mail].

•
��
�,�il�Kt�J������'� �..
March 18, 2015
Mr. Wilson Stroud
North Caroliva Dept. of'I'ransportatiai
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Town of
�e�s
North Carolina
Subject: State TIP Project # U-2509 — Lnprovements to Independence Blvd. (OS 74) — Conference Dr. to
Interstate 485
Dear Wilson:
Tlie purpose of this letter is to request that NCDOT cousider and evaluate the construction of parallel
collector streets along tlie U-2509 project in Charlotte and Matthews in each of tl�e alternatives that will
be studied during the enviroumental screening process.
Independence Blvd. (US 74) �vas first considered for improvements leading ouhvard frotn upto�vn
Charlolte as far back as the 1960 Charlotte Transportation Plan. Since that time, approximately four
miles of the 16-mile corridor behveei� uprown Cl�arlotte and hiterstate 485 have been improved, while
another hvo miles are currently under coiistruction and anticipated to be complete in 2017.
As far back as the mid-1980s when tl�e first sectious of US 74 were being improved near uptow�i
Charlotte, it became readily apparent that a number of forces were at play tliat needed to be addressed
immediately. One issue was what �vas happeniug to businesses adjacent to lhe roadway when access
became more limited (e.g. all traffic signals were removed and left-turus prohibited leaving p�roperties
�vith right-iii, right out access only). Another was that US 74 appeared to be destined to repeat tlie strip
commercial developmeut pattern as some shops closed and relocated to other similar type facilities along
tlie boulevard bringing with it additional traffic volumes aud iucreased congestion. Additionally, it was
felt tl�at the cost to conve� t US 74 to a higher type design (freeway/e�pressway) would be more costly and
delay implantation of airy firture project as envisioned by the local Thoroughfare Plan.
lu response to these and other coucerns, a concept was developed iu the US 74 Corridor east of McAlpiue
Creek iu Charlotte ro the proposed Interstate 485 in Matthews by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning
Commission staff to provide access to properties fi onting US 74 fi�om a system of parallel streets. Tl�e

purpose of these streets �vere to allow US 74 to fimctiou with minimal fi iction with driveways and trafFic
signals so as not to replicate what had l�appened close to uptown Charlotte and also to eusure that foture
US 74 improvements �vould be less costly. In 1987, the Chaclotte City Council and Mecklenburg County
Board of Couunissioners adopted thc US Highway 74 Special Project Plau (see attached). Shortly
thereafrer, the Metropolitan Planning O�ganization added the parallel streets to its Thoroughfare Plan and
to the more recent Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). So, for the last 25+ years, tl�e Ciry of
Charlotte aud the Town of Matthews liave approved developments in the wrridor that were in keeping
with the 1987 Plan. Today, we still feel that it is iuiperative that any improvemeuts iu tlie US 74 Corridor
not be implemented without the parallel streets. While we ackuowledge that US 74 is a major mover of
traffic, tlie vitally of the adjacent land uses are very closely tied to it and any improvemeuts should be
viewed from a holistic perspective and not be implemen[ed in a vacuutn.
We look forward to continuing tlie collaboration with NCDOT to make this project (U-2509) a complete,
comprehensive project that benefits the citizens and residents of Charlotte and Matihews and North
Carolina diat frequently travel this important regional corridor. lf you have questions, etc. about this
lelter, please contact either Keith Hines of CDO"I' at 704-336-3913 or dhines�ch�rlottenc•YOV or Ralph
Messera, Public Works Director with the To�vn of Mattl�e�vs at 704-847-3640 or
rm e s sera @m att h ew sn c. gov.
Sin �ely,
/ / �`��`z���
Dauny PI sant, AICP Haa�Blodgett,
Director 'DOT Malthews Town Manager
Attachment
cc: Norm Steinmau, AICP, CDOT
Keith Hines, PE, CDOT
Tim Gibbs, AICP, CDOT
Robert Cook, AICP, CRTPO
Candice Leonard, CRTPO
Louis Mitchell, PE, NCDOT — Division 10
Scott Cole, PE, NCDOT - Division 10
Candice Leonard, CRTPO
Richard Hancock, PE, NCDOT, PDEA
Jennifer Harris, PE, NCDOT-PDEA
Stacy Oberhausen, PE, NCDOT-PDEA

$1.00
U.S. Hi�hway 74
Adopted by Chariotte City Council, Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners
August 1987

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission
60� East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North �arolina 48404-4853
704336-4405

i
U. S. 74 SPECIAL PROJECT PLAN
PLAN SUi�QIARY
INTRODUCTION
Because land between PScAlpine Creek and N. C. 51 along Independence Boulevard
is relatively undeveloped, the opportunity to design for a compatible relation-
ship between the roadway and adjacent land uses is still available. Development
pressures in this area, along with the long term need to improve U. S. 74 to a
freeway/expressway, dictated the need to establish a framework for transportation
and land use in this corridor.
PLAN OBJECTIVES
Local political bodies and staff have become increasingly concerned that
"strip" commercial development would continue out Tndependence Boulevard. This
development pattern would only proliferate the problems along U. S. 74 and
ultimately lead to enormous public expenditure when the boulevard is converted
into a freeway. This is evidenced by the cost and disruption currently
estimated for improving Independence Boulevard from I-277 to Albemarle Road.
In response to this concern a concept was developed whereby access to properties
in the U. S. 74 corridor would be via a parallel collector street system. Land
use would orient toward the collector roads so that Independence Boulevard
would function free of friction from driveways and traffic signals. The
eventual need to convert U. S. 74 to a freeway/expressway would therefore be
less costly.

To complete the collector street system idea, a guide for proper land use and
development guidelines is necessary. This special project consolidates the
concepts for the transportation system and land development to provide such a
guide.
PLAN PROPOSALS
Transportation Recommendations
One of the central objectives of this report is providing for the retro-fitting
of Independence Boulevard to a freeway/expressway. Following are recomroendations
targeted towards achieving that objective as well as other transportation
improvements that wi11 be necessary to serve the area as it develops.
l. Continue to plan for a freeway/expressway for Independence Boulevard
to the Outer Belt.
2. Implement the collector street system requiring 80' right-of-way and
construction of necessary lanes through the development process.
Implementation of the Collector Street System would be accomplished
primarily through the development process. Dedication of the necessary
right-of-way as well as construction of the road should be required
as subdivision and development activity takes place. All development
should orient its access to the Collector System and have only
temporary access to U. S. 74 until the collector roads are operational.
- 2 -

A docuroent should also be signed by the developer agreeing to abandon
their access rights to U. S. 74 when the road is converted to a
freeway/expressway and the Collector Street System is in place.
Successful implementation of this concept depends on the commitment
by Matthews, Mecklenburg County and Charlotte, to secure right-of-way
and ensure construction of the roads. Scrutiny of new driveway
permits along U. S. 74 is also a necessary ingredient involving the
North Carolina Department of Transporation.
3. Require streetscape treatment along the collector roads that includes
internal site relationships as well as street edge treatment.
Specifically:
A. Create a planting area between the curb and sidewalk where
large, maturing trees should be located.
B. Locate parking in side or rear of properties.
C. Locate loading zones and service entrances to the rear of
property.
D. Consolidate driveways along the road to limit curb cuts.
E. Screen parking lots.
F. Preserve existing trees between U. S. 74 and adjacent development.
4. Support the timely construction of the Matthews Bypass including an
interchange with U. S. 74.
- 3 -

The Matthews Bypass will serve many functions for the area.
Primarily, it will help to relieve peak hour congestion in the
Piatthews town center by providing a better link between U. S. 74 and
N. C. 51. It will also open much of the land in the area for develop-
ment because of the access and visibility it will provide. The
Matthews Bypass, coupled with the Sardis Road North Extension, will
greatly contribute to the east-west circumferential thoroughfare
needs in the area.
5. Amend the proposed alignment of the Sardis Boulevard North extension
to connect U. S. 74 directly to Sam Newell Road. Evaluate a further
extension to N. C. 51 with a possible interchange with the eastern
outer belt through the 2005 Transportation Planning Process.
The current Thoroughfare Plan shows a minor thoroughfare connection
between U. S. 74 and Piargaret Wallace Road as an extension of Sardis
Road North. �dith the addition of the Collector Street System, these
two minor thoroughfares would be very close in proximity. An alter-
native alignment may be to connect Sardis Road North directly to Sam
Newell Road. The alternative alignment will be beneficial in rein-
forcing the proposed land use plan for the area and should be considered
for a Thoroughfare Plan amendment as soon as possible. An extension
beyond Sam Newell Road to N. C. 51 should also be evaluated which
would include an interchange with the Eastern Outer Belt.
- 4 -

Land Use Policies
The basic goal for land use in the study corridor is to provide for a variety
of development types that compliment the objectives of the transportation
system in the area. Specific objectives for land use are:
1
iri
3
�
Consolidate commercial and business uses in order to avoid strip
commercial development along U. S. 74.
Provide for a variety of residential opportunities throughout the
study area.
Provide for employment centers and housing opportunities that are
close in proximity to each other yet buffered from each other.
Create a land use pattern that is optimal for the area while being an
incentive to achieve the transportation system goals that have been
set forth.
Residential Recommendations
SINGLE FAI�fILY
A large roajority of the study are is currently zoned for single family develop-
ment. Allowable densities range from 2-4 units per acre under the existing
single family zoning districts in the area
land to remain for future single family use
- 5 -
This plan calls for much of this
The area designated for single

a
d
l�
\,
U 5. 74 EAST
SPECIAL l'KO/CCT l'L�N
RECOMMENDED LAND USE
1 J/�% i---�
�, �
LEGEND
i"t4ti=� S(ngle Family
�.-'.-��.�- .F Medium Density Residential
Busfness Park/Office
Retaii
indu�irial �
�=FtS-� Greenway and Park

family fall into three categories. The following categories define the single
family areas proposed as policy for the corridor:
1
2
3
Piaintain single family land use in areas where existing single family
neighborhoods exist to protect and strengthen those neighborhoods
with like development.
Allow for single family development in areas that are adjacent to
established neighborhoods to strengthen those single family areas.
Maintain large lot, single family development in areas that will not
be serviced by public water and sewer during the planning period.
(These areas should be reevaluated as water and sewer facilities are
proposed.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Opportunities should exist for medium density development based on design and
locational criteria. The medium density residential category is designed to
provide a variety of housing choices in this corridor. The existing and
proposed thoroughfare systeros in this corridor provide a good location for some
medium density development. Policy for allowing medium density residential
development should consider maximum overall density of 6 units per acre when
included as a part of a large residentail development proposal. A split of 50%
single family and 50°� multi-family is recommended. Individual multi-family
development proposals should be targeted at 8 units per acre unless a higher
density is warranted by an exceptional site design.
- 7 -

Higher density residential development would be considered within the medium
density residential areas under certain conditions. Locational criteria for
higher density residential development should be based on roany factors. These
criteria include:
A. The site must have access to public utilities.
B. Consider higher density on property with exceptional site
features including steep topography or parcel shape or size.
C. Consider higher density when the site is located with access to
a thoroughfare or located at major intersections where larger
setbacks and heavy buffers can be provided.
D. Consider higher density development when located adjacent to
non-residential zoned or developed land, provided that adequate
screening for separation from non residential is included in the
design.
Retail Recommendations
Intense pressure exists and will continue to exist for strip commercial devel-
opment particularly along U. S. 74 and as the coliector system evolves. This
type of retail development is synonymous with U. S. 74 both to the east and
west of the study area. The large amount of undeveloped land in this area
provides the opportunity to effectively control and limit strip commercial
development through the implementation of the Collector Street System and
through proper land development decisions.
:�

Policy proposals for retail development include:
1. Consolidate retail development at approved locations and limit
additional major retail areas.
2. Limit retail concentration at N. C. 51 and U. S. 74 to existing
development.
3. Consider the following corrective rezonings to bring the zoning
pattern in alignment with the goals of this plan.
A. Rezone from General Business (B-2) to Mu1ti-Family (R-15ME)
properties on the north side of U. S. 74 between PScAlpine Creek
and Tarleton Drive.
B. Rezone from General Business (B-2) to Office (0-15) the
properties on the north side of U. S. 74 at Hayden Way and
Claire Drive.
C. Rezone from General Business (B-2) to Office (0-15) vacant
property on the south side of U. S. 74 adjacent to Stegall
Trucking Company.
D. Rezone from General Business (B-2) to Of£ice (0-15) the Tracy
Trigg Recreational Vehicle Company.
E. Rezone from Distributive Business (B-D) to Office (0-15) vacant
properties adjacent to Tracy Trigg.
F. Amend the I-2CD plan for Stegall Trucking to add a 100' buffer
along the western property 1ine.
G. Rezone from Multi-Family (R-9MF) to Single Family (R-9)
properties located between Hayden Way, Boyd Drive, Claire Drive
and Scenic Drive.
- 9 -

- Rezone to Skqle Family (R-D)

Office Recommendations
Establishing locations for employment opportunities is consistent with the land
use goals for this area. This allows for a variety of development in the
corridor and provides for employment and housing in close proximity to each
other. Two general locations in the study area are highly suitable for the new
business park zoning district. This district is intended to provide for a
mixture of employment uses of varying types in a single, coordinated development.
One area where the business park district would apply is the land surrounding
the Crown Point Development at U. S. 74 and Sardis Boulevard North. The other
major location for the business park district is found between Beards Creek,
Sam Newell Road and the Seaboard Railroad. The land is currently zoned I-1 and
R-15MF.
In summary, the office/business park recommendations are:
1. Recognize the opportunities for business park development in the
study area to provide for employment and high quality design.
2. Allow for other office development in areas to provide a transition
from industrial and commercial uses as shown on the proposed land use
map.
Industrial Recommendations
Few industrial developments exist in the study area. This plan calls for those
uses to remain with the exception of Stegall Trucking in the northern portion
- 11 -

of the study area. Additional light industrial uses may be allowed, but only
through the conditional rezoning process that would require extensive screening
and buffering of the site. Light industrial development should be limited in
the corridor as this plan calls for the non-residential development to be
primarily office and business.
Parks and Greenways Recommendations
Recommendations to support recreational amenities and open space in the study
area include:
1. Implement proposed Greenways for PlcAlpine, Beard's and Irving creeks
as called for in the Greenway tfaster Plan.
2. Develop a community size park on the proposed landfili site after its
use. If a landfill is not allowed at that location then the land
should be retained for park use and development of the park could be
accelerated.
Utility Recommendations
Sanitary Sewer Projects include outfalls in Beard's Creek and Irving Greek.
The Beard's Creek Outfall extends from Irving Creek to Piatthews and will be
under construction this fiscal year. The Irving Creek Outfall extends from
McAlpine Creek to Mint Hill.
This plan recognizes these utility improvements and supports their implementa-
tion as needed.
- 12 -

CONCLUSION
The need to convert Independence Boulevard to a freeway is resulting in
enormous impacts to existing homes and businesses along the boulevard today.
Eventually, the freeway/expressway design will be continued at least to the
Outer Belt in Plecklenburg County. If the guides presented in this plan are
followed, the transition to a freeway will be accomplished with little impact
and less cost to the public. As a result, development in this corridor would
not be adversely affected by the transportation improvements that will be
necessary.
- 13 -

�,,_ _ _ _ __- __ __
� _ r f�� > —
� a.: , �i � i ;, . ��
, `, , , ., ' : � ; � - , v ., , � x�-
_' =' � r , /�� � � :�'� �.'t. i I 5' _ i��� _ -�'8
� � b
� � � j `. l
":�o � ^� r FEa! l�' `�)� '� �✓ .E�,� � 1.� �- SHHRON A�ll11 w
4 1 �.fc � � �ri�� � �:i " � � ..t I b/'b
5L -�a' / _ - �
x ° ( r - ( ! �p .. � . x �� c � .t � ' ( �-.ti e
� �et i rs� � !x� � h a`` > "i f -' e
Xn � - v 4 �' 6 I illC���S
• Y � t/' � � � �i � � �-
• - Gf y f :° � � � � � � v l � �'�" FM Y
/ � � _< A r .: E � .
��� v � . + , . � e.� i '.
— � � t� � ' � l � �
it � � v� � ' F,, � r � .7 ��. �� x^(
14 -. i i�y � �' 'r r '���. � �' e�_ �'i�^{ .. *---. � M-'
��- , �r -, e � 3�:. nc o 1 ' T '' ! � n :�
[- �y'�-�� � ���� 4' a � .pr ��rf ���- ` � st_.if� n
� R , �� s;
7 N � 1 '� t�,\ t S i I a�ncvat». '$ . : `� �� .'
� -� t ��� � aE �5� pb� � ��.� 9/9�y� s .� ��• i
�)� i i t �� i
B v 3'- l 1I ,�,v � �Kr� 1- � �`V•3�� .
' I` V � � h. ` 5��� `> , � � 4�.�p � �p" ov. � z '�F 7 ' 7Iu
c V� � � c .'` � � e. _� ��o,�y 1 1 O . ' ( '
_ � � Y + E ve y �� ' G4p,` — ' � ' , �.
i(� _� t'--.'.�r tt .. ,a���'����� ' e
.. rtim �+�� L 1 � �� � inC rp yJ p^l ,.
� E s
. e3 �. A ¢ i i 'i
�s: a. „ i
� � . �; � ,� �t ir � � �: ,.
.�� , ti i 6� y �� � ���, 'S�� . f
, �.y.�'-.f r u �<� .. � -�' ..4�
. ��ts n°" � 4 � 7 , ;Z� u�ay. °.� \Tt.,. � i r � " �. �.
.. ;
��Y � 9 �'. ��' ry
. �"s{'� a � � p R x; t S ..'r
��^'_' z �° ' � : / '.o- �� � . . ..�
a �..0.rVF ' �0 1 1 � �=vi wt�
�� y' � � .o'� "- C �� l �� � � `_: �� �:� I ,n
. �` ( � �_ �� _ ' O t � l l �+. c'�. . ,a? �r-
; ° �:'� � \ �.2 =c a �� l� `1 i, t � ��-yI � ;
x l � .
� � � r � �:� � 5• n ' �� Q ` �g
4 � S�
� \
. y'�-xt ` r .s a1 �;_ R^ t; c i.
_ ," ,i �� '- ?� � y.,> ^�
. . � °j? i�l : ` i �+E : V . *... ,. � - ' .
-` V i ' v`�. i r f G��
� � � '� � • . �i � � s� �� 1 �,
�-^; r i _ ��SIWAI '. <t' Y �i s.
r' �f A � _ � : � -. - �ivl'�c� �
� �" !% i -, � """,R�
fx ; * a,�, i : , x j r�� _ S �� e
, .
, � �� :
. � �, . ,".
. . ..:' : �. . � y. . �... a � �.. '� . ... .: M1.4 � f E 1
i.. (�
.. � �.. . �..: I�.�U4� � j:� _. L'J__1_�_.... )J
I �
. . .. ... N�.� S' �, ., ' ' , ��.
l � �r d i
A
�r� � �l.
I Y} � • JP„� l""'' �� ��. i . � ry�
� it �'.";.. _ �� �.
� a �a
< . a 6
r�� -,� � �d .
�� s an a -
� r. _
1 q. . � �.�i—�r-+-�- � _ .
` S � � � � -4'5--..� - :
'( Y ��. � � � 'C ' :�t �'- �\_:,` ��, .. .
c.) f r� �. � � i� 3 �'� � .� . .. , _
4 .
F �
� --dr 'E �
�e. �"—� ■ � J .
t
��, � '�� a— �� v . C e � ,_ — '� �
� � —• � , ,
� m � `��� i
Ea• �• � w i . � � �
� "�'" � ,�1�! � �
.� ��:
��e�: �"' � �� ! � � y ' i � :
�5 ; ■ +� �, i �� _ , �
yg, � i � _ . .. ■ � K '"� � r :
AN � � � C � sm ¢; � �� f9° � � E,�. '
f . �� � ��� ,,.. �,
_r.��0 � _ ., m�n._ �. � ��4i I� I �. � .. i

�
N
_
H
�
O
Z
w`I
r
O
�
Q
2
U
O
H
H
�
w
�
�
z
0
Q
�
�
�
M
�-i
�
N
c-f
O
N
C
� � �
N H �
� �
ti0 M � � O
C C c1 �-1 N
.� .� � � � �
O O Xk � C c L.m-� c-I cM-I .m-I .ti cM-I .m-�
> > N� � � " YI Ik 7k Yk �t Jk Yk
to R C v c (� i1 4J N v N LJ v L
L L L C
C7 l7 � i O O � � � � � � � �
a'S otl °,--i° ti.-^i � c.�i v v a�� a o- a a a-
-a -o xe u xk 3 �, � � v> vi �n �n �n vi �n �n
����� v v o o`o 0 0`o `o 0 0`o
ro ra Ol O O y t � � 'o 'a '6 'a 'o 'o -o 'a
in v� m o o m� cf6i u c c� c�� c�
S 2 .� c � � � tn tn � �i � � �i � � �
v-. y- OA bD UO u- w w v- �- � v- v- w 4- w- v-
O O C G C O O O O O O O O O O O O
i ��C �C �C i i 'C i i i � i i i
� � O o o � � @ � � � � m ro ra m ro
Q fl N N N Q O_ O. Q O_ Q Q Q O. Q f1 O_
J
� J
o �
� �
� � N
N a W =
� � J J � Q z
� > a a N w
°' � � o� Q � z
as o�� a z� ,n z
�n � a � � � � } � � Q � � H
w L } Z Z w Z p z w Q f- Z��
y+� I- w w= p �n �- � o
� v, a u �
N � U � J J
� O l0 O O O¢ W y p � S Q Q W Q N O
m c> > u t� c� �> v, � x c� � v, c� a u
(7 � � � O � � � 0 � 0 � p �❑ p
Z V U V U U N N N N� N U N� U V U
z N N m c-1 .-I ci .-I c-1 ci c-i c-1 2 c-I .-i =
O—— p] —— m N� m m N� m p�' N� m p�'
N
m Q
rl h Ln CY N d' M h lD N N M �-I � O W I�
N O O N oJ O d' O O O O O.-I O c-I O O
N N ati ati ci c-1 .-i ci c-i N fV N M M[h M M
O� Ql O ti�-i c-I c-I N N O O O O O O O O
O O a-I t±1 m m M �f] � f±l M M tn M M (±1 M
z u� v� �m m �i rn <,i cn M m cn rv� ni cn n� m cn
N ti�-+ m m rn rn rn rn m rn m rn rn rn m rn
a ni N N.� N.-i ti.-i .� N�.-i �--i .� .-i ti N
N N N
c-I a-1 �--1
� � �
� � �
C C C
� � � O O O
� v L � � �
(6 (O (O ++ Y Y
s a� c c c
{/) ln (n Y Y A-+
� c c �
0 0 `o 'o �o 'o
� � � a a a
� �i � w w w
�i- �h- � � W 4-
O O O O O O
� � �" � �
ra m ro ro ra ro
Q Q Q Q Q d
�
�
J
� W
w
N z � z
a�,�� a
Y � � w a
�' a
Q z`�—' z o Q
m O� Q m N
� � w � a Q
O� z Q a a
0
V = U U U U
m
Ol lD N h W W
O O. i l O.ti .-I
M M M N N N
O O O Ol Ol Ot
m m m N N N
�i r» m m m m
rn rn m rn rn m
ti ti ti r N N
N
H
y* a-I c-I c� ci
ci �-I �-i ri
� 3C :k 3t Y't
C C C C C
� O �O O O
a a a a
� Y Y A-� V
� W W W W �
y Y i-+ A-� Y N Qi �
�'Of6fOf6ua xt
'� �n �n v� v� o� m d'
a � � � � o0 0 0
� w � � � � O o
�i � N N
w C7 C7 C7 C7 �,� ,�
4- �F 4- �F �
O O O O O ���
m c° � (° ra o O o
t%- �- L% O- O_ N N N
�
K
W
U
�
LL
0 �
W � �
�
� a � z �
� � ¢ o � z
2 � � v=i a> �
a } w�n f}_- F- z
� a a h Q Z Z v
�"'000,�LLz
� Y?°� z z o
� 0 � O � � �
U U U V U U U U
2 2 S S 2 2 2
m m m m m m m
O� 01 tD In O Ct O Ot
.-I ail �-1 c-I N i-1 rl O
N ci �-I c-1 .-1 i-1 .-i ci
01 01 O� Ol O1 O1 O O
�-I a-i c-I cil i-1 ci' N N
f» c+� f+i m m m rci ni
m m rn rn rn m rn m
ti N ti ti ti ti ti ti

�
N
2
H
Q
�
�
O
5
Q
2
U
O
N
w
�
C7
z
0
Q
2
� � � �
f' Y }+ {+
f6 N N f6
a a � -o
N N � v
Q Q Q Q
bA bA bA GO
� C C C C
ry C C C C
?� O O O O
� � � � �
L � � � �
-p Ol Q1 Ol Ol
bp � � � ..�..
�N � � � �
on on on no m m m m m
.� � c c � x# u�k u Yt
p C �C �C �C bA bA n0 b➢ bA
.�., O O O O C C C C C
h h N N N N N �G' �C �C C C iT SC *L �
bD C9 �� Y ,,F, t6 y O O O O O M bA OA �
N �
C C L� C C C C f� t6 c0 t0 t0 ,C C C.�
'� •� V pp . . . . +� .++ .t+ .++ .++ C C C
0 o p � m t6 t6 <o C C C C C o 0 o Q
N N � C i i-+ i++ 7 i+ i V• • • • •- _
l0 f0 " O++ Q�++ f2 �++ fl. �++ O_ Y 1' Y v Y f6 (6 f6 �
N VI
i-+ Y� N U N U N U N U (6 (O f0 f6 f0 Y i-+ i+ .�
� �� f0 LL � LL � LL C LL � a p_ a a d C C C �
�- .- bb Y � O in O �n O N O in vi �n v� v� ,� y, _=
u u� c 3"� u v��,�,� 3 3 3 3 3 m ca `o f0
. . p '�, L � t .a s -a ..c -o s ..c z t t � �i � �
�O �O N � i-+ (O i-+ (O V f6 A-� f0 i-= i-+ Y }+ y
C C �*' O+-' O++ p Y p r+ Y++ Y++ ++ ++
i ca ro ro i fo i m ra �o ro m �n v� �n '^
v v
2 2 f0 H� � G� p� �� p����`G w w w W
� 4- 4- �F �-+ 4- y� y� 4- 4- 4- � 4- 4- ���
O O O O u O u O V O u O O O O O O O O �
i i Y i i �'� � i � i � i i i i i i i i
ra ta � m ra O ta o ro o ro o m ro `a fo m m ro ro f0
a. Q O o_ a c� Q c� Q. u o_ u Q Q. a Q. Q Q p_ o. fl-
Q
N
Q
N a
N =
w V
Z �
� _
m =
U
Y Y z
CJ V � �
� 0 a C7
z z „>, �
S = w a
V, p 0 O
U � U U
z 2 V � `t�-I
z Q
O m m m
N
C U1 N ci
O O N O
N ti N M
� G� W Ol
N N O N
z in �n �n m
.-� ti .-+ m
d N N N .-i
w w
� �
� �
0 o a
_ = N
� � a
Q Q a
� � �
a a °
w w �
H H m
U U U
O
c-1
N
�
N
M
rn
ri
��.l�
T
�
�
�
O
N
Q1
N
M
rn
ci
N
Q
J W
a v�
� O
w =
� w �
a N � J
� C7 � Q � w � � � w
_
m z o �= m�� w�
= m z
J
W
N 4- � J
� O Z v H p a O a>
J
U U� U �— � U V=i Q Z
� � 0 � � � � � �
U U U U U U U U U U
�-i cy .-i c-1 ci N ri �-I c-I
m m m m m m m m m
.-I �t W cF V1 t+l I� O N C
N O n'1 M N N N N N O
N i-1 ci c-1 r-1 c-1 rl N c-1 ci
Ol M M M M t+l m m M M
N N N N N N N N N N
�'1 m M�n ni r» rr� m tn t»
rn m rn m rn rn m ai rn rn
ci c-i c-i ci c-i N ci c-1 �-1 a-I
�
�
�
N
�
v
N
y U
� �
� �
� �
C O_
C �
o � ,�
� ° a a u � u
N � b0 bD bq •- bp
h C C C � C
� � C �C C � C
N U O O O — O
� � N H N (p N
O i � fQ (0 =' l6
C �p !' Y _ ,� ++
t0 O,C C C �p C
c a �o m m+�-' ro
� � � i+ Y � Y
� y � � � C� �
@ f6 N G N
� � � � � y �
Y OJ C C C Y G
� O i �i 'Y � �
° m � � � E �
� � O O O O O
m-o i �� � i
c -o m ca ca m ca
� � Q a Q a a
w w
Y �
a Z a
g m
O � ¢ Y
H o
� m � a ¢ o
m Z O Q U Q
� � � � � �
U U U U U U
_ _ _ _ _ _
m m m m m m
V1 lD M N c-I O
O O c-I N i-t .-i
c�l N c-1 c� �-1 ci
N N N N N N
N N N N N N
�» m r+i M c» c,i
01 Ql Q1 Ol Ol 01
ci ci i-i ci c-i ei
`o
� �
Q1 U
C C
O U1
N �
L C
? Q
m �
.y �
� O
C a''
t p
3 'a
v °
� �
O a
m
> �
� �
a�+ �
dJ C
� O
C N
� Y
� O
O C
u
L Q
v C
C
3 �a
0 �U
N �
� �
�
u �
d
s O
Q
w
H
0
U
_
m
O O
ci �-1
N N
N N
M m
Ol Ot
�-1 ci

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 1
Purpose and Need and Study Area
TIP Proiect No.: U-2509
FA Proiect No.: NHS-74(70)
WBS No.: 38965.1.1
Proiect Name/Descrintion:
US 74 (Independence Boulevard) Improvements fl�om Conference Drive to I-485 (Charlotte Uuter Loop)
in Charlotte and Matthews, Mecklenburg County.
A concurrence meeting was held with membecs of the Merger� Team ou March l9, 2015 to discuss the
Purpose & Need and Study Area of the proposed project. Info►•mation about the existing and projected
traffic conditions along the corridoe was presented in the meeting package. The Yroject "l�eam has
concurred on this date with the Purpose & Need and Stttdy Area as described below.
T'he stucJy area for this project includes proposed iniprovements to existing US 74 (Independence
Boulevard) and ar� existii�g network of parallel roads and their proposed connections. T'l�e study area
ranges fi�om 500 to approximately 2,000 feet on either side of the existing US 74 cetiterline. The study
area also includes an expanded area around the I-485 interchange to evaluate eapress lanes connection
a(ternatives and an extension tu the soutlieast along US 74 to include connection alternatives to the
proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass toll lanes.
The need for this study can be summarized as follows:
• Existing I/S 74 does not provide reliable travel tinre crnd conrrectiviry f"or� r•esidef�ls, barsiness
patrons, and cof�7nzzrters in Southeaster•» Char�lotte and Matthews.
• Tra�c estirnates ir�dicate thal ZIS 74 will �°eq��ire adclitional ca�aci.ry to acl�ieve a goal of LOS D
for arser,s by the design year� (2040).
• Thrs project rs needed to provide relia6Ce Irave! tinie, syster�� suctainability, and connect to a
s}�stenr of expres.s� /anes planned or7 U.S 7�1 to the north�vest, I-48S to the sozrth, and the Monr•oe
By��a,ss/Cnnnector toll road to t1�e southeast.
The purpose for the proposcd action is as follows:
• To provide r•eliable t�avel tirne a��rd inl�f�ove f��obrlity alofzg the US 7�t c.orr�idor, provide syster�i
sustainabiliry, ar7d nraif�tair� a�rd i�nprove co��rrectivity across and along I/S 7� co, ,fi•or�7, �md
between adjacent comrnimities within the stardy area.
U.S. Ar•my Corps of Engineers
�� �� � ��
enta( Pi4��,cxie�rt"Agency
�_" �• .
i,11/, .�
Federal Highway Administr,ti n
U.S. F,ish and Wildlife Service
Concurrcnce Point I
Ylarch 19. Z01 i
�,/ \
��
U-2509

� � ! � ��
1�CC. Department
N.C. Depaiimcut of En
�N.C. enartn ntofTrz
N.C. Witdlite
Hisluric
� ' L_L✓ � 6 J
Officc
Natural Resources — Division of Waler Resources
PDEA Unit
Planning Organizntion
Concurrencc Poinl I U-25U')
\incch t9, 201i

Section 404/NEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 2
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward
TIP Project No.: U-2509
FA Project No.: NHS-74(70)
WBS No.: 38965.1.1
Proiect Name/Description:
US 74 (Independence Boulevard) Improvements from Conference Drive to I-485 (Charlotte Outer Loop) in
Charlotte and Matthews, Mecklenburg County.
A concurrence meeting was held with members of the Merger Team on March 19, 2015 to discuss Detailed
Study Alternatives to be carried forward for the proposed project. In addition to the No-Build Alternative, the
Project Team has concurred on this date with the Detailed Study Alternative to be Carried Forward as
described below.
The Detailed Study Alternative to be Carried Forward includes:
• Improvements to US 74 from Conference Drive to I-485, to include widening prade separations and
interchan�es, to brin,g the facility to the level of an Expressway (with limited se�ments of freewaY) and the
addition of Express Lanes in the median. Express Lanes connections to the proposed i-485 Express Lane
project to the south (STIP Project I-5507) and the proposed Monroe Bypass/Connector Toll Road (:STIP
Projects R-3329 and R-2559) will also be included.
Connection of the followin� Parallel Roads beine considered:
o Krefeld Drive Extension (Krefeld Drive to Sardis Road North�
o Arequipa Drive/Northeast Parkway (Margaret Wallace Road to Sam Newell Road)
o Krefeld Drive/Independence Pointe Parkway (Crown�oint Executive Drive to Sam Newell Road�
o Northeast Parkway�Overcash Drive to Matthews-Mint Hill Road)
o Independence Pointe Parkwav (Windsor Square Drive to Matthews Townshi� Parkwa�[NC51]�
o Independence Pointe Parkway�Matthews Township Parkway_(NC51) to Campus Rid eg Road�
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Resources
Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
Concurrence Point 2 U-2509
March 19, 2015

N.C. Department of Transportation, PDEA Unit
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources Historic Preservation Office
Federal Highway Administration
Concurrence Point 2 U-2509
March 19, 20] 5

�1
U 5 Department
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Subject: NEPA Analysis of Toll Roads
From
Thru:
To
D.J. Gribbin
Chief Counsel (HCC-1)
David Nicol
Division Administrator (HDA-CO)
Peggy Catlin, Deputy EXecutive Director
Colorado Department of Transportation
Issue and Backg�ound:
Memorand u m
Date: October 15, 2004
In Reply Refer To:
HCC-30
This is in response to your question regarding whether the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) can include tolling or funding availability as part of its purpose and need
statement, and whether funding availability can be used to eliminate alternatives as
"unreasonable."
CDOT has raised this issue as a result of a recent announcement by the Colorado Tolling
Enterprise Board regarding the results of its statewide tolling system traffic and revenue
feasibility analysis. The study evaluated twelve corridors and various scenarios within each
corridor to determine which seemed to be viable toll projects. The study identified eight
corridors where tolling would cover the costs to build the new toll facilities. It also identified
other corridors where toll revenues could cover additional transportation upgrades and corridors
that would need funding in addition to tolls to cover costs. None of these toll projects are yet
included in the area's long-range transportation plan. By using toll revenues, Colorado would be
able to build additional highway capacity and transportation infrastructure and address
transportation needs of these corridors in the next few years. The study was the first phase in
exploring the viability of these projects; additional environmental studies and financial analysis
would be necessary before any final decisions could be made.
In a larger context, this issue also arises as a result of changing approaches to financing
transportation projects that increasingly rely on funding sources beyond traditional federal-aid
and state highway funds. This memorandum correspondingly modifies previous guidance given
to FHWA field offices to reflect the new realities of highway financing. Because no speci�c
projects are ripe for consideration, this response provides only general guidance and not specific
approval of a particular approach for any specific project. Using this guidance, FHWA will
continue to work with CDOT on this issue as its plans for these projects proceed.

2
Answer:
If the need for a toll road comes out of the transportation planning process, then tolling could be
included as part of the purpose and need statement for an environmental analysis under NEPA.
Absent these circumstances, speciiic goals and objectives of a project, such as the urgency of the
project or the need to relieve congestion, could narrow the range of reasonable alternatives to
only toll road alternatives. Finally, the economic feasibility of a particular alternative, especially
when considered in conjunction with other factors, might provide the basis for eliminating that
alternative as unreasonable.
Analvsis:
L When a Toll Road Can Be Part of the Project's `Purpose and Need"
The requirement for "purpose and need" under the regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is to "briefly specify the underlying purpose and
need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives, including the proposed
action." 40 C.F.R. 1502.13. "Purpose and need" for a transportation project is a statement of the
transportation problem to be solved. Examples of "transportation problems" include the need to
connect highways, need for expanded capacity, need to service new development, or the need to
correct unsafe highways. See FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, pp. 13-14 (October 30,
1987).
A toll road is usually perceived as a solution to a transportation problem, not a statement of the
problem itself. However, in some circumstances, tolling might be part of the purpose and need
for the project. If the need for a toll road came out of the transportation planning process (or
another similar process), it could represent an element of the community's "vision" for its future
transportation system. Conducted properly, the planning process identifies and balances the
competing needs of an area, and reflects a judgment about how to maximize limited resources to
obtain the most transportation improvements possible. If the long-range transportation plan
identifies a toll road or other public-private partnership as a goal, this may mean the community
has determined that other non-toll sources of funds are needed for projects on which tolls would
not be a viable option. In this circumstance, a toll road becomes necessary to fulfill the
community's vision of its optimal transportation system, and thus could appropriately be
included in the purpose and need statement.
Under this approach, the planning process would dovetail with the NEPA process, as envisioned
by Congress and affirmed in the CEQ and FHWA NEPA regulations.� The metropolitan
planning provision of Title 23 requires that long-range transportation plans must include "a
financial plan that demonstrates how the ]ong-range transportation plan can be implemented,
indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made
available to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed
' FoT eXample, Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA direct all Federal agencies to "utilize a systemic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use of natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in
planning and decisionmakin�." [Emphasis added] The CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require
decisionmakers to "integrate[e] the NEPA process into early planning to ensure appropriate consideration of
NEPA's policies and to eliminate delay." 40 CFR l SOl .l (a). FHWA NEPA regulations provide that "To the fullest
extent possible, all environmental investigations, reviews and consultations be coordinated as a single process....";
23 CFR 771.105(a).

�
projects and programs." 23 U.S.C. 134(g)(2)(B). This requirement is spelled out in more detail
in FHWA's planning regulations: the transportation plan must "[i]nclude a financial plan that
demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and
projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from
existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for
transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total
(existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan." 23 C.F.R.
450.324(b)(11). Under these provisions, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must
identify reasonably available funds for the projects on the long-range transportation plan and the
transportation improvement program. The transportation conformity regulations issued under
the Clean Air Act have a similar requirement that applies in air quality non-attainment and
maintenance areas: "Transportation plans and TIPS must be fiscally constrained consistent with
DOT's metropolitan planning regulations at 23 CFR part 450 in order to be found in
conformity." 40 C.F.R. 93.108.
During the transportation planning process, costs are roughly estimated using project-type
historical cost trends for the concept and scope of each proposed project, and a fiscal constraint
determination is made to ensure that adequate funds will be available to implement the
transportation plan as a whole. An MPO might identify toll revenues as a funding source for a
highway in its transportation plan because all other public funds are committed for other projects
and not available. In this circumstance, the need for a project can include a need for a particular
revenue source, such as tolls, to pay for the project. To interpret the law otherwise creates a
"circle of indecision" by first requiring MPOs in the planning process to identify "reasonably
available" funding sources for each project, but then, in the next breath, requiring the NEPA
document to consider alternative funding arrangements that had just been rejected as unavailable
in the planning process. Even if such alternative funding arrangements could be pursued, it
would be at the cost of removing another state or federally funded project from the plan, or at the
cost of having a plan that was no longer fiscally constrained. Congress cannot have intended to
require such specific fiscal planning for transportation projects only to then allow it to be
unraveled in the NEPA process.�
There does not appear to be case law directly on point with respect to this issue. However, in at
least one case, a Court has upheld a purpose and need statement in an EIS that was based on the
goals and objectives in the transportation plan. In North Buckhead Civic Association v. Skinner,
903 F. 2d 1533 (l lth Cir. 1990), the purpose and need statement for an environmental impact
statement for a segment of highway in Atlanta was based on specific goals and objectives
derived during the transportation planning process. Plaintiffs challenged the purpose and need
statement, arguing that it was crafted in a way that the proposed highway was "conclusively
presumed to be required" and a rail alternative perfunctorily dismissed for its failure to fully
satisfy the objectives of the project. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Plaintiffs, stating
that their objections reflected "a fundamental misapprehension of the role of federal and state
agencies in the community planning process established by the Federal-Aid Highway Act." The
Court went on to explain that the Federal-Aid Highway Act contemplated "a relationship of
cooperation between federal and local authorities; each governmental entity plays a specific role
in the development and execution of a local transportation project." The Court emphasized that
2 When it enacts a provision of law, Congress is presumed to have in mind previous laws relating to the same subject
matter. To the greatest extcnt possible, new statutes should be read in accord with prior statutes, and should be
construed togeYher in harmony. N. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction, 6`�' Ed., Vol. 2B, Sec. 51.02.

�
federal agencies did not have responsibility for long range local planning, and found that the
"federal, state and local officials complied with federally mandated regional planning procedures
in developing the need and purpose section of the EIS." 903 F.3d at 1541-42. The Court
ultimately held that the purpose and need statement could rely on goals and objectives from the
transportation planning process. 3
Were a purpose and need statement to be drafted to include a toll road, the following factors
would be important in determining its validity under NEPA. First, the transportation planning
process should have taken into account the availability of public and private resources and
analyzed its transportation priorities based on these. Second, using toll revenues to enhance
funding for transportation projects would have to be specifically included as one of the goals and
objectives of a transportation plan. Finally, documentation of this analysis would be important in
demonstrating the validity of the purpose and need statement. 4
2. When a`Purpose and Need" Statement Can Be Satisfied Only by Toll Alternatives
The Purpose and Need Statement establishes the framework in which "reasonable alternatives"
wil] be identified. It should be sufficiently specific to hone in on the problem to be solved so the
alternatives considered offer real solutions to the problem. Although courts have cautioned
agencies not to write purpose and need statements so narrowly as to "define competing
`reasonable alternatives' out of consideration (and even out of existence)", Simmons v. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 120 F.3rd 664 (7th Cir. 1997), they have generally deferred to agencies
when reviewing the adequacy of purpose and need statements.
If a specific need for a toll road does not arise out of the planning process, it is still possible that
the only alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need statement might be toll alternatives.
Even if CDOT is operating under circumstances in which the purpose and need statement does
not include a toll road, it could be that the purpose and need is defined in a way that the range of
alternatives is consequently limited. Under some circumstances, the purpose and need statement
might be so narrow that it can only be met by toll road options. In Sierra Club v. tISDOT, 962
F.Supp. 1037 (N.D. Ill. 1997), the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found that
FHWA's inclusion of some specific objectives in its purpose and need statement that could be
solved best by a toll road was allowable under NEPA, so long as other broader objectives were
not artificially excluded. These specific objectives included providing a]ink between two
highways and accommodating increasing freight demand. In this case, the Court upheld as
"reasonable" a range of alternatives that only included toll roads. In some cases, EISs examining
only toll alternatives have been approved by a court without specifically addressing whether
consideration of non-toll options were required. For example, in Laguna Greenbelt v. DOT,
42 F.3d 517 (1994), FHWA approved an environmental document for a toll road in California.
Even though no federal funds were involved, DOT's approval was needed to connect the toll
road to a federally-funded interstate. The EIS studied only two toll road options (in addition to
the no build alternative). Plaintiffs alleged that this was not an adequate range of alternatives,
alleging that the EIS should have considered a smaller, flexibly-priced toll alternative as well as
� Other cases also support reliance on work done during the planning process in the NEPA process. See, e.g.,
Utahns for Better Transportation v. DOT, 305 F.3d 1152 (10`h Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. DOT, 350 F. Supp.2d 1168
(9`� Cir. 2004). However, none of these focus on the purpose and need statement of the EIS.
4 This memorandum assumes that DOT will have some significant role in the project that precipitates the need for an
ETS. However, if the federal role is very small, the NEPA analysis for the project might be limited only to the action
to be undertak�n by DOT, allowing CDOT to analyze alt�rnatives for the major components of the project free from
NEPA requirements.

5
a toll road that would have included tunneling and bridges to minimize environmental impacts.
The Court disagreed, observing that several other alternatives were eliminated from further
consideration early on because they did not meet the purpose and need of reducing traffic
congestion and air emissions. 42 F.3d at 524.
Several transportation objectives could narrow the range of reasonable alternatives to be
considered. If the project's objective is to reduce congestion on a particular route, this could
justify eliminating alternatives that did not involve a new route (such as expanding the existing
network) if these alternatives would not provide adequate capacity to meet this objective. If a
primary component of the transportation problem to be solved is moving freight carried by
trucks, then transit alternatives are unlikely to be "reasonable" alternatives.s Importantly, the
need to complete a projec� urgently could indirectly eliminate alternatives for which public
funding is not immediately available. In such urgent circumstances, public-private partnerships
such as toll roads might be the only alternatives that would adequately meet the purpose and
need.
3. When Alternatives Can be Sc�eened out as Economically Infeasible
If the purpose and need statement is not so narrow as to yield only toll road alternatives, CDOT
might in some circumstances be able to eliminate alternatives early on based on the economic
feasibility of the alternatives. "Reasonable alternatives" warranting detailed study are described
in the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance as "those that are practical
or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense." Fo�ry Most
Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations, Question #2a (March 23, 1981).
Although there are not any such cases relating to toll roads, there are cases in other contexts
holding that cost or economic feasibility are appropriate factors to use to screen alternatives to
eliminate those that are unreasonable. In T�alley Citizen for a Safe Envi�onment v. Aldridge, 886
F.2d 458 (1 st Cir. 1989), plaintiff challenged the alternatives analysis in an EIS relating to the
Air Force's decision regarding where to locate some planes. Plaintiffs argued that the Air Force
should have studied in mare detail alternatives that would have sent the planes to bases in other
cities. The Air Force had eliminated these alternatives early on primarily because of the cost of
additional construction that would be required. The Air Force said that, due to these additional
costs, it would not under any circumstances decide to locate its airplanes in bases in these cities.
The First Circuit upheld the Air Force's alternatives analysis. The Court found that the lack of
discussion on these alternatives was "perfectly reasonable" given that the Air Force had
acknowledged it would never use them:
"The EIS makes clear that the Air Force will not send the GSAs to the other bases
because of significant added construction costs or recruitment problems [on one of the
alternatives]. It will not send them irrespective of environmental effects at those bases; it
will not send them even if there are no harmful environmental effects, even if no one in
those areas thinks the planes are too noisy. What purpose, then could a discussion of
environmental effects at those other bases serve, at least as long as the Air Force makes
clear it is prepared to evaluate those alternatives on the assumption that their `adverse
environmental effects are zero?"` 886 F.2d at 462.
s FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A states that Mass Transit and Transportation System Management
alternatives should be considered when identifying reasonable alternatives. However, if these alternatives do not fit
the "purpose and need" of the project, then they can be properly screened out of the list of reasonable alternatives
requiring detailed study.

6
Similarly, in Sie�ra Club v. Lynn, 502 F.2d 43 (C.A. Tex. 1974) the plaintiffs challenged the
failure of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to consider an alternative
site for the development of a housing community. The Court disagreed with plaintiffs, finding
that the new site would have involved the purchase of new property at a"prohibitive" cost, and
therefare HUD was justified in eliminating this alternative as unreasonable.
More typically, costs and economic viability are considered along with other factors in
determining the reasonableness of alternatives. For example, in Jackson County v. Jones, 571
F.2d l 004 (C.A. Mo. 1978), the Air Force eliminated a number of alternatives for relocating a
facility based on prohibitive costs plus other factors, such as mission incompatibility or lack of
other necessary resources at the alternative site. In Citizens for a Better Henderson v. Hodel, 768
F.2d 1051 (9th Cir. 1985), the Court upheld the elimination of an alternative route for a road
based on the fact it would be "significantly more costly and mare environmentally destructive."
768 F.2d at 1057. In Swinomish Tribal Community v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
627 F.2d 499 (C.A.D.C. 1980), the Court upheld the elimination of more expensive alternatives
to the construction of a proposed dam because the EIS demonstrated the alternatives would have
adverse effects in quantity and quality at least as significant as the proposed project.
To eliminate non-toll alternatives based on economic feasibility, CDOT should be able to
demonstrate that using non-toll iinancing is infeasible. Merely a preference for constructing toll
roads instead of public roads will not be adequate to meet NEPA's standards. If available,
CDOT should be sure to explain any other reasons, in addition to economic feasibility, that
might also justify eliminating an alternative. For example, if CDOT can demonstrate that an
economically infeasible alternative has greater environmental impacts than other alternatives
considered in detail in the EIS, it will have a stronger case for eliminating the alternative.
Although CDOT's question is whether alternatives can be screened out based on economic
feasibility, it is important to note that the range of alternatives can be reiined in other ways as
well. Reasonable alternatives must be presented in a"comparative form" that sharply defines the
issues and provides a clear basis for a choice by the decisionmaker and the public. 40 CFR
1502.14. If a preliminary analysis identifies an alternative with adverse impacts that are
signiiicantly higher than those of other alternatives, such an alternative might not need to be
carried forward for more detailed analysis in the Draft EIS. In this case, the preliminary analysis
would probably be sufficient to provide the decisionmaker and the public with adequate
information upon which to base a decision.
Conclusion:
In the circumstances described in this memorandum, a NEPA document can examine in detail
only toll road alternatives and still meet the requirements of current law. With appropriate
justification, non-toll alternatives can be eliminated during the transportation planning process or
through the alternatives analysis under NEPA. However, nothing in this memorandum should be
interpreted as requiring that an alternative be eliminated. In circumstance where a public
controversy exists regarding the use of tolls on a road, it may be advisable, even though not
required, to examine non-toll alternatives in the NEPA document so as to help avoid future
litigation.

Finally, once reasonable alternatives are identiiied and their comparative merits presented, the
agency can select any alternative regardless of the impacts, as long as they comply with other
environmental laws. At this point, the availability of funding can be a key factor — or even the
determining factor — in making a decision about which alternative to select.
Federal Highway Administration
HCC-30:Amarchese:gys:60791:10/07/04
Revised:Amarches:gys:60791:10/15/04
Copies to:
HCC-1 HCC-2 Mr. Skaer — 3222 Mr. Aikens — 4230 Ms. Marchese — 4230 Chron —
4213 Reader — 4230
Subject — 4230 File Location: Amarchese/NEPA
AnalysisMemoRevised.Pcatlinredfinaldj.msw