20120285 Ver 1_Email_20100513

a6�a-oa�5.
Exhibit M
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attach:
Dayton, Jeff <[e-mail]>
Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:00 PM
Harris, Jennifer <[e-mail]>
FW: Gaston ICE
100510 Gaston ICE PBSJ NCTA 051210.doc;
QuantitativeMonroeICE FINAL_4.23.2010.doc
Comments sent back to LBG today.
From: Gurak, Jill S [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:41 AM
To: Pesesky, Lawrence; Tidd, Leo
Cc: Dayton, Jeff; Shumate, Christy
Subject: Gaston ICE -
Larry and Leo,
Thank you so much for getting this report together so quickly. We all felt that it was a huqe improvement over previous
versions and represents quite a bit of work. At this point we can actually discuss results and assumptions, where in
previous version we weren't quite to that point. ,
Attached is your ICE Word document, with comments and minor editorial changes included. Below is a summary of the
primary comments. �
The biggest concern we have is what seems to be quite large decreases in growth/employment in the urbanized areas of
Gaston County that are being transferred to the proje�t area and particularly to SC. I don't think there would be much
support for a project in NC that appears to benefit SC the most and takes away growth,from the I-85 corridor on the order
of 10-15 percent. I think the model may be skewing results somewhat since it is on the edge of the overall model. The
way the maps are presented may also be somewhat misleading. Should some more outside-of-model smoothing of the
travel demand model results be done?
NCTA also had concerns about how the assumption about overall growth not changing is addressed. They are
concerned about the agencies buying into the theory that overall growth does not change with or without the project =.it
just redistributes. This is the same assumption used in the Mo to 'ect but it was presented somewhat
differently. A discussion inc u e in e onroe repo occurs beginning on the bottom of page 17, extending onto page
18 of the attached Monroe report. Please take a look and see what your thoughts are regarding modifyinq this similar
discussion in the Gaston report.
Please let us know if you are available tomorrow morning for a conference call to discuss.
Thanks again - Jill
Here are the comments contained in the attached document so you can see them all together:
Larry and I had talked about the qualitative study somewhat addressing steps 6 and 7 also. I'm not sure if he changed
his mind on this.
Figure 1— Boundary of qualitative ICE a bit hard to read on figure. Also, Quantitative spelled wrong in title block.
Cleveland Co not labeled on Figure 1.
Section 2.1.5 - Why can't the employment and population be proportioned out based on area contained in each
watershed? Are the results being skewed in these watersheds due to this combination? These watersheds seem to be
attracting more development than one would intuitively expect.
,