The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20020672 Ver 3_Baker Presentation for Agency Meeting_7_18_12_20120904onroe onnec or ass enc a e LAND USE FORECAST BACKGROUND AND UNION COUNTY GROWTH ANALYSIS THIS PRESENTATION INCLUDES INFORMATION AND FINDINGS THAT ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE Outline of Toda 's Discussion y _______________________..__.._.__________..__..____________________________..____.________._..__.._.________._..__.. ____________________________..___________________________________ ��. Discuss the recent appeals court decision NCDOT responses Provide detailed information on MUMPO's planning process as it related to the Monroe Connector/Bypass Discuss how this information was used in the ICE analysis Appropriateness of the ICE analysis � The rowth of Union Count durin the "No Build" g Y g condition Factors affecting growth trends in Union County Next steps A eals Court Decision pp � __ On May 3, 2012, the US Court of Appeals C4th Circuit) stated that NCDOT had failed to disclose critical assumptions underlying their decision to build the Monroe Connector/Bypass: In sum, although we need not and do not decide whether NEPA permits theAgencies to use MUMPO's data in this case, we do hold that by doing so without disclosing the data's underlying assumptions and by falsely responding to public concerns, theAgencies failed to take the required "`hard look' at environmental consequences." A eals Court Decision pp They also stated that the MUMPO data from which the quantitative ICE Build and No-Build proj ections were developed contained the Connector in the travel time to employment. They further stated that this inclusion was not shared with the agencies and cast doubt on the findings of the analysis. • • Bul vs Bul ._._..__..____________..__..____________..__.. � ________________________________________ Statement in RO D(pg C-11� ��socioeconomic forecasts�or t�.e No �ui�c� Scenario did not include the Monroe Connector. MUMPO confi'rmed our assumption regarding the reasonableness of the 203o T�'�Zforecasts for use as a No Build basis. Statement is technically incorrect Ri ht of Wa & Construction g Y _______..__.._.__________..____.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..__.. ____________..____.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________.._ �� Right of way acquisition had begun on select parcels but has been stopped All design and construction activities suspended NCTA requested that permits be suspended Communit Meetin s Y g ________..__..____________..__..____________..___ ____________________________________________ �� June 18 & 19, 2012 2 0 0 + attendees Presentation on legal issues, right of way and construction status Movin Forward g � __ NCDOT is committed to full disclosure and transparency and has already conducted two public meetings to address concerns over the previous process NCDOT also wishes to share with the agencies all relevant details on how the model was developed, the appropriateness of the model, and how this information shaped the analysis. What are the rules for ICE Anal sis? y _.__________..__.._.__________..____.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..__.. ____________..____.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__. �� NCDOT developed a set of approaches for ICE analysis Developed in cooperation with FHV�%1� NCDENR North Carolina State Attorney General's Office �'��_�� x� �11 1��.� � � �� ' �� Guidance went into effect in 2 0 01. �Guidance fv�r Assessing Ind�r+�ct and Cum�alati�e Imipacts nf Transpartatic�r� Projects in Narth Caralina Volume r; Gui�lance Fvlicy Report rrr•�,��.•�r ��,�: '�trtc af \nrfh f'arulina Depsirtmcnt oF'TranspuiKatianl!]epxrtmcnt of I nv irunment nnd Natural licsuurecs Italc;i�eh, \nelh {.'arnlina I �ndcr Pix�jcc+t 1n.13E7777"_ f•xrp�+�r�f f3r. Thc l.ouis 13cr„er f;rnur, Inc. l��in�. Nnr�h Caruli�i:i frsried 4`ovenrhrr_'fNll k- � Guidance Recommendations on Data Use _______..____.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..___ ____________.._______________.._______________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.__________.. � Offi'cial projections generated by state, regional or MPO agencies should also be utilized whenever possible as a source of information on future conditions. Page III-16 Whenever possible, forecasts developed for other purposes by regional planning and transportation agencies should be utilized. Page N-4 Reasoning is that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs): �;�,�: ��ed by the federal government to develop projections are familiar with job and population trends and community goals have years of experience in developing these proj ections Guidance Recommendations on Data Use _______..__.._.__________________________..__.._.________________________._..__.._.__________..__..____________..___ � ____________..____._____________.._.__________..__.._.__________..__..__________._..__.._.__________.. Trend extrapolation techniques are limited in the application to indirect/cumulatiUe effects analysis, because the techniques are only useful in creating base case or no- action forecasts - extrapolation is not helpful in eUaluating project alternatiUes that will by definition change conditions on which historical trends are based. Also, this tu�e o f forecasting technique is unnecessaru when acce�ted �forecasts have been deuelo�ed alreadu bu local or reqional a� eq nciesofor the stud� area. Page N-9 Example 2— Detailed Analysis Techniques: ... Develop a general No Action Scenario for the study area based on 2o-year growth projections furnished by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Page N-31 The guidance says the MPO forecasts should be used in the analysis. How are they used? I��titi <<��:� ��°u��io� L��c�l for future population and einployment at the sinall area level. Provide guidance on how much growth will occur and where it will occur. MPO Forecasts can be used two wa s: y • MPO Forecasts __ Represent No Build Alternative Guidance from planners and analysis create a (higher) Build Forecast . _ . �_ ___________________________________________ , ; , MPO Forecasts ---' Represent Build ; Alternative � ; � ; � �� Guidance from , , � � � planners and , _ � ----= ` analysis create a � (lesser) No Build ` Forecast MPO Forecasts can be used two wa s: y • Alternative � � 3 i. ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...,.a_.�♦ ° ' Appropriate when research ' ; ; indicates the regional land � ----, use impacts of the proj ect are not �F represented by the forecasts � .. . _ ___________________________________________ MPO Forecasts Represent Build Alternative Appropriate when research � indicates the regional land use impacts of the project are represented in the forecasts ; Basis for Choice A vs Choice B _______..____.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__..____________..__.. ____________..____.__________..__.._.__________..__..____________..__.._ �� Discuss with local planners what will future development look like with and without the proj ect Identify constraints to development that would affect growth patterns regardless of the proj ect Identify related actions (such as development of water and sewer lines) that would affect development densities with and without the proj ect � Based on the above process, we determine if the estimated development is a better match for the build, or the no build option. Use of the MUMPO Data in the ICE _______..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..___ � ____________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._.._. TAZ level socioeconomic data from MUMPO served as control totals for developing the ICE No Build land use scenario. Based on consultations with local planners and use of the Hartgen method, additional development was added to create a Build land use scenario. te s ta en or t e Monroe p onnector B ass I E Yp July 18, 2012 Mecklenburg - Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) MUMPO, in cooperation with the State, developed its current transportation plan from 200� to 2005. The purpose of the plan was to: i) Assist governing bodies and official agencies in determining courses of action and in formulating attainable capital improvement programs in anticipation of community needs; and, 2) Guide private individuals and groups in planning their decisions which can be important factors in the pattern of future development and redevelopment of the area. +.�'ri i+7 � r��E�{ rr c��. '', � IrLdcll Cc�unty P�llc.uklrvr�t�ury Cr�unty , • `-� rn`, � w� r — Mnnr� sWiIIP (;h��l0tte e; Cl�itlrl�tte. fxtr�derriton�i " ° o vnM-a� lurisclic:[inn [fTlj � 4, �Y..I� F �Off1P.�IlJS +�,,�- ` :i ,� Cnrnelius ETJ � " Davidson _ � � .�� wdsar� EfJ . � ' � ._ �`� HuntersvilGe ---,_ rr �.�,rti�:�u� �r �`� Huntwrsuil6e ETJ �. 1 '•. M � u hews � Mirrt Hill I .._ h � `'"� . �s2�'' i-; 'Mir�[ Hill ETJ �;R` �_1� . �`� Fmeville �,: f� `.s '; � � -`£ , Pine�ille kTJ + ' `� ' " '�'' , . . :V , =.�. - � }` �•' .11r^c kl��zf��rt�c� ['r�. ��- _ _ _ � �,,�, , ,� � . a �. � _ , f ,: . . , ; , .. �I�:rtkrii�:� - _ ,.,�r �j ' S i�. . " _ . � 4 `' = 1� � �''� ,+ � ��'., r.a�n ian ^� � ^' �. - . ; , � .. `�f� �� . , .• . 1� w, + r,: 1 ��ui:pe ..� �� , .. _ . � � -•, ,.. � ' . . . H � �r•; L4r�„ �. . y � � . . �( �-, � R �Ne.•'-" . . .. / r . L kk�vk . ` + .�� . . n�� .��,di.� . �.��i �_ i i:��o.�d� - �., �;- . _ ; Union Ct�unty `�,,, �-- �c� _ 1-airoiew �. F` _ 1 iemby Bridge ' u^h,n,i, �� ' � f�� t" lndlan Trall on,ry�� r,h.u�,y � r F�e+ f '� .�,. � � Le ke Park .` _ ' , - -' hro r 5vi j;ri�r Nl�rvin - .� Mincral Springs __ ` M onroe rm,��.�i :�nd�is- � PVlonroe ET! �r.�r+�:,�; Stallings �� SCallings ETJ - �� U7tiU�l �'o. iJnionvill� Waxhaw ; �� Weddington INP.SIP.yCllri�7P.I �._'' �IIl�r3LP. �_ ML1MP0 baund�ry witi7 unincorporated area �1 �� .��;, �.�:��s•,��, �,-.,� , . _ '�RECAS Population oymen �v Tra� 1. Trip Generation • How many trips and for what purpose? • De�ines origins and destinations 3. Mode Split • Given trip origins and destinations, how will travelers get around via the available travel modes? July TRANSP'ORTATION NETWORK: Locations an+ 2. Trip Distribution • Which origins and destinations will be linked together? 4. Trip Assignment • How will the trips be made across the transportation network? '�RECAS Population oymen �v Tra� NETWORK: Locations and of Roads 1�ransit parate inputs to the model. Th �ods the MPO uses to develo�� Jul � . • '�'�� A� � � �r�� T�'��n �,�n��S1� ��n�� r�►� �� . ��,�,��% How were the MUMPO land use forecasts developed? � 203o TAZ forecasts Forecastin Roles g � • Proj ects Regional Population & Employment totals • Sets county totals • Distributes growth developed in the top-down model at the county-level based on Traffic Area Zones (TAZs) • DOES NOT include adjustments to regional growth patterns other than within counties • MUMPO process only applied to central and western Union County • Local planners refine the in-county land use allocation based on adopted plans and local land use expertise, basically this serves as a reality check on the anticipated growth Forecastin Factors g � •Regional Forecast •County Level Forecast (Allocated using variables statistically tested against 228 metropolitan counties in 2� regions) •Past economic and demographic trends •Economic and demographic conditions (as of 2003) •Influence of income on growth patterns • Proximity •Land availability •Past land use and infrastructure policies •Developable Residential Land •Redevelopable Residential Land •Recent Population Change •Travel Time to Employment Centers (note includes the Monroe Connector) •Water Availability •Sewer Availability •Expert Panel (High Growth Areas)* •Growth Policy Factor* * Union County Factors this is the only factor that Accessibilit Considerations y • • Large scale transportation projects was a factor omitted from the top down analysis (From Hammer Report, p. 14) • Does include the regional "build" network including the Monroe Connector, but only in travel time to employment calculations for future year(s). • Considers travel time from each TAZ to the NEAREST employment center, NOT regional employment centers • Reflects local advisors' expectations (in 2003-2004) of whether new roads would be built • Reflects the assumptions in adopted land use plans regarding the anticipated road network How does this affect the ICE Stud y • • This component, which includes the estimation of total job and population growth for each county, DID NOT include the Monroe Connector • Includes the regional "build" network (with Monroe Connector) for the travel time component only, and only for central and western Union County • The way travel time to employment was calculated does not ca�ture regional travel time im�acts, it only captures impacts within Union County to the nearest employment center also within Union County Adopted land use plans at the time this analysis was done did not reflect impacts of the Monroe Connector Members of the Expert Panel stated during the interview process for the ICE study that the Monroe Connector WAS NOT included in their expectations What do the Forecasts Re resent? p _______________________..__.._.________________________________________._..__.._.________._..__..________________ ____________..____.__________.._______________..__.._.__________..__.._.________. � Based on extensive interviews, adopted land use plans in 2oo3-q. did not assume the MC The MUMPO forecast development process did not consider MC impact on regional land use distribution (across counties) The impact of the MC in Union County is only considered in terms of travel time to nearest Union County employment centers. . � � � - `� �� :�� : �1�� : t��: J��.�LJ�'i�YY IL� �� t�he MC in t e orecasts are limited and may actually be zero or close thereto (based on discussions with MUMPO staff� AND were not considered in eastern Union Countv. Conclusion Based on this evaluation it was concluded that the MUMPO forecasts most closely represented a No- Build Condition Does MUMPO a ree with our conclusion? g _________.._______________.._______________..__.._.________._..__..____________..__..________________ � ____________..__.._.__________..__.._._____________.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.__________... NCTA and NCDOT met with MUMPO on June 19tn. They agreed with the conclusion that use of their data for the No-Build Option was appropriate. , s . �, _-, � �_ �� ;�;� �x�+� �.�Y� Y"�b�i�i�c�i L�IY��.�� +�� .� S +C�i�� ;C��.l�� ii� i,�lc� �il(�il� ��1 employment from the top-down process Because inclusion of the project in the travel time to employment factor had minimal impact on that factor. Because the planners and the Expert Panel members involved in the bottom up process did not anticipate the MC in the long term forecasts � Minutes for the meeting will be included in administrative record. �rel�m�nary �esults o�t ��YraveY �Vi�e to �.mp�oyment Factor Reexamination � -- MUMPO, NCDOT and other modelers worked together to reexamine the Travel Time to Employment Factor ��s�ss the differences with and without the Monroe Connector in the roadvvay network �� Removal of Bypass results in minor changes to travel times and composite scores � �� c�� "�� Inc�� v�� ti�� re� �� r� � ��r��e 1�. T1�Zs see 1% or mor� chan�e in com�osite score Average Composite Score change is o.21% Maximum Composite Score change is 3• 9� Still assessing the overall implications to ICE Report Undeveloped Land Identified July i8, 2012 Density categorization of undeveloped land based on recent plans Density X Undeveloped Land A Total Build Out Capacity TAZ Forecast Total Build Out Capacity % of Build Out Total Undeveloped Land X % of Build Out Acres of New Deuelopment New Development Added to Existing Development = No Build Land Use Scenario Review of newer plans that anticipate construction of the MC July i8, 2oi2 Discussions with planners and local off'icials regarding development potential with the MC Analysis of Regional Accessibility Changes (Travel Time Savings) Analysis of Interchange Areas using Hartgen Method ('I�pe of road, Utility Availability) Combination of these yields the indirect development Indirect Development + No Build Land Use = Build Land Use Scenario What do these outcomes mean? _______..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.________._..__..____________..__.. � ____________________________..__.._.__________..__.._.__________..__.._.___ Union County has been, is, and will continue to grow rapidly without the Monroe Connector Future growth levels are not highly dependent on the Monroe Connector The timing and distribution of future growth IS affected by the Monroe Connector, as shown in our Build Alternative results • Unlon ount rowt Factors y July 18, 2012 What ARE the forecasts? �� Union County: z000* 2005* 2010* 2030** * US Census Bureau *� MUMPO Forecast 123,677 162,929 201,292 337,317 4.7% 6.4% 4.7% See below 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2005 2005 to 2010 Difference between 2010 population and 2030 forecast has a 3.q.% average annual growth rate Union Count and Growth y ____..__..____________..__.._.________._..__.._.__________..__.. � ____________..__.._.__________..__.._.________._..__.._.______ Analyzed regional growth trends and underlying reasons for growth ._. �� ;� �� .� � �; � .: �� a', J �°: _ .1 � � ' � y;1 '�.� Iu. ��_ � _ �� Mecklenburg, and York Union, Cabarrus, Rowan, Iredell, Lincoln, Gaston �., � S- y�, � � Sb ! " . _ j \ ' .A '4 $ ;� , ' i� � �. � � �; � i. �.�, �� ,�� r i � u �'�� .��. �Ze Historical growth trends Trends relative to MUMPO forecasts Population density Median household income Housing differences (size, cost) School quality Commuting time Re ional Po ulation Growth g p _____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ � Figure 1: Population Change in the Eight-County Region Avery Cald w�ll MCDo weJl Rutherford �o�� Caralina South Carolina Burke r`-i Cleaeland Alexander ; �..r--` _ Yadkin Forsyth Davie ��-``-. ' pavldson / = F N � Randolph I Stanly Mpntgomery I York �%' Uniara Anson i i ---------------- -------------------------- Lancaster Chester Chesterfield 0 25 50 Miles Re ional Growth Rates Avera e Annual) � g g � �� Union Count Po ulation Data Y p � By 2 0 0 8, annual Union County growth rates far exceeded those estimated by MUMPO in their population forecasts with the MC neither built nor under construction According to US Census Data, Union County had the greatest percentage population increase in North Carolina from 2 0 0 o to 2 010 . Why is there rapid growt� in Union County in t�e absence o� the Monroe Connector? �oo 600 500 400 300 200 100 O Po ulation Densit er S Mi) � p y p q • .1�� .� �� O� '`� o Population per Square Mile (2000) �' Population per Square Mile (20�0) Mecklenburg: 1,32�.6 (2000); 1,755.6 (2010) ��o,000 �60,000 �50,000 �40,000 $30,000 �20,000 �10,000 �O Median Household Income � ,,�o� „�,o.� �� `�"� G� �~~ �fi �� ti"�� '�.�G e,"�� v G ��' o� � o Median Household Income (2000) � Median Household Income (2010) % Owner- 74.i% 68.i% 74.i% 74.9% occupied % Renter- occupied 25•9� 31•9� 25•9� 25•1� Median Home Value ($) �2o3,2c; $i�2,2o0 $i24,5o0 $i68,2o0 $i56,�o0 % Single Family Detached �6.6 % 75. o% 73. o% Housing Median Number of Rooms per . 5•7 5•3 5•7 Unit Source: American Community Survey 20o8-2oiq 3-Year Estimates, Table DPo4 (Selected Housing Characteristics) 67.9 % 5.6 6i.9% 69.� % 38.i% 30.3% ']2.1% 27.9 % $lgo,9oo $i28,�o0 $164,�00 60.3% 67.5% 5•6 5•4 68.1% 5•7 School ualit SAT Scores Q y C ) • Cabarrus County 65•3 522 497 SC�lOO1S Gaston County 5g•3 495 4go Schools Iredell-Statesville 60.4 524 5O2 Schools Lincoln County 5g•7 513 47g Schools Charlotte- 68.5 507 495 Mecklenburg Schools �.ya� _ Rowan-Salisbury 51•9 495 474 SC�lOO1S York 1 42.0 47g 457 York 2- Clover 59•0 493 486 York 3- Rock Hill 54.0 482 470 York 4- Fort Mill �2.0 535 529 Sources: Narth Carolina State Board of Education, Accountability Services, Division SAT Report 2011; South Carolina Department of Education, Public School District Distribution Mean SAT Scares for 2ou 4g3 455 480 456 480 453 432 460 455 505 1019 975 io26 991 1002 969 935 979 952 io64 1502 i43 0 i5o6 1447 14g2 1422 136� 1439 140� 1569 School ualit (Graduation Rates ) Q y • School System Graduation Rate (% Cabarrus County Schools Gaston County Schools Iredell-Statesville Schools Lincoln County Schools Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Rowan-Salisbury Schools York i York 2 - Clover York 3 - Rock Hill York 4 - Fort Mill 84.1 75•4 85.1 81.6 73•5 76•9 78•3 77•3 73•5 91.2 Sources: North Carolina State Board of Education, Accountability Services Division, 4-Year Cohort Graduation Rates; South Carolina Department of Education, Annual School District Report Cards ., . "rr� ' �� — " Commute Times � � '�� Mean Travel Time to Difference from Mean Travel Time to Difference from Work Regional Average Work Regional Average I Cabarrus County 26.0 3.6% 2�.0 3•4� Gaston County Iredell County Lincoln County � Mecklenburg County Rowan County York County Charlotte MSA 25.0 24.2 24.� 23.2 24.0 25.1 -0.4% -3.6% -i.6% -�.6 % -4•4� Notes: 2oio Travel Time data not available for Lincoln County. Sources: 200o Census Summary File 3, American Community Survey 20o8-2oio 3-Year Estimates Table So8o2 24.6 24•5 27.1 26.0 23•3 2'].2 26.1 -5.�% -6.1% 3•8� -0.4% -10.7% 4.2 % Conclusions In the absence of the Monroe Connector, growth in Union County has exceeded that of other counties in the area Factors driving growth in Union County appear to be available land, high median income, and the area school system Commuting time is higher for residents of Union County � than for other counties in the area a9 �! � �� f f I I fµ _. �� , _, �_�, �� v � �. .�. 11 � �� _ � _5 � �1�^a� �.,�� _ � ��I,iQ � N/ r � �V� j�� ° x �� f _�� , The practical "No Build" since 2 0 01 demonstrates that rapid growth in Union County will likely continue, regardless of whether the Monroe Connector is built. Conclusions For this proj ect, the regional forecasts best represent the No Build scenario l �1 �U 1�T�� co�ntro tota s vvere usec� an �oca inpu�� ze�pe c�e�termine actual locations within TAZs where development would occur without the �roj ect. Build Alternative forecasts were developed showing the additional growth and land use distribution impacts of the proj ect �aseci in some areas on more recent land use or economic development plans that do anticipate the road Based on areas affected by combination of available water and sewer to support higher densities AND improved regional accessibility from the Monroe Connector Next Ste s p � __ Working with local modelers to calculate exact affect of Travel Time to Employment with and without the MC. �esu�ts wil� c�etermine �eve� o�� ac�j us-tment, i�� any, needec� to the No Build land use for the ICE, Review other possible new information to determine if it affects current assumptions. New information may requ��s�; ��justments to ICE or other supporting documents. Next Ste s p Continued agency participation and feedback _; , . , ,�_ � ��;�� c� ' a� � �r�� i q�� Future meetings and process C'�antinLl� to m��-� CE� obli�a-�aons �lr�c��r �.c� �FR 1��3•3 Additional public outreach and communication will also be part of the steps to address the court's concerns Determine appropriate course of action to update �TC �C�TC T�' 4 nt�ori �r�� ro�n� � Y1��AT 1?(lTl