GREATER CHARLOTTEREGIONAL FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INFORMATION AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

November 2016

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1

2. Stakeholder Meetings................................................................................................................1

2.1 Coordinating Committee .......................................................................................................1

2.2 Steering Committee...............................................................................................................3

2.3 Freight Advisory Committee..................................................................................................5

3. CCOG-FHWA Freight Mobility Planning Peer Exchange...............................................................6

4. Online Survey ............................................................................................................................6

5. Telephone Surveys...................................................................................................................12

5.1 Findings................................................................................................................................125.1.1 Trends .....................................................................................................................135.1.2 Freight Performance Measures Recommended.....................................................14

5.2 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................16

6. How Stakeholder Feedback was Utilized ..................................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Coordinating Committee ...........................................................................................................2Table 2: Coordinating Committee Meetings ...........................................................................................2Table 3: Steering Committee...................................................................................................................3Table 4: Steering Committee Meetings...................................................................................................5Table 5: Freight Advisory Committee ......................................................................................................5Table 6: Telephone Survey Input on Issues ...........................................................................................12Table 7: Telephone Survey Input on Performance Measures ...............................................................14

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This document summarizes the stakeholder outreach activities conducted during the development of the Greater Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan (Freight Plan). Centralina Council of Governments (CCOG) recognizes the importance of both public and private sector partners in planning for an efficient and effective regional freight transportation system. This recognition promotes the need for coordination between these stakeholders to develop and implement the regional freight plan.

The stakeholders played a critical role in identifying issues, prioritizing projects, and determining recommendations within the Freight Plan. Their input was critical to ensure the Freight Plan reflects the real priorities of freight operators and users as well as generating buy-in for future public and private investment in freight infrastructure, transportation, and land use policy.

The stakeholder involvement approach focused on developing relationships with private sector freight industries, as well as representatives of public sector agencies engaged in transportation related activities that support the freight transportation network. Outreach activities included a series of stakeholder meetings with established participating committees, an online survey, and one-on-one industry interviews. A summary of each of these activities are further described in the sections below.

Within CCOG, a webpage was dedicated to the Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Plan located at http://www.centralina.org/regional-planning/transportation/freight/, throughout the development of the Freight Plan. On the webpage, plan information, background, and links to additional webpages for each of the participating committees was made available.

2. STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS

Three groups of stakeholders met throughout the development of the Freight Plan: Coordinating Committee, Steering Committee, and Freight Advisory Committee. The next sections summarize the participation and contributions of each of these committees.

2.1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE

The Coordinating Committee was responsible for overseeing the overall technical aspects of the Freight Plan. This included review and approval of the Freight Plan’s content, layout, recommendations, and implementation. They reviewed and provided comments on technical memoranda and the final Freight Plan as the ‘front-line’ reviewers. The Coordinating Committee consisted of representatives from Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and Rural Planning Organizations (RPO), representatives from North Carolina and South Carolina Departments of Transportation (NCDOT) and (SCDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The members are listed in Table 1.

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 2

Table 1: Coordinating Committee

Name OrganizationJamal Alavi NCDOTTerry Arellano NCDOTLoretta Barren FHWAStuart Basham NCDOTPhil Conrad CRMPOBob Cook CRTPOLinda Dosse NCDOTDoug Frate SCDOTHank Graham GCL MPODavid Gray SCDOTAndy Grzymski CDOTBjorn Hansen GCL MPOChris Herrmann RFATSDavid Hooper RFATSDiane Lackey SCDOTCody Moneymaker WPCOGRobby Moody CRCOGMichelle Nance CCOGAnil Panicker NCDOTAveri Ritchie WPCOGCandice Rorie CRTPODana Stoogenke Rocky River RPO

The Coordinating Committee met eight times throughout the development of the Freight Plan either in person or via webinar. Table 2 lists the timeframe of the Coordinating Committee meetings. For all of the Coordinating Committee meetings, draft technical memoranda and other Freight Plan materials were distributed ahead of time. Meetings were planned around the discussion and review of those materials. All meeting materials and meeting summary notes were posted to the Freight Plan webpage within the CCOG website. The page dedicated to all items related to the Coordinating Committee is located at the following http://www.centralina.org/regional-planning/transportation/freight/coordinating-committee/ .

Table 2: Coordinating Committee Meetings

Meeting No. Topic Date1 Kickoff Meeting June 19, 20152 Data Needs, Existing Conditions September 19, 20153 Existing Conditions Analysis November 17, 20154 Fast Act, Freight Network, Goals & Objectives January 28, 2016

5Land Use Analysis, Critical Rural & Urban Freight Corridors

April 28, 2016

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 3

Meeting No. Topic Date

6Performance Measures, Recommendations Prioritization Framework, Final Freight Plan Outline

August 4, 2016

7 Freight Plan Recommendations September 22, 20168 Final Freight Plan and Implementation October 27, 2016

2.2 STEERING COMMITTEE

The Steering Committee was responsible for the policy level elements of the Freight Plan. They served as advisors to the Coordinating Committee and reviewed their recommendations and findings. Steering Committee meetings were regularly planned to include a combination of a presentation of technical information resulting from the development of the Freight Plan with some interactive discussion or planning exercise, allowing members to provide thoughtful feedback to the remaining elements of the Freight Plan. Members of the Steering Committee are listed in Table 3. The Steering Committee met five times in person during the development of the Freight Plan (see Table 4). Similar to the Coordinating Committee meetings, the Steering Committee meeting summary notes were posted to the Freight Plan webpage within the CCOG website. This was for both reference to those who participated in person and for information for those not able to attend a meeting in person. The Steering Committee webpage is located at http://www.centralina.org/regional-planning/transportation/freight/freight-mobility-steering-committee/.

Table 3: Steering Committee

Name OrganizationSteve Allen York CountyJay Almond Rock River Rural Planning Organization (RRRPO)Terry Arellano NCDOTKelly Atkins Lincoln CountyCharity Barbee Electri-CitiesLoretta Barren Federal Highway AdministrationCliff Brumfield Lincoln Economic Development AuthorityAndrew Bryant Lincoln County Catherine Campbell NC RailroadBrian Carnes Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation StudyCarrie Cook Charlotte Chamber of CommerceShelley DeHart City of BelmontJohn Dillard CSX TransportationBill Dillon CPCCBrian DuPont Town of Mount HollyGreg Edds Rowan CountyCharles Edwards NCDOTNatalie English Charlotte Chamber of CommerceE.L. Faison City of MonroeGregory Fennell NC Ports AuthorityJohn Galles Greater Charlotte Biz

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 4

Name OrganizationTimothy Gibbs City of Charlotte Department of TransportationClifton Goolsby City of Rock HillZac Gordon City of KannapolisDavid Gray SCDOTStuart Hair Charlotte Douglas International AirportEdd Hauser University of North Carolina at CharlotteDonny Hicks Gaston County Economic Development Jessica Hill Centralina Council of GovernmentsRob Hillman CEDCCarl Hollowell Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway CompanyLeslie Johnson Mecklenburg CountyMichael Johnson City of StatesvilleWillie King Gaston CountyDurwood Laughinghouse Norfolk SouthernJoe Lesch Union CountyJoel Long Greater Gaston Development CommissionAllison Love York County GovernmentVi Lyles City of CharlotteMary Mackson NC Ports AuthorityJanet Malkemes Centralina Council of GovernmentsMike Manis Centralina Council of GovernmentsJonathan Marshall Cabarrus CountyEarl Mathers Gaston CountyLawana Mayfield City of Charlotte City CouncilSarah McAualay Centralina FoundationBill McCarter Cleveland CountyLarry Milano Town of BadinRobby Moody Catawba Regional Council of GovernmentsWilliam Morgan Councilman, City of StatesvilleEd Muire Rowan CountyMichelle Nance Centralina Council of GovernmentsSushil Nepal Town of HuntersvilleLeeAnn Nixon Cabarrus Economic DevelopmentDoug Paris, Jr. Town of Midland R. Christopher Plate Monroe Union County Economic DevelopmentJim Prosser Centralina Council of GovernmentsSrinivas Pulugurtha UNCC – Civil and Environmental EngineeringKristin Reese Cleveland County Economic Development PartnershipVictoria Rittenhouse Centralina County of GovernmentsMichael Sandy Stanly CountyHazel Sarmiento UNCC – Center for Transportation Policy StudiesFern Shubert Town of MarshvilleElaine Spalding Rowan County Chamber of CommerceJohn Spencer NC Railroad Company

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 5

Name OrganizationBen Stikeleather Iredell CountyPaul Stratos Stanly County Economic Development CommissionBryan Tarlton City of CharlotteEd Thum Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway CompanyRichard Turner City of BelmontRobert Van Geons Rowan WorksAndrew Ventresca City of StatesvilleJason Wager Centralina Clean Fuels Coalition

Table 4: Steering Committee Meetings

Meeting No. Topic Date

1Introduction to Project, Input on Economic Development and Freight Challenges

September 23, 2015

2 Existing Conditions & Freight Issues Discussion December 10, 20153 Manufacturing Analysis Discussion, Plan Status May 19, 20164 Review Draft Recommendations August 4, 20165 Final Freight Plan October 27, 2016

2.3 FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) was established by identifying members during the Freight Plan development process. The FAC is composed of members of the private sector including firms related to trucking, rail and aviation. The FAC members will assist in the implementation of the Freight Plan once established. The purpose of the FAC is to improve freight operations in the region on an on-going basis and provide the region with a more detailed understanding of freight issues that the region will face in the coming years. The members of the FAC are listed in Table 5. The FAC met twice during the Freight Plan development on April 12, 2016 and November 30, 2016.

Table 5: Freight Advisory Committee

Name OrganizationDonald Arant North Carolina RailroadBill Bartosh Piedmont and Northern RailroadJeff Boothby Woodsmen ForestryStephen Brusso Drake EnterprisesBeverly Cheek Siemens EnergyGrant Cothran Norfolk Southern CorporationSheila Cox Global MatchPaul Cozza NC State Ports AuthorityJohn Dillard CSX TransportationHarold Doctor WalmartWallace Everett Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 6

Name OrganizationStuart Hair Charlotte Douglas International AirportMike Hamilton EPES TransportBuddy Holson NC League of Transportation and LogisticsSean Kelley Bonded LogisticsKevin McDonough Lowe'sKevin Meek Gildan YarnsJohn Ustica Siemens EnergyDaniel Zupko IFF CBA of CharlotteClarence Ponder Walmart

3. CCOG-FHWA FREIGHT MOBILITY PLANNING PEER EXCHANGE

The Planes, Trains, & Semis Peer Exchange was an effort of CCOG and supported by the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Regional Models of Cooperation, an initiative of the “Every Day Counts” (EDC), which promotes innovative collaborative processes that bring together many entities working on common goals across jurisdictional boundaries. The Peer Exchange supported the Greater Charlotte regional freight mobility planning effort which sought to involve the numerous transportation planning organizations, state and local governments, and private sector stakeholders in the Greater Charlotte area in a collaborative effort to develop a regional freight plan.

On November 13, 2015 two peers to the Greater Charlotte Region traveled to Charlotte to present how their regions were using freight planning to strengthen their regional economies and support economic development. Members of the Greater Charlotte Regional Freight Mobility Coordinating, Steering and Advisory Committees and others had an opportunity to hear about the Greater Cincinnati and South Florida regions efforts in freight planning. In addition, the North Carolina and South Carolina Departments of Transportation presented an update on their State Freight Plans. All meeting materials were made available for reference for public information at the CCOG website: http://www.centralina.org/regional-planning/transportation/freight/planes-trains-semis-keeping-a-dynamic-economy-on-the-move/

4. ONLINE SURVEY

A web-based survey was conducted in June-August 2016 using SurveyMonkey® to solicit feedback from trade organizations including the North Carolina Trucking Association, South Carolina Trucking Association and other key freight stakeholders in the region. Stakeholders were identified through contacts within CCOG, the Coordinating Committee and the consulting team. The survey included questions designed to obtain quantifiable data related to the performance and condition of the freight transportation system. A total of fourteen responses were received. The questions and answers are summarized below.

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 7

Question 1: Which of the following best describes your role in the freight industry?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Other*

Railroad

Shipper

Logistics Provider

Dispatch

Transportation Manager

Driver

Number of Respondents

*Other Response 1: Forest Products and Logistics Oversight*Other Response 2: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia Maintenance Manager

Question 2: What most closely represents your operational coverage?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Nationwide

East Coast

Southeast

Charlotte Region Only

Number of Respondents

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 8

Question 3: What percentage of your operating mileage is within the Charlotte Region?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

100%

76-99%

51-75%

26-50%

0-25%

Number of Respondents

Question 4: How are routing decisions made? Select all that apply.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I'm a shipper and decisions made by

carrier

Dispatch designates prior to departing

Dispatch designates and updates through trip

Dashboard GPS

Driver in advance using GPS or other

system

Driver based on experience and

conditions

Number of Respondents

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 9

Question 5: Answer 1 through 5 (1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree)

Generally, trucks and rail cars can efficiently and safely travel in the Charlotte Region.

There are adequate truck parking facilities in the Charlotte Region.

Generally, highway and rail congestion in the Charlotte Region is NOT an issue

Roadway and rail access to industrial parks, distribution centers, manufacturing sites, ports,

and rail yards in the Charlotte Region is relatively efficient.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Agree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Question 6: Please identify up to three most significant freight infrastructure problems in the Charlotte Region (in order of importance)

1st Choice

I-77 congestion Congestion during morning and afternoon rush hour periods is terrible Railroad monopolies Lack of expansion space Not enough rail infrastructure in Gastonia I-85/I-77 Interchange I-77 congestion Traffic congestion along interstates and secondary roads Traffic congestion in and around interstate highways where poor growth plan was projected

20+ years ago Coordination of efforts and funding as a region (hopefully remedied some from this planning) Insufficient infrastructure to handle heavy and wide shipments I-85 and I-485 Interchange during peak travel hours Truck parking Lack of cost effective heavy haul options

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 10

2nd Choice

I-85 congestion Congestion on safe truck routes are heavy most of the day Traffic Need warehouses served by rail in Gastonia area I-77 south of I-85 LTL carrier damage of goods Weather delays Safe truck accessibility to freight corridors Improvement of high traffic rural roads that are currently used but sub-par in total or in

sections Packed highways Bottlenecks Lack of cost effective railroad options to the port

3rd Choice

Traffic in all areas of the Charlotte region is becoming tricky to navigate and adding cost to the shippers

I-85 in Concord area Qualified drivers Shipments misrouted Access to rail and an efficient affordable interchange between the different rail lines Time to get incidents cleared Legal monopoly of the railroads NS and CSX taking advantage of local companies

Question 7: What policies, regulations, costs, or other issues are obstacles to your company in achieving its goals (e.g. land use policies, driver required downtimes, engine braking etc.)?

New toll roads on I-77 will be costly. New ELD requirements will change capacity and availability.

While most of the current driver policies have been good for safety both for the driver and the small vehicle traffic. Some of the rules are hard to understand for the driver and most reduce their pay or increase cost to the shipper. Because of these rules and the pay issues, associated driver shortage is becoming a huge problem. The hours of service regulations seem to be more about make job policies and not about safety. With the current policies, we have more trucks on the road than ever before adding to the traffic issues and cost. If we could increase trailer length and payload we could offset some of the traffic, cost and driver shortage.

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 11

Out of space making it difficult to expand and possible build a CNG station on property. Land use restrictions. Interest from Railroads for new container customers on some of the main rail lines. Log

Trucks are especially targeted by "DOT" Officers. High costs and inability to ship our product to the ports 1. Drivers Required Downtime 2. Construction Delays There are not enough roads period

Question 8: If you could fix two issues to help freight movement in the Charlotte Region, what are they?

1st Issue

I-77 Better traffic flow, possible truck lanes and routes Need a NC port to make large shipments to at a competitive price Traffic congestion Add additional rail spurs in Gastonia Nighttime deliveries Traffic congestion along interstates and secondary roads Complete current roadway projects ASAP. Improved future growth plan, develop safer road

systems Streamline traffic through the interstate corridors. Highway improvements to handle the volume Highway and Rail Infrastructure Easy to use rail corridor to a NC port

2nd Issue

I-85 Heavier pay load with larger trailers, 57 feet vs. 53 Larger rail yard to utilize trains Designated truck lanes Shipments misrouted Remove mentality of Truck Restricted Lanes, but rather Truck Only Lanes (these lanes should

be wider and safer accessibility to on and off ramps, etc.) Improve currently inadequate sections of rural highways. Infrastructure improvements to bridges and rail routes to handle more weight and widths of

product Get the interstate system caught up to the population

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 12

Question 9: What else would you like to tell us?

Regarding Safety: Have Law Enforcement target aggressive drivers to change motorist unsafe behaviors for all drivers

Keep up the great work guys. We build to meet the needs of today's freight and traffic movement. It is important we build

today to meet the freight and traffic movement of tomorrow.

5. TELEPHONE SURVEYS

Telephone surveys were conducted in August, September, and October 2016 with representatives of the freight industry to solicit input on trends and physical barriers which impact freight movement; specific regional freight mobility issues; performance measures, issues of regional coordination and required resources. Eighty names were initially collected including individuals from North and South Carolina, public planning agencies, economic development professionals, transportation agencies, private sector freight shippers, carriers, and transportation intermediaries. All modes were represented in the outreach effort including ports, railroads, air cargo, highway, and freight intermediaries. The timing of these surveys was near the completion of the Freight Plan development and reflected the feedback from the Coordinating Committee, Steering Committee, the Freight Advisory Committee and the initial feedback from the online survey. With this in mind, the survey included interviews with representatives from both the private and public sector to capture both the interests and concerns of the private transportation industry and the public sector’s needs to implement freight recommendations and needs into their local planning efforts and partnerships with the private sector. A total of 25 individuals participated in the telephone survey. Of the 25 individuals, 13 represented the public sector and 12 represented the private sector for the trucking, logistics, port, railroad, retail, and agriculture industries.

5.1 FINDINGS

The issues of travel time reliability, congestion, size and weight regulations, highway geometry, highway condition, signage, multimodal options, bridge restrictions, intermodal connectors and safety were discussed. Respondents were asked to prioritize these issues and comment on the extent of the impact. (Table 6)

Table 6: Telephone Survey Input on Issues

Issue Extent of Impact Priority

Travel Time Reliability Significant HighCongestion Significant HighOversize, Overweight Permits or regulatory issues Industry Specific MediumHighway geometry, turning lanes, highway shoulders, Urban Areas Primarily MediumHighway condition Important Medium Signalization, signage Important Medium

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 13

Issue Extent of Impact Priority

Availability of multimodal options Regional Issue HighBridge restrictions Rural Issue Primarily LowCondition of intermodal connectors Regional Issue HighAvailability of intermodal containers Regional Issue LowSafety Important Medium

The two highest priority issues, with the greatest impact, were congestion and travel time reliability. Safety was also mentioned frequently as an important issue, however many considered their freight network to be generally safe. Multimodal options were highly important and were more commonly mentioned by rural areas. Signage and highway conditions were considered important but were rated as a medium priority. Container availability seemed to be a regional concern along with the condition of intermodal connectors.

5.1.1 TRENDS

ACCESS TO FACILITIES

It was noted that poor land use planning has made it harder to expand freight facilities. Charlotte’s warehouse buildings are limited in their ability to expand. Other competitive regions have larger warehouse facilities. The Charlotte Douglas intermodal facility access was noted as a concern, especially during local highway construction periods. Signalization and turning could be improved on West Blvd.

CONGESTION

There is railroad network congestion in Charlotte which carriers are trying to address. One of the biggest obstacles to congestion is the ability and availability of land to expand. This is an issue with all modes. From a highway perspective, interstate expansion is underway but the construction process is exacerbating the congestion issue. Stakeholders identified the importance of variable messaging signs and other communication methods to get the construction schedule posted. Charlotte is gaining a reputation of congestion, which is hurting site selection and attraction activities for the Economic Development community.

From a highway perspective, the I-85 and I-77 interchange is commonly mentioned as a significant choke point. Travel time in the Greater Charlotte Region was mentioned as highly unreliable, especially during peak congestion times.

TECHNOLOGY

Ramp metering was suggested as an alternative to managing congestion on I-85 until it is widened. Others mentioned a need for truck parking availability on a real-time basis. Incident management needs to improve to reduce delays. It was speculated that technology is available to help improve response times. One respondent indicated the region barely has their “toe in the water” when it comes to technology to support trucks and congestion. It was recommended that truck only and variable toll lanes should be explored in the area.

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 14

TRUCK PARKING

Truck parking is an issue around I-77 and I-85. There is concern that truckers passing through the region are often stranded when the public and fuel station lots are full. From an environmental impact perspective, more APU or truck “plug-in” facilities should be considered. Others mentioned a scarcity of truck parking space as a regional problem along each Interstate.

SAFETY

Rural trucking companies moving raw materials mentioned that many roads have narrow lanes and no shoulders. For example, it was noted that on US 52 this is a serious issue, noting that there have been five fatalities in 4 months. Users expressed concern that funding seems less available in rural areas to address local safety concerns. Lumber trucks speeding in this area have been known to tip over at several sharp curves in the road.

5.1.2 FREIGHT PERFORMANCE MEASURES RECOMMENDED Table 7 summarizes potential performance measures. Respondents were clear about the types of activities which should be measured, but data sources and data collection was less clear. Innovative suggestions included leveraging Big Data, drone surveys and other public information sources for routing software. Regional collaboration measurements were the most difficult to quantify, yet there was general agreement that more regional collaboration goals should be established.

Table 7: Telephone Survey Input on Performance Measures

Mode Measurement Data Source Frequency Economic Competitiveness and Efficiency

Rail Driver In-gates Private terminal Annual Rail Expansion in the area permits Annual Highway 30-mile freight flow snapshot Qualcom/ATRI/Google Annual Highway Number of qualified, licensed drivers State Registration Annual

Highway Accessibility of jobs within 1 hour driving time by population center BLS Annual

Highway Truck Travel delay/compared to population area/competitive regions State data Annual

Air Total tons air cargo/ enplanements FAA Annual Air Delay to and from Air complex Unknown Annual Ports Number of tons/cargo/vessel calls Port Annual All Benchmark cost/mile/mode State data Annual All Benchmark transit time/mile/mode State data Annual All Must be included in Freight Plans State PeriodicAll Job creation and tax base change State data Annual

Safety and Security Rail Grade Crossing Accidents FRA Annual Highway Crash data State Annual Highway Time to clear incidents State Annual Highway Truck accidents and time to clear State Annual

Highway Data is collected but no actions are taken, measure actions to reduce accidents State Annual

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 15

Mode Measurement Data Source Frequency Ports Number of containers examined Unknown Annual All Accidents State and FRA data Annual

Infrastructure Preservation and Maintenance Rail Annual budget AAR State Fact Sheet Annual Highway Pavement Condition State DOT Annual Highway Annual budget State budget Annual Highway Basic highway condition Drone survey Annual Highway Grade all roads State DOT Annual Ports Regional corridor access/funding State DOT Annual

All Age of infrastructure compared to life cycle. Measure years of useful life left Annual

Environmental StewardshipRail Number of rail spurs by County Rail websites Annual

Highway CNG and LNG distribution AFDC Website – Clean Cities database of stations Annual

Highway Parking facilities with APU Property records Annual Ports Parking facilities Property records Annual All Water and Air Quality Measures State and EPA data Annual All Lighting, recycling, place (land use) Unknown Annual All Measure SOX, NOX and PM by region EPA Annual All Storm water management Unknown Annual

Congestion and Reliability Rail Driver turn time in terminals Terminal data Time of dayRail Terminal and line haul capacity Private data Annual Rail Need more rail log landings Railroad website Annual Air Congestion at air complex MPO Annual Highway Commute Times BLS Annual Highway Ave speed/corridor State DOTs Annual Highway Travel time index State DOTs Annual Highway Average traffic speed on Interstate State DOTs Annual

All Base travel time compared to congested travel time hours State DOTs Annual

Performance and Accountability Rail On-time availability Terminal data Annual Rail On-time train departure Terminal data Annual Ports Terminal turn-time Terminal data Annual Air On-time departures FAA Annual Highway State of good repair US DOT Annual Highway On-time delivery (home) UPS, Appliance, Utility Calls Annual

Regional Coordination

MPOs Need to work together on regional freight plans State Plans Periodic

Highway Need regional umbrella for truck size and weight permits State DOTs Annual

All Attendance trends at regional meetings Meeting minutes Annual All Number of multijurisdictional projects State Plans Annual All Development of PPP's State DOTs Annual

Appendix A – Summary of Public Information and Stakeholder Participation

GREATER CHARLOTTE REGIONAL FREIGHT MOBIL ITY PLAN 16

Mode Measurement Data Source Frequency All Create regional dashboards for performance State DOTs Annual All Common processes needed State Coordination Annual All Percent of projects co-funded by jurisdiction State Budget Annual All Shared goals State Plans Periodic

5.2 CONCLUSION

The Charlotte Region’s growth rate has outpaced regional land use and transportation planning, causing congestion and conflicts during peak travel demand periods. Many existing freight facilities are limited by a lack of available land to expand. These factors have contributed to a sprawling urban area where freight movement is intertwined with regional passenger commuting patterns creating daily congestion issues.

Charlotte has many freight assets in air, marine and rail port terminals. Yet the first and last mile tend to be a challenge for truckers to access terminals, especially around the airport where rail and air cargo traffic would benefit from additional turning lanes and improved signalization. Regional planning and regional partnerships are needed to ensure freight traffic moving to and from these terminals benefit from efficient corridor planning.

Congestion and travel time reliability are the two highest priority issues in the region. While safety is important, it was not considered to have a high impact in the region. All agree that more funding is necessary to keep pace with the regional growth patterns. If Charlotte does not address funding and land use issues, there is concern that regional competitors for new businesses and site attraction will overtake Charlotte’s economic position.

Regional planning and collaboration is considered highly important. Performance measures to help the region focus on collaboration include: joint planning and multi-jurisdictional travel demand modeling. An annual measurement of multi-jurisdictional projects may help achieve this regional planning goal.

6. HOW STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK WAS UTILIZED

The feedback gathered from stakeholder meetings, the online survey, and telephone interviews guided and helped refine the Freight Plan. Stakeholder feedback included input on goals, objectives, and performance measures; identification and confirmation of freight needs, issues, and bottlenecks; and prioritizing recommendations. Stakeholder feedback coupled with data analysis ensures the Freight Plan meets the needs of the region to improve freight mobility.