ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION 

April 2009 

Prepared for 

Federal Transit Administration 

By 

Charlotte Area Transit System 

600 East Fourth Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

S.0 Executive Summary ............................................................................................... S-1 

S.1 Purpose and Need for Action............................................................................... S-1 

S.2 Purpose of the EA ................................................................................................. S-4 

S.3 Planning Background and Decision Making History ......................................... S-4 

S.4 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................... S-8 

S.4.1 No-Action Alternative .................................................................................... S-8 

S.4.2 Base Case Alternative .................................................................................. S-9 

S.4.3 Full Build Alternative ..................................................................................... S-9 

S.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences ....................................................... S-9 

S.6 Summary of Transportation Impacts................................................................. S-13 

S.7 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................ S-14 

S.8 Financial Analysis and Investment Impacts ..................................................... S-15 

S.9 Public and Agency Coordination....................................................................... S-16 

1.0 Purpose and Need............................................................................................... 1.1-1 

1.1 Description...........................................................................................................1.1-1 

1.2 Purpose and Need...............................................................................................1.2-7 

1.2.1 CATS 2030 Transit Plan .............................................................................1.2-7 

1.2.2 Accommodate Enhanced Intercity Passenger Rail.....................................1.2-9 

1.2.3 Facilitate a Master Development Plan ......................................................1.2-10 

1.2.4 Purpose and Need Summary....................................................................1.2-11 

2.0 Alternatives Considered...................................................................................... 2.1-1 

2.1 Charlotte Gateway Station Function and Context............................................2.1-1 

2.2 No Action Alternative..........................................................................................2.2-2 

2.3 Base and Full Build Alternatives - Conceptual Development of the 

Charlotte Gateway Station..................................................................................2.3-4 

2.3.1 Design Charette – February 1- 3, 2005 ......................................................2.3-6 

2.3.2 Design Concept ..........................................................................................2.3-6 

2.3.3 Facility Parameters .....................................................................................2.3-6 

2.4 Charlotte Gateway Station Capital Cost Estimate............................................2.4-9 

3.0 Affected Environment and Consequences........................................................... 3.1-1 

3.1 Population, Employment, Land Use, and Government Finance.......................3.1-1 

3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework...............................................................3.1-1 

3.1.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.1-1 

3.1.3 Existing Conditions and Resources ............................................................3.1-2 

Charlotte Gateway Station i EA

3.1.4 Impacts and Benefits ..................................................................................3.1-9 

3.1.5 Mitigation...................................................................................................3.1-12 

3.2 Displacements.......................................................................................................3.2-1 


3.2.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.2-1 


3.2.4 Environmental Impacts and Benefits ..........................................................3.2-2 

3.2.5 Displacement Mitigation..............................................................................3.2-2 

3.3 Neighborhoods......................................................................................................3.3-1 


3.3.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.3-1 



3.3.5 Neighborhood Safety and Security Mitigation.............................................3.3-5 

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality................................................................................3.4-6 


3.4.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.4-6 



3.4.5 Mitigation.....................................................................................................3.4-8 

3.5 Air Quality ..............................................................................................................3.5-1 


3.5.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.5-1 



3.6 Noise ....................................................................................................................3.6-1 


3.6.2 Existing Noise levels ...................................................................................3.6-1 


3.6.4 Noise Mitigation ..........................................................................................3.6-1 

3.7 Ecosystems ...........................................................................................................3.7-1 


3.7.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.3 Terrestrial Ecology ......................................................................................3.7-2 

3.7.4 Waters of the United States (Including Wetlands) and Riparian Ecology ...3.7-4 

3.7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species ...........................................................3.7-6 

3.7.6 Special or Unique Habitats .........................................................................3.7-8 

3.8 Water Resources and Floodplains/Floodways...................................................3.8-1 


3.8.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.8-1 


3.8.4 Environmental Consequences ....................................................................3.8-6 

3.8.5 Mitigation.....................................................................................................3.8-7 

3.9 Energy ....................................................................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.1 Regulatory Framework................................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.2 Methodology ...............................................................................................3.9-1 


3.9.4 Mitigation.....................................................................................................3.9-2 

Charlotte Gateway Station ii EA

3.10 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources ....................................3.10-1 

3.10.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework.............................................................3.10-1 

3.10.2 Methodology .............................................................................................3.10-1 

3.10.3 Existing Resources ...................................................................................3.10-2 

3.10.4 Environmental Impacts and Benefits ........................................................3.10-4 

3.10.5 Coordination and Mitigation ......................................................................3.10-4 

3.11 Parks and Recreation Areas...............................................................................3.11-1 


3.11.2 Methodology .............................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.3 Existing Conditions and Resources ..........................................................3.11-1 


3.11.5 Coordination and Mitigation ......................................................................3.11-2 

3.12 Hazardous Materials/Underground Storage Tanks..........................................3.12-1 


3.12.2 Methodology .............................................................................................3.12-1 



3.12.5 Mitigation...................................................................................................3.12-7 

3.13 Secondary & Cumulative Impacts .....................................................................3.13-1 


3.13.2 Methodology .............................................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.3 Description of Secondary Development....................................................3.13-1 

3.13.4 Secondary Impacts: Mitigation..................................................................3.13-5 

3.13.5 Description of Cumulative Effects of Regional Activities...........................3.13-5 

3.13.6 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................3.13-7 

3.13.7 Cumulative Impacts: Mitigation .................................................................3.13-9 

3.13.8 Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ......................3.13-9 

3.13.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources........................3.13-9 

3.13.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................3.13-9 

3.14 Construction Impacts .........................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.1 Land Use...................................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.2 Displacements ..........................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.3 Neighborhood and Community .................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.4 Visual and Aesthetics................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.5 Air Quality .................................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.6 Noise and Vibration...................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.7 Ecosystems...............................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.8 Water Resources ......................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.9 Energy Use ...............................................................................................3.14-3 

3.14.10 Historic and Cultural Resources ...............................................................3.14-3 

3.14.11 Parks.........................................................................................................3.14-3 

3.14.12 Construction Mitigation .............................................................................3.14-3 

3.15 Environmental Justice........................................................................................3.15-1 


3.15.2 Methodology .............................................................................................3.15-1 



Charlotte Gateway Station iii EA

4.0 Transportation .................................................................................................... 4.1-1 

4.1 Transportation.......................................................................................................4.1-1 

4.2 Trip making Characteristic...................................................................................4.2-2 

4.2.1 Existing Transit Level of Service/ Geographic Coverage............................4.2-2 

4.2.2 Planned Improvement in Level of Service ..................................................4.2-3 

4.3 Traffic Analysis......................................................................................................4.3-4 

4.3.1 Methodology ...............................................................................................4.3-4 

4.3.2 Existing Conditions .....................................................................................4.3-5 

4.3.3 Future Plan with the Charlotte Gateway Station .........................................4.3-5 

4.3.4 Year 2010 and 2030 Consequences ..........................................................4.3-9 

4.3.5 Traffic Impact Mitigation............................................................................4.3-11 

4.4 Other Modes ........................................................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.1 Impacts to Freight .....................................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.2 Amtrak Service..........................................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.3 Bike Routes and Greenways ....................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.4 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.....................................................4.4-12 

4.4.5 Intercity Bus Service .................................................................................4.4-13 

4.5 Compatibility........................................................................................................4.5-13 

4.5.1 Compatibility with MPO Transportation Plans...........................................4.5-13 

4.5.2 Compatibility with Railroad Improvement Plans........................................4.5-13 

4.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal and Intermodal Center Plans.....................4.5-13 

4.5.4 Compatibility with Bike Routes and Greenways .......................................4.5-13 

4.6 Construction Impacts .......................................................................................4.6-14 

4.6.1 Vehicular/ Passenger Traffic Impacts .......................................................4.6-14 

4.6.2 Freight Rail Impacts ..................................................................................4.6-14 

4.6.3 Construction Impact Mitigation..................................................................4.6-14 

5.0 References.................................................................................................... 5.1 

6.0 List of Preparers .......................................................................................... 6.1 

7.0 Letters (Charlotte Zoning, FRA and NCDCR) ............................................ 7.1 

8.0 Public Comments......................................................................................... 8.1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table S.5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts................................................. S-11 

Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects................................................................................ S-12 

Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation..................................................................................... S-14 

Table S.8-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Alternative (Mid-Point of Construction dollars)..... S-15 

Table 2.4-1 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Full Build Alternative ..................................2.4-10 

Table 2.4-2 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Base Build Alternative................................2.4-12 

Table 3.1-1. Population Trends and Projections..................................................................3.1-2 

Charlotte Gateway Station iv EA

Table 3.1-2. Employment Trends and Projections...............................................................3.1-3 

Table 3.1-3. Land Use Acreage...........................................................................................3.1-7 

Table 3.1-4. Study Area Tax Rates .....................................................................................3.1-9 

Table 3.1-5. Projected Elderly Population Adjacent To Proposed CGS ............................3.1-10 

Table 3.1-6. Projected Transit Dependent Population Adjacent To Proposed CGS .........3.1-10 

Table 3.1-7. Government Finance Impacts by CGS..........................................................3.1-11 

Table 3.3-1. 2004/2005 Crime Statistics for Municipalities in Project Area .........................3.3-2 

Table 3.5-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..........................................................3.5-2 

Table 3.6-1. Summary of Projected Future Noise Impacts at the CGS ...............................3.6-1 

Table 3.7-1. Federal-Listed Protected Species by County ..................................................3.7-7 

Table 3.7-2. State-Listed Protected Species by County......................................................3.7-7 

Table 3.8-1. Surface Water Resources of the Bi-County Area............................................3.8-2 

Table 3.10-1. NRHP Listed or Eligible Historic Architectural Properties in 

Project APE ...................................................................................................3.10-2 

Table 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Material Sites ...............................................................3.12-6 

Table 3.12-2. Potential Hazardous Material Sites Near NCCR Stations .............................3.12-7 

Table 3.13-1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development in the Project Area..........................3.13-1 

Table 3.13-2 CGS Secondary Effects ................................................................................3.13-4 

Table 3.13-3 Mitigation Measures for Secondary Impacts .................................................3.13-5 

Table 3.15-1. Access to Stations for Minority and Low-Income Communities.....................3.15-5 

Table 4.2-1. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections........................................................4.3-4 

Table 4.2-2: Existing Conditions Analysis Results...............................................................4.3-5 

Table 4.2-3: On-Site At-Grade Parking Totals.....................................................................4.3-6 

Table 4.2-4: 2010 Build Year Scenario LOS Results.........................................................4.3-10 

Table 4.2-5: 2010 Curbside Approach Link Delay and Speed Comparison ......................4.3-11 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure S.1-1. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station........................................... S-3 

Figure S.3-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map...................................................................... S-6 

Figure S.3-2: South East High speed Rail Corridor................................................................. S-8 

Figure 1.1-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Project Site ...........................................................1.1-3 

Figure 1.1-2. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station.........................................1.1-5 

Figure 1.1-3. Access and Circulation at the Charlotte Gateway Station...............................1.1-6 

Figure 1.2-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map....................................................................1.2-8 

Charlotte Gateway Station v EA

Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Transit/Rail Services.........................................................2.2-3 

Figure 2.3-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Design Concept....................................................2.3-5 

Figure 3.1-1. Percent of Population 65 and Older ................................................................3.1-4 

Figure 3.1-2. Percent of Population Transit Dependent........................................................3.1-5 

Figure 3.1-3. Generalized Existing Land Use .......................................................................3.1-6 

Figure 3.3-1. Neighborhoods, Communities, and Station Areas...........................................3.3-3 

Figure 3.3-2. Community Facilities and Resources ..............................................................3.3-4 

Figure 3.7-1. Affected Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitat ........3.7-3 

Figure 3.7-2. Affected Waters of the United States (including Wetlands).............................3.7-5 

Figure 3.8-1: Affected Streams.............................................................................................3.8-3 

Figure 3.8-2: Affected Stream Buffers ..................................................................................3.8-5 

Figure 3.10-1. Historic Architectural Resources ...................................................................3.10-3 

Figure 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites .............................................................3.12-4 

Figure 3.15-1. Minority Areas ...............................................................................................3.15-2 

Figure 3.15-2. Low-Income Areas ........................................................................................3.15-3 

Figure 4.0-1: Site Location Map............................................................................................4.1-1 

Figure 4.0-2: Site Plan Schematic ........................................................................................4.1-2 

Figure 4.1-1: CATS Transit Routing in Center City Charlotte ...............................................4.2-3 

Figure 4.2-1: At-Grade Parking Displacements ....................................................................4.3-7 

Figure 4.2-2: CGS Bus Route Circulation.............................................................................4.3-8 

Figure 4.2-3: Parking Deck and Greyhound Terminal Circulation ........................................4.3-9 

Charlotte Gateway Station vi EA

PREFACE 

Table of Contents 

S.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................S-1 

S.1 Purpose and Need for Action......................................................................... S-1 

S.2 Purpose of the EA ........................................................................................... S-4 

S.3 Planning Background and Decision Making History ................................... S-4 

S.4 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................. S-8 

S.4.1 No-Action Alternative .............................................................................. S-8 

S.4.2 Base Case Alternative............................................................................. S-9 

S.4.3 Full Build Alternative ............................................................................... S-9 

S.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences ................................................. S-9 

S.6 Summary of Transportation Impacts........................................................... S-13 

S.7 Mitigation Summary ...................................................................................... S-14 

S.8 Financial Analysis and Investment Impacts ............................................... S-15 

S.9 Public and Agency Coordination................................................................. S-16 

List of Tables 

Table S.5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts............................................. S-11 

Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects............................................................................ S-12 

Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation................................................................................. S-14 

Table S.8-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Alternative (Mid-Point of Construction dollars) . S-15 

List of Figures 

Figure S.1-1. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station...................................... S-3 

Figure S.3-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map ................................................................ S-6 

Figure S.3-2: South East High speed Rail Corridor ........................................................... S-8 


S.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This chapter summarizes the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Charlotte Gateway 

Station (CGS) Project, and details the project goals and objectives, the project planning 

context and the environmental consequences associated with the project. 

S.1 Purpose and Need for Action 

The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in cooperation with the City of Charlotte and the 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division, has proposed the 

development of CGS, a six-acre, multi-modal transportation facility that would serve as a 

centralized downtown transportation hub for CATS bus, commuter rail, streetcar, and other 

rapid transit operations, as well as for Amtrak intercity passenger rail and Greyhound bus 

service. CGS would also serve as a major intercity passenger rail stop along the Atlanta to 

Washington Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. 

Construction of the CGS project is intended to fulfill three primary goals in the transportation 

and land use development plans of the City of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina. 

The three goals are: 

1. Transit Hub – CGS will serve as a centralized multimodal station that supports the 

transportation services included in regional 2030 Transit Plan, thereby increasing transit 

ridership, helping to manage congestion on the region’s roads, and helping to facilitate 

attainment of regional air quality goals. This includes: enhanced CATS local and 

express buses service, commuter rail service to the North Mecklenburg Towns of 

Huntersville, Cornelius and Davidson and the Iredell County Town of Mooresville; a 

station stop for the Charlotte Streetcar operating between Eastland Mall and Beatty’s 

Ford Road; and the West and Southeast rapid transit corridors with service west to the 

airport and east to the Town of Matthews. 

2. Intercity Rail Station – CGS will accommodate NCDOT Rail Division’s vision to improve 

existing and proposed intercity passenger rail including future intercity high speed rail. 

This includes relocation of the Charlotte Amtrak intercity passenger rail station from its 

current location two miles north of the Center City to CGS, as well as construction of the 

rail infrastructure necessary for this relocation and to enhance capacity for additional 

frequencies. 

3. Major Employment Center – CGS will be a component of a long range private-public 

master development that integrates and complements a mix of residential, commercial, 

retail and transportation infrastructure in Center City Charlotte. In addition to the CGS 

site, NCDOT owns some 20 adjacent acres of property along the NS tracks. NCDOT 

seeks to ensure that all of its property is developed in a complementary, transit 

supportive way that positively contributes to the development of Center City Charlotte. It 

intends to seek a Master Developer to devise a Master Plan for a combined privatepublic 

program that includes CGS and complementary office, retail and residential 

development. Such development will provide a revenue stream to fund NCDOT costs 

associated with relocation of Amtrak and maintenance of CGS. 

While well served today by various regional and local transportation modes, Charlotte lacks 

a centralized hub for accessing and transferring to and from these modes. CATS operates 

the Charlotte Transportation Center (CTC), served by most of its local and regional express 

Charlotte Gateway Station S-1 EA

uses. Amtrak provides intercity rail service south to Atlanta and north to New York. The 

Charlotte Amtrak station operates two miles away at a Norfolk Southern (NS) rail yard. 

Greyhound, with a large regional network of service, operates from a downtown facility 

located at Trade and Graham Streets (the future CGS site), some five blocks from the CTC. 

In all cases, existing facilities have become inadequately sized for the growth in 

transportation services that is currently taking place and is expected to accelerate in the 

coming years. The lack of easy connectivity between the modes seriously undermines the 

efficiency and use of the region’s public transportation system. 

With the advent of new CATS rapid transit to Charlotte, and the proposed expansion of 

intercity rail service through operation of additional Charlotte-Raleigh and regional highspeed 

trains, a centralized multimodal facility is required in downtown Charlotte. By 2030, 

the new station is expected to daily serve the needs of some 4,600 commuter rail 

passengers, 2,000 daily Greyhound passengers, 800 Amtrak passengers, and some 

50,000-60,000 local bus, street car and transit riders. 

CGS will be a significant public-private development, providing access to local and regional 

public transportation and including substantial public parking, retail and office space. 

Through complementary development of adjacent NCDOT-owned property, the project is 

likely to include substantial residential and other mixed use opportunities as defined through 

a Master Plan. CGS’s proposed location between the NS main line tack and Graham Street 

and between 4 th and Trade Streets is within walking distance of much of the business district 

in downtown Charlotte, headquarters to three Fortune 100 firms and the second largest 

banking center in the United States. CGS would also be connected by bus and streetcar to 

the CTC, the existing bus terminal and the hub for Charlotte’s new light rail system. The 

area immediately around the CGS is currently home to Gateway Village, a Bank of America 

office complex that includes 1.2 million square feet of office space, the new Johnson & 

Wales University, Bank of America football stadium (Carolina Panthers), and other large 

business and office complexes. A substantial number of downtown residents also live 

adjacent to the proposed station in the historic Third and Fourth Wards. 

The specific facilities and services included in the proposed Full-Build CGS, inclusion of 

which are consistent with current Charlotte zoning for the CGS site (as well as a Transit- 

Supportive overlay district), include the following: 

• Intercity Passenger Rail Station – Charlotte’s existing Amtrak train station would be 

relocated to the CGS and provide controlled access to the intercity passenger train 

platforms built along the NS mainline tracks. The Amtrak component of the CGS would 

include passenger drop-off, ticketing, baggage services and a waiting room, as well as 

new passenger platforms and tracks. 

• CATS Bus Operations – enhanced bus facilities along 4 th , Graham and Trade Street, 

with the possibility of a below-grade facility, would serve Express, airport and local 

buses. Other improvements at the existing CTC would enhance the ability of the CATS 

bus network to accommodate significant future ridership growth. 

• North Corridor Commuter Rail – with up to 38 daily trains between Charlotte and 

Mooresville. Platforms will be located on the west side of the NS mainline tracks 

extending over and providing access to 4 th and Trade Streets. This will include a new 

55-foot wide bridge over 4 th Street and a new 40-foot wide bridge over Trade Street to 

support the platforms and station tracks. 


Figure S.1-1. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station 

• Greyhound Bus Depot and Parking Deck – replacing the existing Greyhound facility 

located on the CGS site. The new facility would be built on adjacent property between 

3 rd and 4 th Streets and include 12 bays, at grade with waiting area and food services for 

Greyhound patrons. A parking deck would be provided above the Greyhound depot with 

capacity for approximately 750 spaces. The Greyhound depot would be physically 

connected to the CGS with a skyway over 4 th Street. Architectural treatment of the 

Greyhound depot and the parking deck would be consistent with and compliment the 

aesthetics of CGS. 


• Charlotte Street Car – operating along Trade Street with service every 5 -10 minutes. 

The Streetcar system would eventually extend from Eastland Mall, five miles to the east, 

to the Rosa Parks Place transit Center along Beatty’s Ford Road. Additional service 

would extend from CGS to the Charlotte Douglas Airport, eight miles to the west, as part 

of the West Corridor transit program. 

• Southeast Corridor – rapid transit from the Town of Matthews, 12 miles to the east, 

along the Southeast Corridor, currently planned as a BRT system, would serve the CGS 

on either Graham or Trade Streets. 

• Gateway Plaza – a public plaza to serve as a focal point for a mix of travelers, residents, 

workers and students. The plaza would include a variety of retail, public art and access 

to the various transportation facilities. 

• Private mixed-use development including air rights is envisioned on the CGS site. In 

addition, substantial complementary privately-funded mixed-used development will be 

constructed on adjacent NCDOT-owned property consistent with a Master Plan to be 

developed by NCDOT and Charlotte. 

S.2 Purpose of the EA 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and regulations and 

guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), this EA evaluates the social, 

economic, environmental, and transportation impacts that would result from implementation 

of CGS. The EA includes: 

• Analysis necessary to identify the social, economic, environmental, and transportation 

impacts of implementing CGS, as compared to the no-action alternative and a minimalaction 

base case; 

• Opportunities to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts; 

• Projected project costs; 

The No-Action Alternative consists of the existing transportation facilities, plus committed 

transportation improvements, including projects under construction, projects in the State 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning 

Organization’s (MUMPOs) Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and bus service 

improvements to which area transit providers have made financial commitments. The 

minimal-action base case includes facilities to accommodate NCCR service and on-street 

transit service. 

S.3 Planning Background and Decision Making History 

Planning for a multimodal station in Center City Charlotte has advanced on two separate 

fronts – as an integral component of the Charlotte regional transit program and separately 

as a key intercity rail passenger facility for current Amtrak service and future Southeast High 

Speed Rail service. The NCDOT began acquiring property for station development in 1998. 

Property acquisition totaling 27 acres was completed in February 2004. A 2002 feasibility 

study examined seven different station design options and eight different track layouts. 

Eighty-four meetings were held with various stakeholders, both public and private, to assist 


in the development of the conceptual plan. The MPO has supported the concept of a new 

multi-modal facility in Charlotte throughout the NCDOT feasibility process. The CGS is a 

major transit component in the most recently adopted MPO LRTP (2005) and funding to 

support construction is listed in the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 

Transit Hub: Over the past decade, local elected officials and planners in Charlotte and 

Mecklenburg County have focused on developing a fundamental, broad-based approach to 

addressing transportation and land use issues resulting from the large population growth 

that began in the 1990s. Population is expected to nearly double between 2000 and 2030. 

Efforts have centered on encouraging land use development that sustains the economic 

growth and vitality of the region, promotes use of public transportation, and protects, 

sustains and grows local communities and neighborhoods. In 1994, the City completed a 

visionary report entitled “Centers and Corridors,” which recommended building rapid transit 

corridors into Charlotte as a means to address congestion and focus regional population 

growth. This was followed in 1998 with a comprehensive guide for transportation and land 

use development, called the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land-Use Plan. The plan incorporated 

technical analysis, public outreach, and extensive hands-on public involvement to develop 

long-term recommendations for shaping the region’s growth. 

To fund implementation of this plan, Mecklenburg County voters were asked to endorse a 

one-half cent increase in the local sales tax. In November 1998, 58 percent of the voters 

took the extraordinary step of approving the sales tax increase, which generates an average 

of $65 million annually to fund the costs of the existing transit system and to fund the local 

share of future rapid transit corridor programs. 

Following approval of the sales tax increase, the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) 

identified five rapid transit corridors deemed essential to achieving the desired land use and 

transportation objectives of the region, along with a new multimodal facility in Center City 

Charlotte. The MTC directed that a Major Investment Study (MIS) be completed for each of 

the corridors, analyzing alternative transit improvements and developing the information 

required to recommend corridor alignments and technology. 

In November 2002, the MTC adopted the System Corridor Plan. The Plan recommended a 

comprehensive, integrated system of improvements in the five transit corridors and Center 

City Charlotte and construction of a multimodal station to support the land use and mobility 

objectives within available financial resources. This plan was updated in November of 2006, 

when the MTC approved the CATS 2030 Corridor System Plan. It establishes the 

scheduling and prioritization of the CATS rapid transit program and defines the set of transit 

modes that would serve the CGS facility. A schematic of all of CATS rapid transit corridors 

is provided in Figure S.3-1. CGS would serve four of these corridors: 

• NCCR, the LYNX Purple Line – an eleven station commuter rail line that would terminate 

at CGS in the south and extend for approximately 25 miles north to Mount Mourne, with 

future service to downtown Mooresville, some 5 miles further to the north. Some 4,500 

commuters are expected to use the trains each day. 

• The Southeast Corridor, the LYNX Silver Line – an eleven station, 13-mile BRT system 

would terminate at CGS. In excess of 17,000 passengers are expected to use 

Southeast Corridor buses each day. 


Figure S.3-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map 


• The Charlotte Streetcar Corridor – a 10 mile “Portland” type electric streetcar operating 

on embedded rails in the streets serving the central business district and adjoining 

neighborhoods along Beatties Ford Road, Trade Street, Elizabeth Avenue, Hawthorne 

Lane and Central Avenue. When completed, the streetcar system will carry some 

16,000 daily passengers. 

• The West Corridor, the LYNX Orange Line – an initial enhanced bus service from Center 

City Charlotte to Charlotte Douglas International Airport beginning in year 2008. The 

system would be replaced by a street car beginning in 2019. This system would 

terminate at the CGS and the airport and would incorporate a fixed guideway from the 

CGS to Ashley Road along Morehead Drive and Wilkinson Boulevard. 

Intercity Rail Facility: The NCDOT Rail Division has spearheaded an effort over the past 

decade to relocate Amtrak service to downtown Charlotte from its current inadequate facility 

two miles to the north. As part of this effort, NCDOT has acquired approximately 27 acres of 

property along the east side of the NS mainline freight tracks between 3 rd and 9 th Streets to 

accommodate freight and passenger rail track alignment improvements necessary to serve 

CGS, as well as the property required for CGS itself and the new Greyhound facility. 

A new downtown Charlotte Amtrak station is an integral part of NCDOT’s efforts to enhance 

statewide intercity rail service, as well as lead the regional effort to implement high-speed 

rail service in the Southeast from Atlanta to Washington. NCDOT has completed upgrades 

to or rebuilt some 14 passenger rail stations across the state served by Amtrak; Charlotte 

remains the last major station to be upgraded. Amtrak service currently consists of the 

state-supported Charlotte – Raleigh – New York Carolinian and the Charlotte – Raleigh 

Piedmont, as well as the Washington – Atlanta – New Orleans Crescent. NCDOT 

anticipates adding a second Piedmont frequency in the near-term and has proposed as 

many as six daily Charlotte-Raleigh trains operating in as little as two hours thirty minutes. 

NCDOT, in cooperation with Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, is leading efforts to 

implement the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, with frequent, high-speed service 

connecting Atlanta (and possibly Birmingham to the South) with Charlotte, Raleigh, 

Richmond and Washington, DC. The corridor is officially designated as a high-speed rail 

corridor by the US Department of Transportation. In 2002, a Record of Decision for the Tier 

1 (programmatic) Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast High Speed Rail 

Corridor was issued. That document included construction of a new Charlotte multimodal 

facility to serve as a major regional transportation hub connecting intercity rail with other 

local and regional public transportation. Subsequently, this EA represents the second tier 

of environmental documentation for the Charlotte multimodal component of the Southeast 

High Speed Rail Corridor. 

In 2002, NCDOT completed a feasibility study (Feasibility Study for the Charlotte Multimodal 

Station and Area Track Improvements) detailing the NS and CSX track improvements 

required to relocate Amtrak to CGS and enhance local freight service, as well as site and 

facility plans for CGS. Since then, discussions have continued with the NS and CSX to 

update and to fund implementation of these plans. In addition, NCDOT now owns nearly all 

the property required to relocate Amtrak to CGS and to construct the CGS. 


Figure S.3-2: South East High speed Rail Corridor 

S.4 Alternatives Considered 

The Alternatives considered in this EA include a No-Action Alternative, a Transportation 

Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, and a Full-Build alternative. Each alternative is 

briefly described below. 

S.4.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, CGS would not be constructed. However, some transit 

services, e.g., bus and streetcar stops, likely would be constructed separate from CGS. 

Thus, the site likely will be served by future transportation even if CGS is not built to 

integrate and enhance the benefits from these varied uses. Year 2030 No-Action transit and 

passenger rail facilities include: 

• Existing transit routes and schedules currently operated by CATS. 


• Other new bus services to which CATS has committed. 

• New bus services to serve areas that would be developed by 2030. 

• The LYNX Blue Line (South Corridor) Light Rail, with stations east of CGS, in service 

November 2007. 

• TSM-level improvements in the other rapid transit corridors. 

• Routine replacement of existing facilities and equipment at the end of their useful life. 

• The NCCR, LYNX Purple Line by 2012. 

• The Northeast Light Rail, LYNX Blue Line Extended by 2014. 

• The Southeast Corridor, LYNX Silver Line by 2026. 

• The West Corridor Phase I, LYNX Orange Line by 2029. 

• The Charlotte Streetcar, by 2023. 

The No-Action Alternative provides the underlying base-case for comparing the travel 

benefits and environmental impacts of the other alternatives. It also is an alternative itself. 

While it has no environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the build 

alternatives, it also offers none of their travel or land use benefits. 

S.4.2 Base Case Alternative 

The Base Build Alternative represents the minimum investment at the CGS site to provide 

for the services included in the No-Action alternative as well as platforms to facilitate NCCR 

service. Commuter trains would stop on the west side of the NS tracks but would be 

minimally connected to the other modes of public transportation. There would be no retail or 

offices integrated into the plaza and station buildings. There would be no on-site air rights 

development. 

S.4.3 Full Build Alternative 

The Full Build Alternative would add over 200,000 square feet of retail, office and future air 

rights development, integrated to provide scale, functional connectivity with the public 

transportation facilities, and a critical mass of activities and markets to support a dynamic, 

vibrant urban setting. Full development of the NCDOT property adjacent to the CGS could 

add as much as one million square feet of additional mixed use development. Future 

development sites (currently surface parking lots) south and north of the CGS will be 

developed pursuant to a master development plan to be pursued by the state in cooperation 

with Charlotte and the County. The master development plan will compliment and support a 

mixed use (employment, residential and retail) community that can be served by the 

transportation amenities of the CGS. 

S.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences 

This section summarizes the potential environmental consequences of the No-Action 

Alternative, Base Alternative, and Full Build Alternative. In this EA, the Base Alternative has 

the same social, economic and environmental impacts as the No-Action Alternative and is 

therefore presented along with the No-Action Alternative for the assessment of impacts. 


A number of environmental impacts for each alternative were evaluated with the purpose of 

preserving and protecting the environment within the North Corridor. The following key 

findings were made: 

• Land Use: The CGS is part of an ongoing effort by the City of Charlotte and the region 

to support land use activities that promote “walkable” communities. Charlotte’s TOD 

zoning district, which includes the area within ½ mile of the CGS, is intended to create a 

compact and high intensity mix of residential, office, retail, institutional, and civic uses 

that will promote and depend on the high potential for enhanced transit and pedestrian 

activity. Pedestrian circulation and transit access are especially important and have an 

increased emphasis in the TOD zoning districts. The uses anticipated for CGS – 

transportation facilities and transit supportive mixed-use development, are consistent 

with both the current zoning classification (UMUDD) and a Transit Supportive (TS) 

overlay district. 

• Population: The number of residents within 1/2 mile of CGS will increase nearly six-fold 

from 2,368 in 2000 to 13,565 by 2030. 

• Employment: Employment within ½ mile of CGS will increase 62 percent from 22,862 

employees in 2000 to 36,973 employees. 

• Residential and Business Displacements: Greyhound would be the only business or 

residence displaced by CGS. However, Greyhound will be provided a new depot as part 

of the CGS program. 

• Air Quality: The CGS supports the guiding principle of the System Corridor Plan to 

improve air quality. It supports the reduction of vehicular traffic at the regional (CATS), 

state (Amtrak), and national (Amtrak/High Speed Rail) level. The project would help 

reduce pollutants and conforms to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality 

conformance and the goals set forth in the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Final Conformity Rule. 

• Noise & Vibration: The amount of additional noise and vibration from passenger trains 

and other CGS activities is projected to have no significant adverse impact to the 

surrounding area. 

• Water Resources: There would be no impacts on water resources. 

• Cultural, Historic & Archeological: The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) found 

that the project would have no adverse effect on any resource. 

• Hazardous Materials: Soil and ground water contamination has been identified on the 

CGS site. This will require additional environmental investigation, such as soil and/or 

groundwater sampling. Special measures, as appropriate, would be implemented during 

construction to mitigate adverse impacts. 

• Construction: Since most of the site is comprised of surface parking lots, the 

construction of the CGS will have little impact on adjacent or nearby structures. 


Table S.5-1 presents a summary of the possible environmental impacts identified for the No- 

Action/Base Case Alternative and the Full Build Alternative. 

Table S.5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts 

Impact Areas 

No-Action and Base Case 

Alternatives 

Full Build 

Alternative 

TRAFFIC 

Number of Degraded Intersections 

(PM) (LOS E or F)/Total 

Intersections 

LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES 

0/8 0/8 

Consistency with local plans No Yes 

Transit Supportive Development 

Polices 

Zoning Codes in place, but no 

application of Transit Overlay District 

Zone 

Parkland 

DISPLACEMENTS 

None None 

Residences 0 0 

Businesses 

COMMUNITY SERVICES 

0 1 

Disruption of Access None None 

Emergency Service Interruption 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

None None 

Impacts to Target Populations 

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT 

No improved mobility and access to 

jobs under the No-Action Alternative. 

Increased mobility and access to 

jobs under the TSM Alternative. 

Improved 

mobility and 

access to jobs 

2030 Population Served 

Within ½ mile of Stations 

None 13,565 

2030 Employment Served 

Within ½ mile of Stations 

VISUAL AND AESTHETICS 

None 36,973 

New visual elements not in 

character with corridor 

AIR QUALITY 

No No 

Conformity with Regional Plan No Yes 

Creation of CO Hot Spots No No 

Reduction in VMT 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

No Yes 

Noise without Train Horn (# sites) N/A N/A 

Noise with Train Horn (# sites) N/A N/A 

Vibration (# sites) N/A N/A 

Charlotte Gateway Station S-11 EA 

Yes

Table S.5-1. Summary of Potential Environmental Impacts (continued) 

Impact Areas 

No-Action and Base Case 

Alternatives 

Full Build 

Alternative 

ENVIRONMENT 

Endangered Species None None 

Farmlands None None 

Terrestrial Plant Communities 

and Associated Wildlife 

Habitat 

None None 

Floodplains None None 

Groundwater Potential Contamination Treatment TBD 

Surface Waters (linear feet) None None 

Wetlands (acres) None None 

Contaminated Soils Potential Contamination Treatment TBD 

HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Possible Adverse Impact None None 

Archaeological Resources None None 

The potential positive and negative secondary effects of the NCCR alternative are 

summarized in Table S.5-2. 

Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects 

Potential Positive Secondary Effects 

� Transportation and Traffic 

o Improved mobility options and accessibility 

o Potential that some drivers would switch to transit 

o Reduced commute times 

� Quality of life 

o Reduced urban sprawl by concentrating growth around infrastructure 

o Options to avoid stress of commuting via personal auto 

� Economics 

o Increased sales tax revenues 

o Increased property values - increased tax base and revenues 

o Sustainable economic development 

o Increased efficiencies in service delivery due to increased concentration 

of development 

o Increased employment opportunities 

� Environmental Justice 

o Increased mobility for transit-dependent residents 

� Neighborhoods 

o Infill and redevelopment opportunities of underutilized properties 

o Improved access to parks, recreation centers, and entertainment venues 

� Air Quality 

o Reduced pollution 

� Natural Resources 

o Conservation of land and natural resources 


Table S.5-2. NCCR Secondary Effects (continued) 

Potential Negative Secondary Effects 

� Traffic and Transportation 

o Increased traffic from induced development 

� Quality of Life 

o Public opposition to dense development patterns near neighborhoods 

o Aesthetics of stations and station area development 

� Economics 

o Strain on infrastructure to support station area plans 

� Environmental Justice 

o Market demand for housing near transit may reduce affordable housing 

o Redevelopment could displace of low income persons 

� Historic Resources 

o Destruction/redevelopment of historic properties 

� Natural Resources 

o Loss of habitat for terrestrial natural communities 

S.6 Summary of Transportation Impacts 

The CGS project would add a major multimodal transportation facility to Center City 

Charlotte. By bringing together local, regional and intercity transportation modes in a single 

complex, it would readily facilitate convenient connections between modes and substantially 

enhance transportation choices. A traveler living in Davidson would be able to take a 

commuter train to CGS and walk to his or her job, connect by bus (and eventually street car) 

to the airport, ride Greyhound to Nashville or take Amtrak to Raleigh or Atlanta. 

Greyhound already is located at the future CGS site, which currently includes on-site 

parking for customers. Service levels are not expected to substantially increase. Relocation 

of Amtrak service to CGS is projected to generate a need for less than 75 daily parking 

spaces. 

Mixed use development of CGS and the adjacent NCDOT property would generate parking 

requirements for employees, residents and visitors. These likely would be accommodated in 

one or more parking decks. The CGS site and other NCDOT property current are used for 

surface parking lots and accommodate over 1,000 vehicles. As a result, conversion of the 

surface parking lots to mixed use development supported by parking decks is not projected 

to result in significant parking needs that cannot be accommodated on-site.. 

Completion of such a large multimodal transportation facility as the CGS and adjacent mixed 

use development will increase the amount of traffic operating along surrounding streets and 

will require re-routing of traffic movement to accommodate buses, potential “streetcar” and 

“commuter rail” integration into the station. The opening year (2010) traffic analysis shows 

that the signalized intersections will continue to operate at a decent level of service (LOS “D” 

or better). However, in the future (2030), levels of service at most of these intersections will 

degrade to unacceptable levels and show signs of congestion. 

Although intersections operate at LOS F in 2030, traffic volumes are lower and operations 


are improved in the downtown area with increased transit service. Transit will be an 

increasingly used alternative available to commuters wanting to avoid traffic congestion. 

Increased congestion is not limited to the study area. It will be prevalent in the downtown or 

Center City Charlotte area. Increased congestion and greater diversity of jobs in the 

downtown will likely spread the peak period beyond the traditional one-hour peak, lessening 

the impact of traffic growth during any one short period. 

S.7 Mitigation Summary 

Mitigation would be required to offset impacts identified in Section S.4 above and detailed in 

Chapters 3-18 of this EA. These mitigation commitments are summarized in Table S.7-1. 

Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation 

Impact Areas Mitigation Summary 

TRAFFIC 

LAND USE PLANS AND 

POLICIES 

DISPLACEMENTS 

COMMUNITY SERVICES 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE 

POPULATION AND 

EMPLOYMENT 

VISUAL AND 

AESTHETICS 

AIR QUALITY 

The CGS will enhance the use of transit in Center City Charlotte 

without generating additional downtown vehicular traffic. Only minor 

improvements, such as signal modifications, turn restrictions, and 

curbside bus bays are recommended. 

The GCS project is consistent with local and regional land use plans 

and policies. Land use mitigation efforts would not be necessary. 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act would be followed. 

Access to community facilities and emergency services would not be 

disrupted. 

The CGS project would not result in disproportionately adverse 

impacts on low-income and minority communities and businesses. 

Environmental justice mitigation efforts would not be necessary. 

The CGS project will increase public accessibility to employment 

opportunities. Population and employment mitigation efforts would not 

be necessary. 

Application of context sensitive design principles. One percent of 

CATS’ budget is dedicated to “Art-in-Transit.” 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Noise No mitigation is required. 

Vibration No mitigation is required. 

ECOSYSTEMS, 

FARMLANDS, 

PROTECTED/ENDANGE 

RED SPECIES 

Endangered Species No mitigation is required. 

Farmlands No mitigation is required. 

Terrestrial Plants 

No mitigation is required. 

and Wildlife 

The CGS project is included in a conforming long-range 

transportation plan and transportation improvement program. Air 

quality mitigation efforts would not be necessary. 


Table S.7-1. Summary of Mitigation (continued) 

Impact Areas 

WATER RESOURCES 

Mitigation Summary 

Floodplains No mitigation is required. 

Groundwater No mitigation is required. 

Surface Waters No mitigation is required. 

Wetlands 

HISTORICAL AND 

No mitigation is required. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES 

Archaeological resource mitigation efforts would not be necessary. 

PARKLANDS No parklands are impacted. 

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CONSTRUCTION 

IMPACTS 

Phase II investigations would be conducted during final design. 

Remediation in accordance with local and state regulations. 

A detailed block-by-block traffic plan will be completed and Best 

Management Construction techniques will be applied to reduce noise, 

air and water impacts; historic buildings will be noted on construction 

plans and designated as “no-go” zones. 

S.8 Financial Analysis and Investment Impacts 

S.8.1 Capital Costs 

Capital costs were estimated based on Preliminary Engineering Plans and are summarized 

in Table S.8-1 below. The estimate includes costs associated with the project planning, 

design, construction, management, oversight and start-up costs. It is anticipated that some 

of these costs would be borne by private funds, however, specific sources have not yet been 

determined (see Master Plan description in Section S.1). Costs partially include adjacent 

properties, but not those which would be privately funded. 

Table S.8-1. Capital Cost Estimates by Alternative 

(Year 2012 Mid-Point of Construction Dollars) 

No-Action Base Build Full Build 

N/A $26.53 million $150.98 million 

S.8.2 Funding and Financing Strategies 

The public transportation components of CGS will be constructed using a combination of 

federal, state and local funds. A specific cost-sharing agreement has not yet been 

negotiated between CATS and NCDOT and would await development of the Master Plan. 

Mixed-use development associated with the CGS site and adjacent NCDOT-owned property 

will be privately funded. 


Federal Funding: The CGS project has been the recipient of several federal grants 

appropriated or authorized by Congress under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) section 5309 Bus 

Discretionary program. This funding includes: 

FY 2005: $ 2,411,606 (FY 2005 Department of Transportation Appropriations) 

FY 2006-09: $ 19,864,800 (SAFETEA-LU) 

State Funding: NCDOT has invested $35 million to acquire the CGS site and adjacent 

property along the NS mainline tracks. By including this property as part of the Master Plan, 

NCDOT intends to leverage the value of the property to provide funding for the public 

transportation facilities included at CGS. If additional funding is required for those facilities 

and to relocate Amtrak to CGS, it will seek such funding through its usual state budget 

process. 

Charlotte Area Transit System: CATS’ contribution to the CGS project will be funded using 

revenues from the ½ cent sales and use tax dedicated to funding future transit 

improvements. Voters in Mecklenburg County approved the sales tax in November 1998 

and it has been collected since April 1999. By statute, revenues from the sales and use tax 

can only be applied to expenditures for planning, construction, and operation of a county 

wide public transportation system. 

A detailed funding plan, including the potential use of private capital, will be developed and 

implemented by CATS and NCDOT prior to the start of construction. 

S.9 Public and Agency Coordination 

A comprehensive public involvement plan was developed to parallel the North Corridor EA 

process in order to engage citizens in the project and ensure that the project reflected their 

input and concerns. This is consistent with the City of Charlotte and CATS policy of 

proactively seeking public comment on transit-related projects. 

The goals of the public involvement plan are to: 

• Inform/educate citizens in a factual and objective manner about the transit/land-use plan 

and its associated opportunities and challenges. 

• Proactively seek opinions, perceptions and participation from the North Corridor publics 

so that the EA phase recommendations may reflect the needs of the community 

• Document and incorporate public input into the North Corridor EA phase 

• Ensure that all public involvement activities identify and address the needs of area 

minority, low-income and transit dependent populations 

Stakeholders across Charlotte have participated in the activities and outreach leading to the 

2030 Transit Plan, which includes the CGS project. Stakeholders with specific interests in 

CGS – including residents, neighborhood associations, businesses and other interest 

groups – were specifically targeted and included as part of the public involvement process. 

Public outreach and design activities for CGS occurred in two phases. Between 2000 and 

2002, NCDOT undertook an extensive effort to determine the feasibility of building a 


multimodal station at Trade Street and adding railroad trackage necessary to accommodate 

relocation to the Amtrak station and NCCR service. This work culminated in the 2002 

Feasibility Study for the Charlotte Multimodal Station and Area Track Improvements, which 

included site plan alternatives and an environmental overview. Over 70 outreach and 

coordination meets were held by NCDOT and CATS with local neighborhood associations, 

City, County and railroad officials, and other interested parties. 

In 2004, CATS implemented a second phase of the design and outreach work with the 

objective of developing a specific design concept for the multimodal station, now called 

Charlotte Gateway Station. Through the fall and early winter of 2004, discussions were held 

with state, city and county officials, the general community and other interested parties. A 

public meeting was held December 7, 2004 to solicit addition public comments. 

A design charette was conducted over a 3-day period from February 1-3, 2005. The 

charette included representatives of NCDOT; CATS; Charlotte DOT; Charlotte Planning and 

Engineering; Mecklenburg Planning Commission; Greyhound; Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Police; representatives of the real estate development community and the Design Team. 

Outreach has continued since 2005, including presentations to Charlotte City Council and 

the Metropolitan Transit Commission, local neighborhood associations, downtown 

organizations and area stakeholders. In all, 18 public meetings were held between 2006 

and 2008 to discuss the CGS project. A presentation was provided on July 22, 2008, to the 

Third Ward Neighborhood Association, which represents residents and businesses in the 

area around CGS. On October 8, 2008, a presentation was made to officials from Johnson 

& Wales University, the campus of which abuts CGS. 

In March, CATS and Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) 

published the draft Environmental Assessment on their respective websites and requested 

comments from the public. 

On March 18, 2009, CATS is scheduled to brief the Technical Committee of MUMPO on the 

CGS project. 

CATS and NCDOT will continue to seek public involvement in the development of CGS. 

Public Involvement will be an integral component of the master planning process. 



1.0 Purpose and Need................................................................................... 1.1-1 

1.1 Description.....................................................................................................1.1-1 

1.2 Purpose and Need.........................................................................................1.2-7 

1.2.1 CATS 2030 Transit Plan .......................................................................1.2-7 

1.2.2 Accommodate Enhanced Intercity Passenger Rail ...............................1.2-9 

1.2.3 Facilitate a Master Development Plan ................................................1.2-10 

1.2.4 Summary.............................................................................................1.2-11 


Figure 1.1-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Project Site ......................................................1.1-3 

Figure 1.1-2. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station ....................................1.1-5 

Figure 1.1-3. Access and Circulation at the Charlotte Gateway Station ..........................1.1-6 

Figure 1.2-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map...............................................................1.2-8 

Charlotte Gateway Station i 

EA

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 

This Chapter describes the Charlotte Gateway Station (CGS) project and identifies the 

purpose and need for the facility. It also describes the multi-modal transportation objectives 

that would be met by the CGS. 

1.1 Description & Problem Statement 

Over the last decade, the Charlotte region has adopted several overriding transportation and 

land use objectives aimed at addressing major local challenges and problems presented by 

the area’s high growth rate and related congestion. These include significantly increasing 

the use of public transportation as a means to reduce congestion on local roads and 

highways and to help the region achieve Federal air quality mandates. In the process, the 

region has taken steps to encourage construction of new transit-oriented developments at 

and around transit stops, resulting in higher density land uses that support the use of transit 

and reduce the number of vehicular trips. Critical to the success of this effort is construction 

of a centralized transportation hub in Charlotte that can serve the varied transportation 

needs of commuters and regional travelers, as well as provide an exciting mixed-use focal 

point for downtown development. 

A centralized multimodal transportation facility is needed in order to fully realize the benefits 

of the new CATS rapid transit to Charlotte, and the proposed expansion of intercity rail 

service through operation of additional Charlotte-Raleigh and regional high-speed trains.. 

The new hub will enhance the efficiency of public transportation by providing seamless 

connectivity between local and regional transportation modes, thus making the system more 

attractive to travelers. At this one location, travelers will be able to access employment in 

the Charlotte downtown central business district, take buses or the streetcar to other 

employment, residential and entertainment venues, ride rapid transit to the airport and other 

areas of the region, catch a Greyhound bus or ride Amtrak. 

In order to address the problems relating to congestion and air quality, the Charlotte Area 

Transit System (CATS) in cooperation with the City of Charlotte and the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Rail Division has proposed the development of the 

CGS, a six acre, multi-modal transportation facility that would serve as a centralized 

downtown transportation hub for CATS bus, commuter rail, and streetcar transit operations, 

as well as Amtrak intercity passenger rail and Greyhound bus service. The CGS would also 

serve as a major stop along the Atlanta to Washington Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. 

For example, Charlotte is served today by various regional and local transportation modes 

and is preparing for the introduction of new light rail, commuter rail, and street car transit 

along various corridors leading into the downtown area. However, the city lacks a 

centralized hub for accessing and transferring to and from these modes. CATS currently 

operates most of its local and regional express buses from the Charlotte Transportation 

Center (CTC), located six blocks from the proposed CGS and the proposed North Corridor 

commuter line. Likewise, Amtrak provides intercity rail service south to Atlanta and north to 

Washington but the Charlotte Amtrak station is located two miles away at a Norfolk Southern 

(NS) rail yard. Greyhound, with a large regional network of service, operates from a 

downtown facility located at Trade and Graham Streets near the proposed CGS site. In all 

cases, existing facilities have become inadequately sized for the growth in transportation 

services that is currently taking place and is expected to accelerate in the coming years. 

The lack of easy connectivity between the modes seriously undermines the efficiency and 

Charlotte Gateway Station 1.1-1 

EA

use of the region’s public transportation system. This, in turn, adversely impacts the 

region’s effort to reduce highway congestion and achieve Federal air quality mandates. 

Charlotte Gateway Station is intended to serve this purpose. 

A centralized multimodal transportation facility is essential in order to fully realize the 

benefits of the new CATS rapid transit to Charlotte, and the proposed expansion of intercity 

rail service through operation of additional Charlotte-Raleigh and regional high-speed 

trains.. The new hub will enhance the efficiency of public transportation by providing 

seamless connectivity between local and regional transportation modes, thus making the 

system more attractive to travelers. At this one location, travelers will be able to access 

employment in the Charlotte downtown central business district, take buses or the streetcar 

to other employment, residential and entertainment venues, ride rapid transit to the airport 

and other areas of the region, catch a Greyhound bus or ride Amtrak. 

CGS would be located along the NS Atlanta-Washington mainline tracks between 3rd, 

Graham and Trade Streets. Greyhound is currently located at this site, which also was once 

the location for the historic Southern Railway depot. Figure 1.1-1 illustrates the boundaries 

of the CGS project site. The CGS would be within walking distance of much of the business 

district in downtown Charlotte, including the headquarters for three Fortune 100 firms and 

most of the offices for what is now the second largest banking center in the United States. 

The CGS also would be connected by bus and streetcar to the CTC, the existing bus 

terminal and the hub for the new LYNX Blue Line from the South and Blue Line Extension to 

the Northeast. The area immediately around the CGS is currently home to Gateway Village, 

a Bank of America office complex that includes 1.2 million square feet of office space, the 

new Johnson & Wales University, the Bank of America football stadium (Carolina Panthers), 

and other large business and office complexes. A substantial number of downtown 

residents also live adjacent to the proposed station in the historic Third and Fourth Wards. 

The area immediately around the proposed station is expected to experience extensive 

office, residential and retail growth in the next five years including: 

• Expansion of the Johnson & Wales University to a 5,000 student campus including a 

new business management school located adjacent to the CGS platforms. 

• An additional 500,000 SF of office space to support the existing Bank of America 

Gateway Village complex within two blocks of the CGS, as well as other office projects 

within walking distance of CGS. 

• The addition of a new Triple A baseball stadium to house the Charlotte Knights within 

one block of the CGS. 

• Approximately 2,000 new high rise residential units, within a 10 minute walk to the CGS. 


EA

Figure 1.1-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Project Site 


EA

CGS will be a significant public-private development, providing access to local and regional 

public transportation and including substantial public parking, retail and office space. It is 

likely that the project also will include residential and other mixed use development. Specific 

facilities and services provided in the proposed CGS include the following elements: 

• Intercity Passenger Rail Station: Charlotte’s existing Amtrak train station will be 

relocated to the CGS. The Amtrak component of the CGS will include passenger dropoff, 

ticketing, baggage services and a waiting room, short-term and long-term poarking, 

as well as new passenger platforms and tracks. 

• CATS Local & Regional Buses: All local and regional CATS buses currently serve 

downtown Charlotte at the CTC via 4 th and/or Trade Streets. Many of these buses will 

also serve CGS, including new CitiLynx enhanced bus service to the Charlotte-Douglas 

International Airport and express buses operating along I-77 to the south, north and 

west. Plans call for the buses to serve CGS along 4 th , Trade, and Graham Streets. 

CGS will include either an off-street below-grade terminal area within the CGS block, or 

enhanced staging facilities along 4 th , Trade and Graham Streets, as well as necessary 

capacity improvements at the existing CTC. 

• Greyhound Bus Depot and Parking Deck: The existing Greyhound facility is located on 

the CGS site. It will be replaced by a new facility located on adjacent property between 

3 rd and 4 th Streets. The new Greyhound depot will include up to 12 bays, a waiting area 

and food services for Greyhound patrons. A parking deck is planned above the 

Greyhound depot with capacity for approximately 750 spaces. The Greyhound depot 

may be physically connected to the CGS with a skyway over 4 th Street. Architectural 

treatment of the Greyhound depot and the parking deck will be consistent with and 

compliment the aesthetics of CGS. 

• NCCR, LYNX Purple Line: This new commuter rail service will connect Charlotte, 

Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson and Mooresville with up to 38 daily trains. Platforms 

will be located on the west side of the NS mainline tracks extending over and providing 

access to 4 th and Trade Streets. This will include a new 55-foot wide bridge over 4 th 

Street and a 40-foot wide bridge over Trade Street to support the platforms and station 

tracks 

• Charlotte Streetcar: new streetcar service will operate along Trade Street every 5 -10 

minutes. The Streetcar system will extend from Eastland Mall, five miles to the east, to 

the Rosa Parks Place Transit Center, five miles to the west. In addition, streetcar 

service is planned to extend to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport, eight miles to 

the west, as part of the West Corridor transit program. 

• Southeast Corridor Transit, LYNX Silver Line: Rapid transit will terminate at CGS from 

the Town of Matthews, 12 miles to the east, along the Southeast Corridor. 

• Office and Public Meeting Space – The North Carolina State Property Office and CATS 

have identified a need for approximately 100,000 SF of office space for state and CATS 

staff at the CGS, along with additional requirements for private tenants. Space could be 

included for other office users, public meeting rooms, an auditorium, transit operating 

staff and local police and security personnel. 

• Private mixed-use development, including air rights above the CGS site and on NCDOTowned 

property north and south of CGS, is envisioned. 


EA

Conceptual illustrations, architectural renderings and capital costs for the CGS and the 

abovementioned elements have been developed in a report entitled CATS Charlotte 

Gateway Station Conceptual Design Summary Technical Report March 2006. A conceptual 

rendering of the CGS facility is provided in Figure 1.1-2. 

Figure 1.1-2. Concept Renderings of Charlotte Gateway Station 

Passenger circulation from the rail platforms at the station to other modes within or adjacent 

to the station will be handled through a series of stairs and elevators to the either the ground 

floor of the station or to the street grade on the 4 th Street or Trade Street side of the station. 

• Passengers from the LYNX Purple Line will alight at the commuter rail platforms, on 

the west side of the NS mainline and proceed by stairs to either 4 th Street or Trade 


EA

Street. There, they can enter CGS or either walk or take the streetcar or other 

buses the three blocks to the core of the CBD, or go six blocks to the CTC to 

transfer to other buses or board the LYNX Blue Line to the south or northeast. 

• Amtrak passengers will exit from the intercity passenger train platforms and will take 

a series of stairs and escalators to gain access to the station great hall for baggage 

claim and access to either the bus terminal downstairs or to Trade Street for cab, 

bus or streetcar access. The platforms are currently planned for the east side of NS 

mainline. However, the platforms could be relocated between the NS main line 

tracks if required to address future congestion and other operational issues. 

Location of the platforms will not impact the Amtrak station facilities. 

The site section and oblique rendering below, which includes an optional under-ground 

CATS bus capacity, illustrates how passenger access is provided through the station. 

Figure 1.1-3. Access and Circulation at the Charlotte Gateway Station 


EA

1.2 Purpose and Need 

Construction of the CGS project is intended to fulfill three primary goals in the transportation 

and land use development plans of the City of Charlotte and the State of North Carolina. 

The three goals are: 

1. Provide a multimodal station that meets CATS 2030 Transit Plan objectives. 

2. Accommodate NCDOT Rail Division’s vision to improve existing intercity passenger rail 

and eventually intercity high speed rail. 

3. Incorporate a mix of public and private financial commitments to facilitate a long range 

master development that integrates and complements a mix of residential, commercial, 

retail and transportation infrastructure in Center City Charlotte. 

The three goals are explained in more detail below. 

1.2.1 CATS 2030 Transit Plan 

In November of 2006, the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) approved the CATS 2030 

Corridor System Plan. This plan establishes the scheduling and prioritization of the CATS 

rapid transit program and defines the set of transit modes that would serve the CGS facility. 

A schematic of all of CATS rapid transit corridors is provided in Figure 1.2-1. Of the five new 

transit corridors addressed in the 2030 Transit Plan, CGS would be served by the four 

corridors described below. CATS estimates that 60,000-70,000 passengers per day will use 

one or more of the local, regional or intercity modes at CGS. 

• LYNX Purple Line (North Corridor) – a ten station commuter rail line that will terminate at 

CGS in the south and extend approximately 25 miles north to Mount Mourne, with future 

service to downtown Mooresville, some five miles further to the north. CGS is the 

southern terminus for the NCCR and its location within four blocks of the epicenter of the 

Charlotte’s central business district provides the ideal focal point for commuters traveling 

to and from the northern towns and counties. Plan calls for inaugurating NCCR service 

before 2015. Some 4,600 commuters are expected to use the trains each day. 

• LYNX Silver Line (Southeast Corridor) – an eleven station, 13-mile bus rapid transit 

(BRT) or light rail system that will terminate at CGS. The initial phases of the Southeast 

Corridor call for joint purchase of right of way by CATS and NCDOT and construction of 

the BRT system from the CGS to Conference Drive to start in year 2011. Second and 

third phases call for extensions to Sardis Road and Central Piedmont Community 

College respectively. In excess of 17,000 passengers are expected to use the LYNX 

Silver Line each day. 

• The Center City Streetcar Corridor – a 10 mile “Portland” type electric streetcar 

operating on embedded rails in the streets that will serve the central business district 

and adjoining neighborhoods along Beatties Ford Road, Trade Street, Elizabeth Avenue, 

Hawthorne Lane and Central Avenue. The CGS will be one of the major stops and 

transfer points along the 34 stop streetcar route. The first phase (engineering design) of 

the Center City Streetcar is scheduled to start in year 2013. When completed, the 

streetcar system will carry some 16,000 daily passengers. 

• LYNX Orange Line (West Corridor) – an initial enhanced bus service, called CitiLynx, 

from Center City Charlotte to Charlotte Douglas International Airport that will begin in 

year 2009 and then be replaced by a streetcar beginning in 2019. The LYNX Orange 

Line will serve CGS and CTC. 


EA

Figure 1.2-1. CATS Rapid Transit System Map 


EA

Another key component in the CATS 2030 Transit Plan includes a redistribution of bus 

service in the Center City Charlotte resulting from implementation of the new fixed guideway 

rapid transit corridors. Currently, CATS’ operates a hub and spoke system, with 29 

local bus routes and 23 express bus routes which traverse the City’s arterial spokes into the 

CTC. The CTC located at Trade, 4 th and Brevard Streets, is experiencing capacity issues, 

as ridership on the CATS system has grown some 65 percent in the past eight years. 

However, with new rapid transit serving downtown Charlotte, some of the existing bus routes 

will be realigned to provide access to the transit stations rather than to the downtown. With 

these changes and implementation of capacity enhancements at CTC, the facility can 

continue to operate as the primary downtown bus station for CATS. Capacity 

enhancements will include expanding the facility to separate express and local bus traffic 

and renovation of the existing building. 

1.2.2 Accommodate Enhanced Intercity Passenger Rail 

The NCDOT Rail Division has spearheaded an effort over the past decade to relocate 

Amtrak service to downtown Charlotte from its current inadequate facility two miles to the 

north. As part of this effort, NCDOT has acquired approximately 27 acres of property along 

the east side of the NS mainline freight tracks between 3 rd and 9 th Streets to accommodate 

freight and passenger rail track alignment improvements necessary to serve CGS, as well 

as the property required for CGS itself, the new Greyhound facility, and public/private 

development. 

A new downtown Charlotte Amtrak station is an integral part of NCDOT’s efforts to enhance 

statewide intercity rail service, as well as lead the regional effort to implement high-speed 

rail service in the Southeast from Atlanta to Washington. NCDOT has completed upgrades 

to or rebuilt some 14 passenger rail stations across the state served by Amtrak; Charlotte 

remains the last major station to be upgraded. Amtrak service currently consists of the 

state-supported Charlotte – Raleigh – New York Carolinian and the Charlotte – Raleigh 

Piedmont, as well as the Washington – Atlanta – New Orleans Crescent. NCDOT 

anticipates adding a second Piedmont frequency in the near-term and has proposed as 

many as six daily Charlotte-Raleigh trains operating in as little as two hours thirty minutes. 

NCDOT, in cooperation with Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia, is leading efforts to 

implement the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, with frequent, high-speed service 

connecting Atlanta (and possibly Birmingham to the South) with Charlotte, Raleigh, 

Richmond and Washington, DC. The corridor is officially designated as a high-speed rail 

corridor by the US Department of Transportation. In 2002, a Record of Decision for the Tier 

1 (programmatic) Environmental Impact Statement for the Southeast High Speed Rail 

Corridor was issued. That document included construction of a new Charlotte multimodal 

facility to serve as a major regional transportation hub connecting intercity rail with other 

local and regional public transportation. Subsequently, this Environmental Assessment 

represents the second tier of environmental documentation for the Charlotte multimodal 

component of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. 

In 2002, NCDOT completed a detailed feasibility study (Feasibility Study for the Charlotte 

Multi-modal Station and Area Track Improvements) detailing the NS and CSX track 

improvements required to relocate Amtrak to CGS and enhance local freight service, as well 

as site and facility plans for CGS. Since then, discussions have continued with the NS and 

CSX to update and to fund implementation of these plans. In addition, NCDOT now owns 

all property (except the Greyhound depot) required to relocate Amtrak to CGS and to 

construct the CGS. 


EA

The proposed CGS is a material component of NCDOT plans to enhance passenger rail 

service from Raleigh to Charlotte and to implement Southeast High Speed Rail service. 

Additionally, the CGS, with its location in the heart of the second largest banking center in 

the United States, confirms the utility of high speed rail passenger service to and from this 

important financial destination. 

1.2.3 Facilitate a Master Development Plan 

In addition to providing multimodal connectivity between Charlotte’s and the region’s local 

and intercity transportation modes, CGS will serve as a catalyst for transit supportive mixed 

use private development in a key part of the downtown. To facilitate private investment, as 

well as financially leverage the state-owned property and new public transportation facilities, 

NCDOT and CATS will seek a Master Developer to plan and implement private investment 

at CGS as well as build the public transportation facilities. 

Private investment at CGS will focus on two areas: 

• CGS Block: Retail, office and air rights development will be closely integrated with the 

public transportation facilities between 3 rd and Trade Streets in order to provide a larger, 

more monumental scale to the those facilities and to increase the level of activity and 

number of people at CGS. This in turn will enhance transit ridership and make for a 

more vibrant, dynamic atmosphere. As currently envisioned in the Full Build Alternative, 

some 100,000 square feet of office space would surround the Amtrak train station, 

providing a dramatic station design and a significant market boost to retail activities 

within the station. A retail pavilion and numerous retail kiosks within the public plaza will 

help to create a vibrant setting for travelers, students at nearby Johnson & Wales 

University, workers and residents of Charlotte’s 3 rd and 4 th Ward neighborhoods. A 

25,000 sq. ft air rights pad within the plaza could be developed to provide hotel, office 

and/or residential space with spectacular vistas of the Charlotte skyline. A parking 

facility will be included atop Greyhound, with 200 spaces reserved for Amtrak, 

Greyhound and CATS customers and another 550 spaces intended to support the 

private mixed-use development. The Master Developer will be responsible for planning 

and implementing an integrated private development plan designed to complement the 

transportation services provided at CGS and to financially leverage the public facilities to 

generate capital and operating support for the project. 

• Private Development On State Properties: The Master Developer will also be 

responsible for planning, designing and building mixed-use development between Trade 

Street and 9 th Street on some 10 additional acres of state-owned property. As Charlotte 

continues to grow its already expansive residential and office market, there likely will be 

strong demand for the state-owned property. The property between 6 th and 9 th Streets 

will remain predominantly residential, consistent with the 4 th Ward neighborhood around 

it. Property between Trade and 6 th Street is likely to be mixed-use, with office, retail and 

residential. Additional parking will be provided to support these uses. No federal funds 

would be used for the private mixed-use development. 

NCDOT, in cooperation with the City of Charlotte and CATS, expects to issue a Request for 

Qualifications (RFQ) for a Master Developer in 2009 to comprehensively plan, design and 

implement the development of CGS and the NCDOT properties between 3 rd and 9 th Streets. 

The RFQ will be followed with a Request For Proposals (RFP) to those entities qualified in 

the RFQ process, seeking a specific development plan for CGS and the state properties. 

The Master Developer will be tasked with two overriding objectives: 

• To create and implement a dynamic and viable vision for the integrated development of 

the CGS and the state properties, with the goal of creating a vibrant, transit oriented, 


EA

mixed use transportation and economic center within Charlotte, consistent with and 

supportive of Charlotte’s downtown land use objectives and long-range plans. 

• To structure creative financing approaches to the development to leverage funding for 

the capital costs of the public facilities included in the CGS and to provide a long-term 

revenue stream to support operation of the public facilities. 

NCDOT and CATS expect to select a Master Developer and Master Development Plan in 

2010. This would facilitate construction of the public transportation facilities at CGS by the 

end of 2014. 

1.2.4 Summary 

Charlotte is experiencing unprecedented employment and residential growth. The demand 

for regional and local public transportation is strong and expected to continue to grow. The 

City requires a downtown transportation hub providing convenient connectivity between 

local bus, rapid transit, airport, Greyhound and Amtrak services. 

CGS will provide this connectivity, while also providing a unique and exciting focal point for 

the area’s residents, students, office workers and businesses. CGS is a critical element of 

CATS’ 2030 transportation system, NCDOT’s intercity and Southeast High-Speed Rail 

Corridor plans, and Charlotte’s center-city land-use objectives. These goals are 

interdependent and build upon each other. CGS is integral to the secondary benefits of 

mobility, choice, and environmental enhancements implicit in a rail transportation mode 

developed in concert with a more compact and efficient urban community. 


EA


2.0 Alternatives Considered....................................................................2.1-1 

2.1 Charlotte Gateway Station Function and Context................................2.1-1 

2.2 No Action Alternative..............................................................................2.2-2 

2.3 Base and Full Build Alternatives - Conceptual Development of the 

Charlotte Gateway Station......................................................................2.3-4 

2.3.1 Design Charette ..............................................................................2.3-6 

2.3.2 Design Concept...............................................................................2.3-6 

2.3.3 Facility Parameters .........................................................................2.3-6 

2.4 Charlotte Gateway Station Capital Cost Estimate................................2.4-9 


Table 2.4-1 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Full Build Alternative..........................2.4-10 

Table 2.4-2 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Base Build Alternative .......................2.4-12 


Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Transit/Rail Services ..............................................2.2-3 

Figure 2.3-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Design Concept .........................................2.3-5 

Charlotte Gateway Station i 

EA

2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

This chapter describes the alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Assessment. 

Section One summarizes the Charlotte Gateway Station (CGS) Build Alternative considered 

within the regional, statewide and national context of long range transit and passenger rail 

plans. Section Two describes the No-Action Alternative. Section Three describes the 

conceptual design of the CGS Build Alternative in more detail. Section Four describes the 

capital costs of the CGS Build Alternative. 

2.1 Charlotte Gateway Station Function and Context 

The CGS is an integral multimodal component of the regional Charlotte Area Transit System 

(CATS) 2030 Transit Plan. CGS is the terminal station for the LYNX Purple Line (North 

Corridor Commuter Rail), the LYNX Silver line (Southeast Corridor) and the LYNX Orange 

Line (West Corridor). (Figure 2.2-1) CGS also would serve as a major stop for the Center 

City Streetcar system and would be served by much of the CATS downtown bus system. 

Spatially and functionally, CGS must be located at the juncture of these various transit 

services and the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line, on which LYNX Purple Line commuter 

trains will operate. That juncture is at Trade and Graham Streets in downtown Charlotte, 

just three blocks from the center of the central business district. The street car will directly 

connect CGS with the Charlotte Transportation Center (CTC), served by the LYNX Blue Line 

to the northeast and the south. 

CGS is also an integral component of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. The station 

would serve as Charlotte’s intercity passenger rail station for enhanced Amtrak service 

along the Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor connecting Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, 

Richmond and Washington, DC. This downtown location would replace Amtrak’s current 

station located two miles from the downtown on North Tryon Street. Amtrak currently 

operates three daily round-trip trains through Charlotte: the Crescent, with service between 

New Orleans, Atlanta and New York; the Carolinian, serving Charlotte, Raleigh, Washington 

and New York; and the Piedmont, providing daily service between Charlotte and Raleigh. 

With implementation of the Southeast High-Speed Rail corridor improvements, intercity rail 

passenger service will expand to as many as eight daily round-trip trains between Charlotte 

and Raleigh. As part of this effort, NCDOT Rail Division is currently working with NS and 

CSX to improve track alignments and operational features for the freight and passenger rail 

facilities in Center City and west to the Charlotte Douglas International Airport. 

The proposed CGS site formerly housed the Richmond & Danville passenger depot (circa 

1890) rebuilt as the Southern Railway passenger depot in 1922 and demolished in 1962. 

The Greyhound bus terminal currently occupies half the site, with the remainder used for 

surface parking. Greyhound will relocate its terminal to a new building in the adjacent block, 

which will be part of the CGS complex. Greyhound operates as many as 100 daily buses 

through Charlotte with up to 2000 daily passengers. 

CGS will be served by most CATS downtown local and express buses. Enhanced 

passenger boarding and unloading facilities will be constructed along 4 th , Trade and Graham 

Streets to provide easy connections to the various transit modes at CGS and to local 

residences, office and retail centers. An underground bus transfer capacity at CGS also is 

under consideration, as well as capacity enhancements at CTC. 


EA

The CGS complex will include major retail and office components, making CGS a 

destination as well as a transportation center. Charlotte is undergoing major building and 

expansion in the central business district with signature office and residential projects 

underway in addition to new museums, cultural centers and a baseball stadium. Mixed use 

development at CGS will complement many of the adjoining development projects, focusing 

on creating an exceptional environment for passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and the local 

neighborhood. 

LYNX Purple Line trains will use a new platform to be added west of the existing NS 

mainline tracks and served by two exclusive NCCR station tracks. These two tracks would 

join NS Track 2, the western-most NS track, some 400 feet north of the station. NS Track 2 

will be used exclusively for commuter rail service and would connect to the “O” line at the 

Archer Daniel Midlands plant, approximately 2,100 LF to the east. 

CGS is ideally located to meet the transportation needs of both Charlotte and NCDOT. 

Indeed, the spatially constrained urban land forms in Center City Charlotte, as well as the 

functional and operational transit and passenger rail requirements, restrict the CGS to the 

nexus of the NS mainline tracks and Trade Street. The 2002 NCDOT Rail Division’s 

Feasibility Study for the Charlotte Multi-Modal Station and Area Track Improvements support 

the same conclusion. 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, CGS would not be constructed. This would affect the plans 

of several other key transit facilities – e.g., bus and streetcar stops, a new Greyhound depot, 

parking decks, a terminus for the LYNX Purple Line, and the relocation of the Amtrak 

station. Year 2030 No-Action transit and passenger rail facilities include: 

• Existing transit routes and schedules currently operated by CATS. 

• Current LYNX Blue Line service between Charlotte and Pineville. 

• Other new bus services to which CATS has committed. 

• New bus services to serve areas that would be developed by 2030. 

• Routine replacement of existing facilities and equipment at the end of their useful life. 

• LYNX Blue Line Extension by 2016. 

• LYNX Silver Line by 2026. 

• Citilynx service to the airport by 2009 and LYNX Orange Line by 2029. 

• The Center City Streetcar, by 2023. 


EA

Figure 2.2-1. CGS and Adjacent Transit/Rail Services 


EA

The No-Action Alternative provides a foundation for comparing the benefits and impacts of 

the other alternatives. It also is an alternative itself. While theoretically, the No-Action 

Alternative has no direct impacts, it also offers no benefits. 

It is important to note that the No-Action Alternative does not fulfill the major transportation 

and land use objectives adopted by the Metropolitan Transit Commission in the CATS 2030 

Transit Plan, as detailed in the Purpose & Need. CGS is intended to integrate transportation 

in Charlotte’s downtown through enhanced connectivity and concentration of transportation 

options at a single mixed-use center. This, in turn, provides the essential foundation to 

support private retail, office and residential uses both on and nearby the site. These 

synergies and integration are lost in the No-Action alternative, resulting in a less 

coordinated, non-integrated delivery of transportation services and a loss of connectivity and 

efficiency. LYNX Purple Line commuter trains would not operate and other proposed rapid 

transit could be required to terminate at less optimal locations lacking intermodal 

connectivity and undermining efforts to reduce downtown congestion and improve local bus 

operations. The loss of intermodal efficiencies would reduce ridership on the rapid transit 

lines, streetcar and bus routes, potentially undermining efforts to secure local, state and 

federal funding for transit construction and operations. 

A No-Action Alternative does not accommodate NCDOT’s Rail Division plans to relocate the 

Amtrak station and improve the freight and passenger track alignments for both Amtrak and 

high speed rail enhancements. Finally, the No-Action Alternative materially reduces the 

long range master plan participation and investment from the private sector to redevelop the 

Center City properties along the NS Right of Way. 

2.3 Base and Full Build Alternatives - Conceptual Development of 

the Charlotte Gateway Station 

Two Build Alternatives are considered. 

• Base Build Alternative – assumes construction of minimum public transportation 

facilities and includes no integrated private retail or private mixed use development on 

the CGS site. 

• Full Build Alternative – assumes construction of the integrated retail, office and air 

rights development with the public transportation facilities as illustrated on the parcel 

bordered by 3 rd , Graham, Trade Streets and the NS ROW (see Figure 2.3-1) 

The Base Build Alternative represents the minimum investment at CGS to provide additional 

local CATS bus capacity, Amtrak platforms, and a terminus station platform for the LYNX 

Purple Line. Commuter trains would stop on the west side of the NS tracks but, with the 

reduced scale of the CGS, would be minimally connected to the other modes of public 

transportation. There would be no retail or offices integrated into the plaza and station 

buildings. There would be no on-site air rights development. 

The Full Build Alternative would add retail, office and future air rights development, 

integrated to provide scale, functional connectivity with the public transportation facilities, 

and a critical mass of activities and markets to support a dynamic, vibrant urban setting. 

The Greyhound Bus Depot would be replaced by a new facility located on adjacent property 

between 3 rd and 4 th Streets. The new Greyhound depot would include up to 12 bays, with a 

waiting area and food services for Greyhound patrons. A parking deck would be provided 


EA

above the Greyhound depot with capacity for approximately 750 spaces. Future 

development sites (currently surface parking lots) south and north of the CGS will be 

developed pursuant to a master development plan to be pursued by the state in cooperation 

with Charlotte and the County. The master development plan will complement and support 

a mixed use (employment, residential and retail) community that can be served by the 

transportation amenities of the CGS. 

CATS initiated conceptual architectural design work in July of 2004 for CGS. It was 

recognized, however, that the CGS would require special attention to accommodate the 

many functions it was envisioned to house. CATS, the City of Charlotte and the State of 

North Carolina expect the CGS to have a prominent design presence considered 

appropriate for one of the major transportation facilities in North Carolina. 

In close partnership with CATS, a design team was developed consisting of local and 

national architects, planners, engineers as well representatives of the City of Charlotte’s 

Planning and Engineering Departments and the NCDOT Rail Division. 

Supporting the concept design and environmental documentation were a number of 

activities. The support effort included historic and archaeological surveys and 

environmental research and testing on the CGS site. 

Figure 2.3-1. Charlotte Gateway Station Design Concept 

Charlotte Gateway Station 

3d Ward Park 

Future Office/Residential 

Amtrak Station 

Offices 

Retail Corridor 

Future Office/Residential 

Greyhound & Parking Deck 

J&W Business School 


EA

2.3.1 Design Charette 

Public outreach and design activities for CGS occurred in two phases. Between 2000 and 

2002, NCDOT undertook an extensive effort to determine the feasibility of building a 

multimodal station at Trade Street and adding railroad trackage necessary to accommodate 

relocation to the Amtrak station and NCCR rail service. This work culminated in the 2002 

Feasibility Study for the Charlotte Multimodal Station and Area Track Improvements, which 

included site plan alternatives and an environmental overview. Over 70 outreach and 

coordination meets were held by NCDOT and CATS with local neighborhood associations, 

City, County and railroad officials, and other interested parties. 

In 2004, CATS implemented a second phase of the design and outreach work with the 

objective of developing a specific design concept for the multimodal station, now called 

Charlotte Gateway Station. Through the fall and early winter of 2004, discussions were held 

with state, city and county officials, the general community and other interested parties. A 

public meeting was held December 7, 2004 to solicit addition public comments. 

A design charette was conducted over a 3-day period from February 1-3, 2005. The 

charette included representatives of NCDOT; CATS; Charlotte DOT; Charlotte Planning and 

Engineering; Mecklenburg Planning Commission; Greyhound; Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Police; representatives of the real estate development community and the Design Team. 

One significant change to the original planning assumptions resulted from the design 

charette process. To address office space requirements for both CATS and the State of 

North Carolina, approximately 100,000 square feet of office space was added to the station 

building. This had the added benefit of stimulating other private retail and mixed-use activity 

at the CGS site and providing more mass to the station building itself, bringing it more into 

compliance with NCDOT’s desire for a prominent visual presence. 

2.3.2 Design Concept 

The resulting conceptual site plan formed the basis for design efforts that followed. Over the 

next several months the design concept continued to evolve. Preliminary construction cost 

estimates were developed and refined in 2006. The station design concept is illustrated in 

Figure 2.3-1. Future development sites north of Trade Street are currently targeted for midrise 

retail and student residential use. East of Graham Street, the City of Charlotte and 

County of Mecklenburg are advancing plans for a new minor league baseball stadium and 

3 rd Ward park, currently planned for opening in 2010. 

The recent economic downturn has reduced current demand for downtown office and 

residential development in Charlotte. This is expected to continue through 2008 and well 

into 2009. However, the CGS area remains a primary focal point for new development in 

Charlotte and is expected to see intensive development once the economic conditions 

improve. 

2.3.3 Facility Parameters 

Projected transportation services, building components, parking, planning capacities and 

related amenities to be provided by the CGS in the Full Build Alternative are currently 

estimated as follows: 


EA

Projected Transportation Services 

• CATS Bus Operations - 600 daily buses (90+ during peak hours) with 1,000 daily on/off 

passengers 

• Amtrak - 4 daily trains upon station opening (400 daily passengers); up to 8 daily trains 

in future (800 daily passengers) 

• LYNX Purple Line – 1,700 daily week-day passengers at CGS 

• LYNX Silver – 500 passengers daily art CGS 

• LYNX Orange Line – 250 passengers daily at CGS 

• Charlotte Streetcar – 1,374 passengers daily at CGS, with 7-10 minute headways 

• Greyhound - 2,000 daily passengers; 100 buses over 24 hour period. 

• Taxi Drop-off and Pick-up 

Gateway Station Building Components 

• Transportation Center - 55,000 SF, includes: 

o Great Hall 

o NCDOT/AMTRAK Intercity Rail accommodating ticketing and information, 

checked baggage, waiting area, operations center, security and employee 

welfare areas. 

o CATS bus and LYNX Purple, Silver, and Orange Lines and Streetcar transit, 

including information area and possible operations/ management/dispatch 

center, security and employee welfare. 

• Retail Space (provided by others) – 18,800 SF, includes: 

o Street Frontage along 4th Street and Trade St. 

o Plaza and Great Hall frontage 

• Office Space (provided by others) – 97,000 SF, includes: 

o 4 floors office space 

o Lobby amenities 

o Conference rooms, community meeting rooms 

o Additional office space may be added if marketable 

• Civic Plaza – 77,000 SF, 

• Right of Way Improvements 

o CATS bus passenger boarding and waiting enhancements on 4 th , Trade and 

Graham Streets 

o West Trade Street – 25’ Sidewalk 

o South Graham Street & West 4th Street – 20’ Sidewalk 


EA

o Trade Street Bridge – 210’ X 40’ 

o 4th Street Bridge – 110’ X 55’ 

• Future Air Rights Development – TBD 

o Retail Pavilion with Trade St/Graham St/Plaza Frontage 

o Future Office/Retail/Residential Tower 

Greyhound Redevelopment 

• Greyhound Depot – 13,000 SF + Bus Bays 

o 12 active bus bays, 5 stacked bus spaces 

o Ticketing, baggage, cafeteria, waiting area, employee welfare 

o 3 parking/loading spaces 

• Public Parking Structure – 180,000 to 200,000 SF 

o 750 parking spaces 

o Approximately 4 to 5 levels 

o Other public parking lots/structures as needed 

At CGS, passengers would be able to transfer to other rapid transit modes, the Center City 

Streetcar, Amtrak and Greyhound. The design of the station will focus on providing 

convenient, easy connections between modes. CATS is committed to coordinating its fare 

structure and transfer policy with the other transit modes to encourage the use of public 

transportation. Passengers will be able to transfer conveniently from trolley, light-rail, bus, 

and commuter rail under one fare structure and transfer system. 

The safety and security of travelers is of utmost importance and concern and many steps and 

systems would be implemented system wide to maximize the safety of passengers. While the 

proposed security program has not been fully developed, it is expected to include a variety of 

features, including: 

• Extensive use of transit and local police at the station and aboard trains; 

• Security cameras at the station and, where appropriate, along the right-of-way; and 

• Emergency call boxes at the station, along platforms, and along the right-of-way. 

In addition, CATS would rely on the latest FTA and FRA analyses and recommendations 

regarding safety and security at transit and rail stations and facilities. In November 2004, the 

FTA released a report entitled Transit Security Design Characteristics. The recommendations 

included in such analyses would be relied on in designing transit stations and systems. 

CATS is also committed to providing full access to its transit facilities pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA), 36 CFR Part 1192 and 49 CFR Parts 27, 37 & 38. 

CATS’ commuter trains and buses, as well as CGS station components, will fully comply with 

ADA and include, inter alia, as appropriate: 

• elevators and ramps 


EA

• handrails on ramps and stairs 

• tactile Braille signs 

• large print signs 

• audio and visual information systems 

• accessible ticket vending machines 

• accessible entry gates 

• platform edge warning strips 

• platform gap modifications and/or bridge plates to accommodate access to trains and 

buses 

• telephones at accessible height, with volume controls 

• text telephones (TTY’s) 

• accessible restrooms at stations with restrooms 

2.4 Charlotte Gateway Station Capital Cost Estimate 

Capital cost estimates were developed for the full build and base design concepts. Initial 

estimates were developed in 2006 and have been updated to 2007 using the Engineering 

News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index, February 2006 to February 2007, 2.2%. Starting 

in 2010, a five year planning, design and construction program is anticipated. The midpoint 

of the projected years of expenditure under this scenario is 2013. Preliminary capital costs 

are provided in 

Table 2.4-1. Full Build Alternative and Table 2.4-2 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Base 

Build Alternative. 

Full Build features and construction elements included in the CGS facility include: 

• CATS/Amtrak Station – Great Hall, Ticketing, Waiting, Baggage, Circulation & MEP 

• CATS Bus Terminal - below grade option between 4 th and Trade Streets; 

enhancements along 4 th , Trade & Graham Streets 

• Office Space – Approximately 97,000 SF distributed across four floors. 

• Retail Space - Approximately 18, 800 SF 

• Plaza – includes fountains, pedestrian amenities, landscaping 

• Public Art Allowance – 1% of Construction 

• Track Access and Platforms – both AMTRAK and LYNX Purple Line 

• Greyhound Station Relocation and Parking Deck 

• Civil work (streets, drainage, grading, sidewalks and utilities) 

• Land and Right of Way 


EA

• Construct new bridges at 4 th Street and Trade Street to support platforms and station 

tracks 

Base Build features and construction elements included the following: 

• NCCR platform with canopies, lighting and ticket vending machines 

• Amtrak platforms 

• Stairwells and handicapped lifts to Trade and 4th to support NCCR platforms 

• Construct new bridges at 4 th Street and Trade Street to support platforms and station 

tracks 

• Artwork allowance at 1.0% of Construction 

Table 2.4-1 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Full Build Alternative 

CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 

2006 2007 2012 

Construction Construction Construction 

Major Cost Element & Sub-Elements Cost Cost * Cost ** 

CATS Bus Underground Terminal Alternative $ 12,821,000 $ 13,103,062 $ 15,941,878 

Bus Entry & Exit Ramps, Passenger Platforms 

Pedestrian Circulation: 3-Elevators, 2-Escalators, 

Sidewalk & Plaza Access Stairs, Canopy Allowance 

for Stairs & Escalators, Concrete Lid & Walls with 

Waterproofing & Finish, Mechanical Exhaust, Lighting 

Demolition of Existing Greyhound Building 

Haz Mat Add'l Survey, Design, Disposal & Treatment 

Sitework, Geotech, & Grading 

CATS Bus – Enhanced Street Access Alternative 

Curb cuts, canopies and enhancements at 4 th , Trade & 

Graham Streets $ 2,500,000 $ 2,555,000 $ 3,108,548 

CATS/AMTRAK Station Elements $ 18,129,000 $ 18,527,838 $ 22,541,948 

Great Hall, Entry Canopy, Ticketing, Waiting, Baggage 

Mezzanine Baggage & Operations, Waiting 

Interior Finishes, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing, 

Vert Circulation: 2-Stairs, 5-Elevators, 10-Escalators 

Retail Space Elements - Provided by Others 

Office Space Elements - Provided by Others 

Plaza Elements 

Graham St Plaza - Above Bus Terminal, 

Trade St & 4th St Access, Plaza Lighting, 

Plaza Fountains, 50% Hardscape, 50% Softscape 

$ 9,909,000 $ 10,126,998 

$ 

12,321,0422 

Sidewalk Improvements (1,500' X 22') $ 184,000 $ 188,048 $ 228,789 


EA

Commuter Rail Platforms & Bridges $ 12,200,000 $ 12,468,400 $ 15,169,715 

Greyhound Terminal & Bus Bays $ 3,800,000 $ 3,883,600 $ 4,724,993 

750 Space Parking Deck@$15,000/Space $ 11,250,000 $ 11,497,500 $ 13,988,467 

4th-3rd Street Connector Relocation $ 200,000 $ 204,400 $ 248,684 

Pavement, Curb & Gutter, Markings, Signals, 

Signage $ 2,000,000 $ 2,044,000 $ 2,486,839 

Utilities (Connection & Relocation Allowance) $ 2,000,000 $ 2,044,000 $ 2,486,839 

Total Construction Cost with bus terminal $ 72,493,000 $ 74,087,846 $ 90,139,193 

Art Allowance @ 1% $ 724,930 $ 740,878 $ 901,392 

Contingency @ 25% $ 18,123,250 $ 18,521,962 $ 22,534,798 

A&E Fees @ 10% $ 7,249,300 $ 7,408,785 $ 9,013,919 

Owner's Soft Cost, Admin, Insurance, Legal @ 

12% $ 8,699,160 $ 8,890,542 $ 10,816,703 

Construction Mgmt. @ 7.5% $ 5,436,975 $ 5,556,588 $ 6,760,439 

Land & ROW *** $ 8,700,000 $ 8,891,400 $ 10,817,748 

Total with underground CATS bus facility**** $121,426,615 $124,098,001 $150,984,193 

Total without underground CATS bus facility**** $105,377,460 $ 107,695,764 $131,028,364 

____________________ 

* ENR Building Cost Index % Change Feb 2006 - Feb 2007 = 2.2% 

** Assumed Average Annual Increase of 4.0% escalated to project midpoint in 2012. 

*** Land and ROW includes current Greyhound site and NS property west of main line, but does 

not include property owned by NCDOT 

**** Does not include enhancements at CTC of approximately $12 million 


EA

Table 2.4-2 CGS Conceptual Cost Estimate Base Build Alternative 

CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE 

2006 2007 2012 

Construction Construction Construction 

Cost Cost * Cost ** 

Station Elements 

Pedestrian Circulation: 2-Elevators, Canopy 

Allowance 

for Stairs & Escalators, Lighting 

Site Work/Prep, Geotech, Excavation, Grading 

Total CATS Bus Terminal $ 2,800,000 $ 2,861,600 $ 3,481,574 

Commuter Rail Platforms & Bridges $ 10,000,000 $ 10,220,000 $ 12,434,193 

Total Construction Cost $ 12,800,000 $ 13,081,600 $ 15,915,767 

Art Allowance @ 0.5% $ 64,000 $ 65,408 $ 79,579 

Contingency @ 25% $ 3,200,000 $ 3,270,400 $ 3,978,942 

A&E Fees @ 10% $ 1,280,000 $ 1,308,160 $ 1,591,577 

Owner's Soft Cost, Admin, Insurance, Legal @ 

12% 

$ 1,536,000 $ 1,569,792 $ 1,909,892 

Construction Mgmt. @ 7.5% $ 960,000 $ 981,120 $ 1,193,682 

Land & ROW *** $ 1,500,000 $ 1, 533,000 $ 1,865,129 

Totals $ 21,340,000 $ 21,809,480 $ 26,534,567 

________________ 

* ENR Building Cost Index % Change Feb 2006 - Feb 2007 = 2.2% 

** Assumed Average Annual Increase of 4.0% escalated to project midpoint in 2012. 

*** Land and ROW includes NS parcel west of the main line tracks, but does not include 

property owned by NCDOT 


EA


3.0 Affected Environment and Consequences ......................................3.1-1 

3.1 Population, Employment, Land Use, and Government Finance .........3.1-1 

3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework ...................................................3.1-1 

3.1.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.1-1 

3.1.3 Existing Conditions and Resources ................................................3.1-2 

3.1.4 Impacts and Benefits.......................................................................3.1-9 

3.1.5 Mitigation.......................................................................................3.1-12 

3.2 Displacements .........................................................................................3.2-1 


3.2.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.2-1 


3.2.4 Environmental Impacts and Benefits...............................................3.2-2 

3.2.5 Displacement Mitigation..................................................................3.2-2 

3.3 Neighborhoods........................................................................................3.3-1 


3.3.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.3-1 



3.3.5 Neighborhood Safety and Security Mitigation .................................3.3-5 

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality ..................................................................3.4-6 


3.4.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.4-6 



3.4.5 Mitigation.........................................................................................3.4-8 

3.5 Air Quality ................................................................................................3.5-1 


3.5.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.5-1 



3.6 Noise.........................................................................................................3.6-1 


3.6.2 Existing Noise levels .......................................................................3.6-1 


3.6.4 Noise Mitigation...............................................................................3.6-1 

3.7 Ecosystems .............................................................................................3.7-1 


3.7.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.3 Terrestrial Ecology ..........................................................................3.7-2 

3.7.4 Waters of the United States (Including Wetlands) and Riparian Ecology 

........................................................................................................3.7-4 

3.7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species ...............................................3.7-6 

3.7.6 Special or Unique Habitats..............................................................3.7-8 

3.8 Water Resources and Floodplains/Floodways.....................................3.8-1 


3.8.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.8-1 



3.8.4 Environmental Consequences ........................................................3.8-6 

3.8.5 Mitigation.........................................................................................3.8-7 

3.9 Energy ......................................................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.1 Regulatory Framework....................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.2 Methodology....................................................................................3.9-1 


3.9.4 Mitigation.........................................................................................3.9-2 

3.10 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources ......................3.10-1 

3.10.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework .................................................3.10-1 

3.10.2 Methodology..................................................................................3.10-1 

3.10.3 Existing Resources .......................................................................3.10-2 

3.10.4 Environmental Impacts and Benefits.............................................3.10-4 

3.10.5 Coordination and Mitigation ..........................................................3.10-4 

3.11 Parks and Recreation Areas.................................................................3.11-1 


3.11.2 Methodology..................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.3 Existing Conditions and Resources ..............................................3.11-1 


3.11.5 Coordination and Mitigation ..........................................................3.11-2 

3.12 Hazardous Materials/Underground Storage Tanks............................3.12-1 


3.12.2 Methodology..................................................................................3.12-1 



3.12.5 Mitigation.......................................................................................3.12-7 

3.13 Secondary & Cumulative Impacts........................................................3.13-1 


3.13.2 Methodology..................................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.3 Description of Secondary Development........................................3.13-1 

3.13.4 Secondary Impacts: Mitigation......................................................3.13-5 

3.13.5 Description of Cumulative Effects of Regional Activities...............3.13-5 

3.13.6 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................3.13-7 

3.13.7 Cumulative Impacts: Mitigation .....................................................3.13-9 


Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity ..........3.13-9 

3.13.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ............3.13-9 

3.13.10 Conclusion ....................................................................................3.13-9 

3.14 Construction Impacts ...........................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.1 Land Use.......................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.2 Displacements...............................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.3 Neighborhood and Community .....................................................3.14-1 

3.14.4 Visual and Aesthetics....................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.5 Air Quality......................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.6 Noise and Vibration.......................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.7 Ecosystems...................................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.8 Water Resources ..........................................................................3.14-2 

3.14.9 Energy Use ...................................................................................3.14-3 

3.14.10 Historic and Cultural Resources....................................................3.14-3 

3.14.11 Parks.............................................................................................3.14-3 

3.14.12 Construction Mitigation..................................................................3.14-3 


3.15 Environmental Justice ..........................................................................3.15-1 


3.15.2 Methodology..................................................................................3.15-1 




Table 3.1-1. Population Trends and Projections......................................................3.1-2 

Table 3.1-2. Employment Trends and Projections...................................................3.1-3 

Table 3.1-3. Land Use Acreage...............................................................................3.1-7 

Table 3.1-4. Study Area Tax Rates .........................................................................3.1-9 

Table 3.1-5. Projected Elderly Population Adjacent To Proposed CGS ................3.1-10 

Table 3.1-6. Projected Transit Dependent Population Adjacent To 

Proposed CGS ..................................................................................3.1-10 

Table 3.1-7. Government Finance Impacts by CGS..............................................3.1-11 

Table 3.3-1. 2004/2005 Crime Statistics for Municipalities in Project Area .............3.3-2 

Table 3.5-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..............................................3.5-2 

Table 3.6-1. Summary of Projected Future Noise Impacts at the CGS ...................3.6-1 

Table 3.7-1. Federal-Listed Protected Species by County ......................................3.7-7 

Table 3.7-2. State-Listed Protected Species by County ..........................................3.7-7 

Table 3.8-1. Surface Water Resources of the Bi-County Area ................................3.8-2 

Table 3.10-1. NRHP Listed or Eligible Historic Architectural Properties in 

Project APE .......................................................................................3.10-2 

Table 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Material Sites....................................................3.12-6 

Table 3.12-2. Potential Hazardous Material Sites Near NCCR Stations..................3.12-7 

Table 3.13-1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development in the Project Area..............3.13-2 

Table 3.13-2 CGS Secondary Effects.....................................................................3.13-4 

Table 3.13-3 Mitigation Measures for Secondary Impacts .....................................3.13-5 

Table 3.15-1. Access to Stations for Minority and Low-Income Communities .........3.15-5 


Figure 3.1-1. Percent of Population 65 and Older...................................................3.1-4 

Figure 3.1-2. Percent of Population Transit Dependent ..........................................3.1-5 

Figure 3.1-3. Generalized Existing Land Use..........................................................3.1-6 

Figure 3.3-1. Neighborhoods, Communities, and Station Areas .............................3.3-3 

Figure 3.3-2. Community Facilities and Resources.................................................3.3-4 

Figure 3.7-1. Affected Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife 

Habitat................................................................................................3.7-3 

Figure 3.7-2. Affected Waters of the United States (including Wetlands) ...............3.7-5 

Figure 3.8-1: Affected Streams................................................................................3.8-3 

Figure 3.8-2: Affected Stream Buffers.....................................................................3.8-5 

Figure 3.10-1. Historic Architectural Resources.......................................................3.10-3 

Figure 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites.................................................3.12-4 

Figure 3.15-1. Minority Areas...................................................................................3.15-2 

Figure 3.15-2. Low-Income Areas............................................................................3.15-3 

Charlotte Gateway Station iii EA

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

CONSEQUENCES 

3.1 Population, Employment, Land Use, and Government Finance 

This section presents the current and forecast population and employment figures for the 

proposed Charlotte Gateway Station (CGS), areas within 1/4 and 1/2 mile of the proposed 

station. The population concentrations of various social groups, including low-income 

households, ethnic and cultural minorities, elderly, and the transit dependent in the project 

area, are also discussed. 

Additionally, existing land uses within one mile of the proposed CGS are presented. 

Comprehensive plans as well as station area planning near the station are discussed. Non 

urban land uses (farmlands) are evaluated and a discussion of recent tax revenues and 

losses are provided. 

3.1.1 Legal and Regulatory Framework 

This section addresses the provisions of federal environmental law, US Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) technical guidance related to environmental documentation and 

specific regulations related to general environmental conditions as well as specific resource 

protection and preservation measures. In certain cases, state environmental codes are 

addressed. The following laws, regulations, executive orders and related policy guidance 

direct much of the foregoing documentation: 

• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969 

• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 1970 

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 Code 

of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), 

• Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Environmental Impact and Related 

Procedures (23 CFR 771) 

• 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 109(h) and 23 U.S.C. 138 (Section 4(f) of the DOT Act) 

• The reporting requirements of 23 U.S.C. 128 

3.1.2 Methodology 

Population 

Census 2000 data were acquired for jurisdictions in the study area. The future population 

projections are based on the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data from the Mecklenburg Union 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO). 

Employment 

Data from MUMPO were acquired to determine employment statistics. The future 

employment projections are based on the TAZ data. 

Land Use 

Land use information was compiled from digital data from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County 

Department of Planning, interviews with members of various local government agencies, 

Charlotte Gateway Station 3.1-1 EA

comprehensive plans, small area plans, internet web sites of local governments (including 

on-line geographic information systems), and various internet web searches. Existing land 

use determinations were made from geographic information system (GIS) analysis of tax 

assessors’ data for each parcel within the study area. Data analysis included a review of 

existing zoning and building type for each parcel within the study area. For parcels with 

multiple building types, data was generalized through analysis of aerial imagery and limited 

site visits. 

3.1.3 Existing Conditions and Resources 

3.1.3.1 Population 

Population is presented at the regional level, near the CGS, and by social groups, including 

low-income households, ethnic and cultural minorities, elderly, and the transit dependent in 

the project area. There are no residential structures inside the parameters of the project 

site, nor are there any residential structures directly adjacent to the proposed site. 

Trends and Projections 

As part of the greater Mecklenburg County region, the City of Charlotte has experienced 

robust growth in population. By 2010, the City is expected to be nearly double the 

population figure of three decades past, as seen in Table 3.1-1. Projections for the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg region show that this growth will likely continue well into the century. 

Within walking distance of the CGS, the population is expected to grow substantially. The 

population in the area within 1/2 mile of the Charlotte Gateway Station is expected to be 

more than 13,500 by 2030. 

Table 3.1-1. Population Trends and Projections 

Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 

’80 – ’00 

Percent 

Change 

’00 – ’30 

Percent 

Change 

Charlotte 314,447 395,934 540,828 612,510 689,830 759,536 72% 40% 

Mecklenburg 

County 

404,270 511,433 695,454 867,451 1,059,519 1,227,928 

72% 77% 

1/4 Mile from CGS --- --- 398 1,456 2,422 3,387 --- 751% 

1/2 Mile from CGS --- --- 2,368 6,629 10,097 13,565 --- 473% 

Sources: US Bureau of the Census: 1980, 1990, 2000; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: Mecklenburg 

County 2010, 2020, 2030; Parsons Brinckerhoff GIS analysis using MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: 

CGS Area 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030. 

Note: TAZ data was distributed to the census block level prior to calculation. If any portion of a block was 

found to be within the specified distance, the share of population within that portion (assuming an even 

distribution within the block) was included. This can result in a slight over or under estimation of 

population. 

Social Groups 

Social groups include: low-income households, ethnic and cultural minorities (referred to as 

minorities elsewhere in the document), elderly, and the transit dependent. Low-income and 

minority areas near the project are discussed in Sections 3.15 (Environmental Justice). 

The elderly are defined as those persons age 65 and over. The transit dependent are 

defined as those who are dependent upon transit for making trips because they either do not 

have an available automobile or they do not drive. 


Figure 3.1-1 shows concentrations of elderly within the surrounding CGS area. The map 

indicates that the block group to the south of the CGS site has an elderly population of 21 to 

30 percent. However, there are a minimal number of elderly in this census block group. 

The concentration of elderly to the north of the CGS site is approximately 1 mile away. 

Figure 3.1-2 shows concentrations of transit dependent population within the surrounding 

CGS area. The greatest concentration of transit dependent populations is found in and 

around Center City Charlotte. 

3.1.3.2 Employment 

Based on census data, there were nearly 23,000 jobs within 1/2 mile of the CGS in 2000 

(Table 3.1-2). By 2030, this figure will reach nearly 37,000. While there is notable 

employment growth projected to occur throughout the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg 

County, Center City Charlotte will continue to be the regional hub for employment activities. 

Table 3.1-2. Employment Trends and Projections 

Jurisdiction 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 

’80 – ’00 

Percent 

Change 

’00 – ’30 

Percent 

Change 

Charlotte 161,107 216,696 468,155 554,699 683,417 823,697 191% 76% 

Mecklenburg 

County 

206,236 281,201 529,672 627,809 782,328 948,291 

157% 79% 

1/4 Mile from CGS --- --- 2,393 2,676 3,989 5,301 --- 122% 

1/2 Mile from CGS --- --- 22,862 25,110 31,042 36,973 --- 62% 

Sources: US Bureau of the Census: 1980, 1990; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: Mecklenburg County 

2000, 2010, 2020, 2030; Parsons Brinckerhoff GIS analysis using MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: 

CGS Area 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030. 




population. 

3.1.3.3 Existing Land Use 

Existing land uses within the surrounding CGS area are shown on Figure 3.1-3. Acreages 

of each land use within 1 mile of the proposed CGS site are listed in Table 3.1-3. Land uses 

were categorized as follows: 

• Residential: single and multi -family residential 

• Commercial: includes “business” and “central business” districts 

• Industrial: includes industrial and manufacturing districts. 

• Institutional: includes government services, hospitals, elder-care facilities, places of 

worship, and schools. 

• Mixed-use: includes areas designated in zoning codes as “mixed-use” or for areas 

known to have more than one land use. 

• Office: includes “offices” and corporate locations. 

• Utility: land dedicated for utility purposes, including overhead power transmission lines. 

• Vacant land: includes undeveloped or vacant land. Areas with no parcel or zoning data 

associated with them are considered vacant. Areas having insufficient information to 

place into any other categories described previously would also be considered vacant. 


Figure 3.1-1. Percent of Population 65 and Older 


Figure 3.1-2. Percent of Population Transit Dependent 


Figure 3.1-3. Generalized Existing Land Use 

Charlotte Gateway Station 3.1-6 Preliminary EA

The area surrounding the proposed CGS site includes a diverse array of land uses, building 

mass and densities. Building heights in Center City Charlotte vary from a few stories to the 

sixty-story Bank of America Corporate Center. Most of the land use in the immediate vicinity 

of the CGS site is mixed use, residential, commercial, and office. The site is also within 

walking distance of the most densely developed area of Center City Charlotte. 

Table 3.1-3. Land Use Acreage 

Land Use 1 Mile from CGS Charlotte Mecklenburg County 

Residential 217.8 87,505.0 124,054.3 

Commercial 79.6 5,795.7 7,886.8 

Industrial 151.8 9,748.3 11,328.5 

Institutional 128.1 7,733.8 9,648.8 

Mixed-Use 259.5 22,299.1 2,5892.2 

Office 166.1 5,864.6 6,783.3 

Utility 6.6 811.0 1,091.5 

Vacant 421.1 72,553.4 127,066.0 

Totals 1,430.7 212,311.0 313,751.3 

Source: Mecklenburg County 2005 GIS; Parsons Brinckerhoff 

3.1.3.4 Comprehensive Plans, Land Use and Transit Oriented Development 

The Center City 2010 Master Plan (2000) describes the current state of Center City 

Charlotte as well as the City’s vision and implementation strategy. The Master Plan opens 

with a common planning analysis known as SWOT, stating the area’s strengths, 

weaknesses (“challenges” as used in the Master Plan), opportunities, and threats. Results 

of this analysis are as follows: 

• Strengths: Downtown corporate presence and involvement; reemerging residential 

communities; community interest in promoting Center City Charlotte; the area’s regional 

focus. 

• Challenges: Lack of financing opportunities to spur development; tendency to use 

suburban patterns for urban development; need for “workforce” housing downtown. 

• Opportunities: Strong commercial and residential markets; public investments in Center 

City Charlotte (transit, parks). 

• Threats: Proposed additional CSX and Norfolk Southern (NS) rail lines and trains; 

common goals for large-scale development. 

As stated in the Master Plan, the goal is to “create a livable and memorable Center City 

Charlotte of distinct neighborhoods connected by unique infrastructure”. The City envisions 

a downtown with a mix of land uses and buildings of varying height and architecture. The 

Master Plan encourages neighborhood districts with pedestrian-oriented services, 

destination retail, and basic retail (e.g. grocery and drug stores). An academic presence 

and historic areas would are also be highlighted. An expanded park system is proposed. 

The system would include linear parks, parks built along side new development, tree-lined 

“green streets,” and a large regional park. Transit, streets, and parking are incorporated into 

the Master Plan, mentioning the need to reduce dependence on the automobile and to 

create pedestrian-friendly streets. 

Guidelines for areas immediately surrounding (within ½ mile) transit stations are presented 

in “Transit Station Area Principles” (2001), a supplement to the Master Plan. This document 

outlines specific land use procedures, way to encourage multi-modal transit connections, 

and community design. 


The City of Charlotte has adopted a comprehensive Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 

zoning district and a Transit Supportive (TS) overlay district. The purpose of this zoning 

district is to create a compact and high intensity mix of residential, office, retail, institutional, 

and civic uses in areas with high potential for enhanced transit and pedestrian activity. The 

development standards require attractive streetscapes, a functional mix of complementary 

uses, and the provision of facilities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking. These 

zoning districts are meant to create high density transit supportive development around 

transit stations, typically the area within one-quarter (1/4) and one-half (1/2) mile walking 

distance from the transit station, which represents a 10-minute walk. The uses anticipated 

for CGS – transportation facilities and transit supportive mixed-use development, are 

consistent with both the current zoning classification (UMUDD) and a TS overlay district. 

In November 2004, Robert Charles Lesser & Co., an economic development consultant for 

the City, provided a summary of land uses that could be supported by CGS and West Trade 

Street development under two interim development anchors bordered by Graham, 2 nd , Mint 

and 4 th Streets. One anchor proposes the development of a park and the other, a 

professional minor league baseball stadium. Both proposals share the intersection of 4 th 

and Graham Streets with the CGS facility. 

In early fall of 2006 preliminary agreements between the minor league professional baseball 

team, the Charlotte Knights and a local developer were drafted to explore the relocation of 

the team and the construction of a new baseball stadium in Center City Charlotte, adjacent 

to the CGS in the block bordered by 4 th St, Graham St, Mint St and Martin Luther King Blvd. 

Additionally, interlocal agreements between the City of Charlotte and the County of 

Mecklenburg regarding land swaps necessary to facilitate the new baseball stadium are 

currently underway. Jurisdictional approval of these agreements is anticipated in early 

spring of 2007. The County of Mecklenburg has taken the lead in the overall development 

of the Charlotte Knights baseball stadium project. 

The City of Charlotte and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are in the 

process of executing a Municipal Agreement regarding the CGS project. Because Federal 

funding is anticipated to support the project, the parties to the project must agree to certain 

conditions and covenants included in FTA grant agreements. The Agreement, expected to 

be signed in May 2009, will include the following such conditions: 

• The Parties further agree that in the event a private or public Third Party Developer 

is sought to develop, construct and/or operate the Public Facilities, any agreement 

with said Third Party Developer, and any solicitation documents used to procure the 

services of said Third Party Developer, shall include the following (or similar 

language) as required by the FTA: 

The Project is being financed, in part, with funds provided by the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and, therefore, the property and improvements are referred to 

as federally assisted assets which are subject to the conditions of the common grant 

rules of the FTA. The FTA anticipates that the Parties will develop such assets to 

include mass transit/public transportation improvements, but also may desire to 

additionally develop the property to enhance the effectiveness of the public 

transportation improvements by including other uses, including transit oriented 

development uses. The FTA has developed guidance to encourage and guide 

Grantees (such as CATS) as they seek proposals to develop federally assisted 

assets to ensure that Grantees comply with FTA’s grant rules, including the 

demonstration of “satisfactory continuing control” over Project property and assets. 

The FTA Guidance, known as Joint Development Guidance, shall be attached to any 

RFQ or RFP for a developer. All proposers to an RFQ or RFP are encouraged to 


eview this document. CATS and NCDOT will be responsible for obtaining FTA 

approval of any developer and any development plan in compliance with the “Master 

Agreement” accompanying each FTA grant awarded and all Federal rules and 

regulations which may apply, as well as the “common rule” cited at 49 CFR Part 18. 

A new Master Agreement is published each year and supersedes previously issued 

Master Agreements. Proposers shall not contact the FTA directly regarding 

compliance with FTA’s requirements or any of the requirements outlined in this 

solicitation document. 

3.1.3.5 Prime and Unique Farmland 

Mecklenburg County, GIS data was used to identify the presence of prime and unique 

farmland within the proposed CGS project area. The data indicate no prime and unique 

farmland in the project vicinity as defined by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service). 

3.1.3.6 Government Finance 

Property taxes and personal property taxes are assessed by Mecklenburg County for both 

County and Charlotte real property holders. The City assesses a separate auto fee included 

in the real property rate and also assesses a separate, value based, annual auto tax. The 

2006 combined property tax rates and tax revenues for the County and City of Charlotte are 

listed in Table 3.1-4. The total property tax revenue for the City of Charlotte and 

Mecklenburg County in FY 2006-2007 was $1.195 billion. 

Table 3.1-4. Study Area Tax Rates 

Taxing Jurisdiction 

2006 Tax Rate 

(per each $100 in value) 

Charlotte $0.4586 

Mecklenburg County $0.8189 

Combined Rate $1.2775 

Taxing Jurisdiction FY 2006-07 Tax Revenue 

Charlotte $470,721,588 

Mecklenburg County $724,549,393 

Combined $1,195,270,981 

Source: 2006-2007 Property Tax Brochure, Office of the Tax Collector, Mecklenburg County, NC 

3.1.4 Impacts and Benefits 

The impacts and benefits of the CGS project on population and employment were evaluated 

from a transit service and transit accessibility perspective. The larger the potential 

population and employment base served by the project, the greater the potential benefit to 

the region. The No-Action Alternative would offer some additional on-street bus transit 

service to the population and employment centers, but not access to the higher speed fixed 

guideway service offered by the CGS. 

The employment figures for 2010 and 2030 are substantial. The employment base within 

1/2 mile of the CGS, the employment is projected to reach over 25,100 by 2010 and nearly 

37,000 by 2030. In addition, the CGS would provide employment benefits to the Charlotte 

Region from its ongoing operations and maintenance activities. 

The CGS is compatible with existing land use plans and future development plans. 


3.1.4.1 Population 

Population Served 

The residential population adjacent to the CGS that could be served by the CGS is projected 

to be approximately 6,600 within 1/2 mile by 2010. These figures are projected to increase 

to approximately 13,600 within 1/2 mile by the year 2030. These distances are generally the 

limits of how far transit patrons are willing to walk, either from their homes, or to their places 

of employment. As the CGS is a multi-modal facility connecting local, regional and 

statewide bus and rail service, the population served beyond the 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile walking 

constraint is substantially larger. 

Groups with a Special Interest in Transit 

Certain population groups tend to be more transit dependent; these include those who do 

not have an automobile available for their use and the elderly, whose range of transportation 

choices is typically more limited. Increasing access to transit would improve the 

transportation options for these populations. Table 3.1-5 indicates the total elderly 

population within 1/4 and 1/2 mile in 2004, in the opening year (2010) and 2030. Service to 

low-income communities is discussed in the Secondary and Cumulative Impacts section of 

Chapter 3. From 1/4 mile to 1/2 mile of the CGS, there is a notable difference in the percent 

of elderly population. The CGS currently has a much younger population base within a few 

blocks of the proposed site. The CGS at 1/2 mile distance is projected to have nearly 800 

persons over the age of 65 living in the area. 

Table 3.1-5. Projected Elderly Population Adjacent To Proposed CGS 

Distance from CGS 

2004 Elderly 

(percent of population) 

2010 Projected 

Elderly Population 



1/4 Mile from CGS 1% 16 28 

1/2 Mile from CGS 9% 428 773 

Source: US Bureau of the Census; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004. 




population. Elderly (Age 65 and older) population was calculated based upon 2000 Census block data. 

It was assumed that the elderly percentage at the block level would be constant for the forecast years. 

Table 3.1-6 identifies the total projected transit dependent population (those of driving age 

who do not have an automobile available for their use and persons age 12 to 15) by 

distance from the CGS. The CGS is projected to have a larger number of transit dependent 

persons in the surrounding area. The lack of vehicles available for those living in Center 

City Charlotte may be a matter of choice or due to limited income. 

Table 3.1-6. Projected Transit Dependent Population Adjacent To Proposed CGS 

Distance from CGS 

2004 Elderly 

(percent of population) 





1/4 Mile from CGS 28% 436 1,071 

1/2 Mile from CGS 29% 1,991 4,224 

Source: US Bureau of the Census; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004. 


found to be within the specified distance, the share of population within that portion (assuming an 

even distribution within the block) was included. This can result in a slight over or under estimation 

of population. Transit dependent population was calculated based upon 2000 Census block group 

data. It was assumed that the transit dependent percentage at the block group level would be 

constant for the forecast years. 


3.1.4.2 Employment 

Center City Charlotte will continue to be the main draw for commuter and non-commuter 

trips in the region for decades to come. Within 1/2 mile of the CGS, the project would offer 

service to approximately 25,000 projected employees in the year 2010 increasing to 37,000 

in 2030. The No-Action Alternative would offer some additional on-street bus transit service 

to the employment center, but not access to the high-speed exclusive guideway service 

offered by the CGS. 

3.1.4.3 Compatibility with Land Use Plans 

The land use plans for the project area are considered compatible with the CGS for one or 

more of the following reasons: 

• The land use plans contain policies which support and encourage the development of a 

multi-modal station. 

• The land use plans support an increased transit system and/or alternate modes of 

transportation to the automobile. 

• The land use plans support or encourage compact neighborhood development. 

• Consistent with the employment projections of the MUMPO, the previously cited Robert 

Charles Lesser report indicates an additional 1.6 million square feet of office space can 

be supported along the West Trade Street corridor. The timing and development of the 

CGS will influence the pace of office space development. Furthermore, the baseball 

stadium vs public park scenario for the adjacent blocks at 2nd , Graham, Mint and 4th 

Streets will also affect the extent and nature of residential and retail development, with 

the stadium have a stronger focus on restaurant and entertainment retail development 

and the park having a stronger influence on residential development. 

3.1.4.4 Prime and Unique Farmland Impacts 

The area proposed for the CGS is designated for urban use. There would be no impact to 

of prime farmland by the project 

3.1.4.5 Government Finance Impacts 

The CGS project would require the purchase of land that would result in a minor loss of 

current tax revenue for the City and County. The proposed 6 acre CGS site consists of 1.34 

acres of privately held land by the Greyhound Line, with the remaining property publicly held 

by NCDOT and the County. The NCDOT and County property is not taxed. The financial 

impact of the CGS to the existing property tax revenues is shown in Table 3.1-7. Current tax 

revenue lost annually by the taking of the Greyhound site for the CGS would be 

approximately $37,600, resulting in a loss of 0.003 percent. 

Table 3.1-7. Government Finance Impacts by CGS 

Acreage Taken Assessed Value 

FY 2006-2007 Tax 

Revenue Lost 

FY 2006-2007 City & 

County Tax Revenue 

Percent 

1.34 $2,800,620 $37,568 $1,195,270,981 0.003% 

The proposed CGS, including potential mixed-use development of adjacent state owned 

property, will generate significant incremental tax revenues to both the City and County 

substantially greater than the loss of Greyhound. “To illustrate the potential for tax revenue 

growth, between 2001 and 2006 alone, the total assessed value of properties within 1/4 mile 


of the CGS site has increased 55 percent from $654 million to $1.014 billion. New 

construction since 2001 accounted for $216 million of the $360 million added value in this 

TOD area. Development of CGS and the adjacent NCDOT properties alone would be 

expected to generate significant incremental tax revenue. For example, development 

valued at $500 million would generate $6.4 million in new tax revenue for Charlotte and 

Mecklenburg County. CGS is expected to serve as a catalyst for other TOD development in 

the area. 

3.1.5 Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are taken when there are pertinent negative impacts. The CGS is 

compatible with existing and future master plans, land use designations and zoning 

ordinances. Impacts experienced as a result of the CGS are anticipated and have been 

incorporated into the comprehensive planning process. The City of Charlotte has a transitoriented 

development plan, overlay zone, or related land use management tool to 

encourage high-density (or higher-density) development around the proposed CGS. 

The land use impacts resulting from the CGS and the transit-oriented development are 

considered a benefit. Land use mitigation efforts would not be necessary. There are no 

prime soils and unique farmland takings and thus do not require mitigation. The loss of 

approximately $37,600 of annual property tax will be indirectly mitigated by the private 

investment of billions of redevelopment dollars into the higher land uses which will translate 

into materially higher tax rates and tax volume for the City of Charlotte. 


3.2 Displacements 

This section addresses residential and business relocations associated with the proposed 

CGS. 


This section attempts to addresses the provisions of federal environmental law, USDOT 

technical guidance related to environmental documentation and specific regulations related 

to general environmental conditions as well as specific resource protection and preservation 

measures. In certain cases, state environmental codes are addressed. The following 

laws, regulations, executive orders and related policy guidance direct much of the foregoing 

documentation: 

• NEPA, 1969 


• CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), 

• FHWA's Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771) 

• 23 U.S.C. 109(h) and 23 U.S.C. 138 (Section 4(f) of the DOT Act) 



The evaluation of displacements required for the proposed improvements, including: 

• Determination of numbers of residences, businesses, and non-profit organizations to be 

relocated. 

• Estimate of the residential relocations by owner and tenant, potential for minorities, low 

income households, large households, and the elderly, and value of dwellings. 

• Identify business relocations by type, estimated number of employees, and square 

footage. 

• Determine availability of replacement housing and business sites through consultation 

with local real estate agents, newspaper listings, and other sources which may be 

available. 

• Provide analysis of relocation needs versus replacement housing/business availability. 

Identify environmental justice issues, if any, associated with the required relocations. 

• Prepare discussion of relocations issues, including appropriate references to Federal 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the 

North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act, and any other appropriate relocations 

policies. 


There are no residential structures and only 1 non-residential structure within the CGS 

project limits. The 1 non-residential is the Greyhound Bus Terminal at 601 N Trade Street. 

This station will be relocated to an adjacent site as part of the CGS Full Build Alternative. 


3.2.4 Environmental Impacts and Benefits 

The CGS Base Build Alternative would displace no residential units and no businesses. The 

CGS Full Build Alternative would displace no residential units and one business. The 

Greyhound Bus Terminal at 601 N Trade Street will be displaced as part of the land 

acquisition for the CGS. The terminal, which was built in 1973, will be relocated to a new 

facility one block to the south. The new terminal will be constructed prior to the removal of 

the existing building. Minimal interruption in service is expected. The assessed value of the 

structure is $306,900. The total assessed value of property and structures is $2,656,200. 

The Greyhound Bus Terminal is not minority owned. Approximately 90 percent of the fulltime 

and part-time employees are minority and approximately 3 percent of the total 

employees are considered low income. The Greyhound Bus Terminal perceives that their 

business predominantly serves low-income customers. 

No employment losses are anticipated due to the relocation of the Greyhound Bus Terminal. 

The new terminal will provide upgrades in ticketing, baggage handling, bus bay access, and 

dining facilities. Additionally, pedestrian access from the new Greyhound Bus Terminal to 

the CGS will be provided through a skywalk over 4 th Street. These amenities will improve 

the working environment for employees and provide for better service to customers. 

3.2.5 Displacement Mitigation 

The relocation program for the CGS project would be conducted in accordance with the 

Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Act of 1970 (Public 

Law 91-646), and North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-17). 

The program would be designed to assist displaced persons in relocating to a replacement 

site in which to live or do business. The Act establishes comprehensive procedures for 

acquiring real property and relocating persons or businesses displaced by federally assisted 

projects. Congress enacted the Federal law to ensure that any person or business affected 

by projects such as the CGS project is treated fairly and consistently. 

The Greyhound Bus Terminal will be relocated to a new facility one block to the south prior 

to the removal of the existing building. Minimal interruption in service is expected. 


3.3 Neighborhoods 

This section describes the neighborhoods and communities within one mile of the CGS 

project site. It also describes the community services that are within close proximity to the 

project site. A description is given of fire districts, emergency medical service (EMS) 

districts, and school service areas that are within approximately 300 feet of the proposed 

CGS. Available crime statistics for areas near the proposed CGS also are presented. 





measures. In certain cases, state environmental codes are addressed. The following laws, 

regulations, executive orders and related policy guidance direct much of the foregoing 


• NEPA, 1969 







Neighborhood boundaries were identified with published map sources and existing tax 

parcel maps. For purposes of this analysis, a neighborhood is an area that either: 

• is listed as a subdivision on an Alexandria Drafting Company (ADC) map or GIS 

database provided by a local jurisdiction; or 

• is a cluster of homes having similar attributes. 

A community, which may contain one or more neighborhoods, is defined as either: 

• the area within one quarter-mile of the purposed CGS station; or 

• a Neighborhood Statistical Area within the City of Charlotte, as defined by the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Department of Neighborhood Development. 

3.3.3 

Existing Conditions and Resources 

3.3.3.1 Communities and Neighborhoods 

This section describes existing conditions for neighborhoods and communities within 300 

feet of the proposed CGS. General neighborhood areas are shown on Figure 3.3-1. None 

of these neighborhoods will be bisected, bifurcated or otherwise physically disrupted. 

Center City Charlotte has adopted zoning and transit station area plans that will position the 

proposed CGS as a major community feature linking the neighborhoods into a more 

cohesive and integrated community than before. 


3.3.3.2 Community Facilities and Resources 

Community facilities include emergency services (fire, police, and EMS), community centers, 

schools and universities, libraries, senior centers, hospitals, and places of worship. There 

are two community facilities just beyond 300 feet of the proposed CGS site as shown in 

Figure 3.3-2. The Johnson and Wales University covers several blocks to the west of the 

CGS site and is integrated within the Charlotte Gateway mixed-use development. The 

Greater Mount Moriah Primitive Baptist is also located to the west of the proposed CGS site 

at 747 W. Trade Street. NCDOT owns some 27 acres of property along the NS mainline 

tracks between 3d and 9 th Streets, which includes the CGS site. 

The proposed CGS site is within the Irwin Avenue Elementary School District, Marie G Davis 

Middle School District, and Myers Park High School District. The CGS would be served by 

Fire Station # 4, which is approximately 1/2 mile from the site and the Charlotte City Police - 

Central Division. 

3.3.3.3 Crime 

Table 3.3-1 shows 2004 crime statistics for selected Part I crimes (murder, rape, robbery, 

aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft) for the area covered by the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department in Mecklenburg County and the police district that 

encompasses the proposed CGS site. 

A review of the data shows that property crimes, particularly larceny/theft, constitute the 

majority of crimes in the proposed CGS area. Overall, however, the percent of crimes 

reported in the Central District where the proposed CGS site is located is relatively low. The 

higher visibility, security, and social activities in Center City Charlotte provide for a safer 

environment. 

Table 3.3-1. 2004/2005 Crime Statistics for Municipalities in Project Area 

Jurisdiction 

Homicide 

Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Aggravated 

Assault 

Total Part I 

Violent Crime 

Larceny/ Theft 

Motor Vehicle 

Theft 

Burglary/ B&E 

Total Part I 

Property 

Crime 

Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg 

CGS (Central 

60 307 2,786 4,118 7,271 28,129 6,777 12,021 46,927 

District) 1 18 132 157 308 2036 340 396 2772 

Percent of Total 2% 6% 5% 4% 4% 7% 5% 3% 6% 

Sources: Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Police Department (2004) 


Figure 3.3-1. Neighborhoods, Communities, and Station Areas 


Figure 3.3-2. Community Facilities and Resources 



This section describes project impacts by neighborhood associated with the CGS and 

addresses the potential for crime in the station area. The neighborhood discussion 

addresses changes in community cohesion, potential disturbances such as noise, changes 

in accessibility, and potential effects on community services. 

Refer to the Displacements discussion in Section 3.2 (Displacements) for information 

regarding specific business and residential displacements and/or takings. Although some 

discussion of noise impacts is included in the following section, refer to the complete Noise 

Section in Section 3.6. Impacts with respect to low-income and minority neighborhoods are 

discussed in Section 3.15 (Environmental Justice). 

The CGS has a long history of railroad and passenger rail use. Railroad facilities have 

existed at this site since the middle of the 19 th century. A railroad passenger depot and rail 

yard was first built on the site in1885. The last rail passenger station was raised in 1927. 

As the City of Charlotte has developed over time, improvements have been made to provide 

better access along the rail corridor. In particular, rail overpasses and underpasses. The 

implementation of the CGS along the existing rail line would not create a new barrier. It 

would enhance social interaction, community functioning, and general access to community 

services. Hospitals, churches, schools, and community centers near the CGS would 

become more accessible to the region. Wheel/rail noise will be reduced by the use of new 

continuously welded rail construction. The CGS project would not create new barriers for 

police and fire protection services. All rail crossings near the proposed CGS site are grade 

separated. 

3.3.5 Neighborhood Safety and Security Mitigation 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) compiles information on crime incidents related to 

transit operations. Crime data pertaining to commuter rail systems in metropolitan areas 

with populations above 200,000 is examined here. Nineteen systems were selected in 

regions with populations between one million and 2.5 million people. The information 

collected indicates that the most prevalent types of criminal activities at commuter rail 

systems are thefts/motor vehicle thefts, robbery, vandalism, disorderly conduct, and 

trespassing. The literature shows that these crimes occur mostly in stations or parking 

areas. Information is not available on the direct outgrowth of these types of crimes into 

surrounding neighborhoods. 

Safety and Security Features at CGS 

CATS is committed to the safety of its customers and the communities it serves. Safety and 

security impacts affecting neighborhoods as the result of construction and operation of the 

CGS would be addressed by local law enforcement, public discourse, stakeholder meetings, 

or other methods. Local law enforcement and transit police would be responsible for 

security at the station and on CGS property. Closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras 

would be installed by CATS on trains, station platforms and in parking areas. Such systems 

would be monitored at the central control office located in the CGS. All trains, platforms 

and parking areas would be equipped with emergency call boxes. The control center will 

be capable of determining call box location and relaying critical response calls to local law 

enforcement and emergency services. 

CATS will be required by the FTA to establish a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) prior 

to beginning the Final Design phase of the project. Such a plan would address numerous 

issues including security, safety, dealing with trespassers and related railroad operation 

issues. 


3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Quality 

Major public improvement projects can have varying degrees and types of impacts on the 

visual and aesthetic quality of the built and natural environment. The impacts can range 

from very intrusive to hardly noticeable. Visual environments can be viewed as negative, or 

they can improve and contribute in a positive way to the appearance and image of 

communities. 





measures. In certain cases, state environmental codes are addressed. The following laws, 

regulations, executive orders and related policy guidance direct much of the foregoing 


• NEPA, 1969 






Visual impacts to historic resources are protected under Federal law through Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and implementing regulation 36 

CFR 800 as revised on May 18, 1999. 


Compatibility or contrast with the existing built 

and natural environment’s visual or aesthetic 

context is assessed from two perspectives. First, 

the views afforded users of the proposed CGS 

project are evaluated. Second, the visibility of 

the project is evaluated from the perspective of 

the surrounding environment and, specifically, 

those sites considered particularly sensitive to 

changes of setting or view. 

Given these two perspectives, a general 

overview of the CGS’s visual and aesthetic 

character is presented in the first section. The 

second section identifies the different types of 

viewers in the surrounding area, and the third 

section describes views for travelers using the CGS. 

3.4.3 


3.4.3.1 Existing Visual Characteristics and Aesthetic Quality 

The area surrounding the proposed CGS site can be generally characterized as having high 

density development with mixed land uses and major transportation infrastructure. The view 

of traffic movement along the streets is nearly constant with passenger vehicles, buses, and 

small to large trucks. Vegetation is sparse. 


The Greyhound Bus Terminal and surrounding surface parking lots for commuters are the 

dominant visual elements within the project site. Other elements contributing to the 

character of the site include an elevated railroad bed, which borders the project site to the 

west. 

3.4.3.2 Views of the CGS 

Views of the CGS are those from roadways and adjacent properties. Those viewing the 

CGS from adjacent properties include residents, employees, and patrons of commercial and 

industrial properties, and those using public areas. Views from surrounding land uses can 

be unlimited or unobstructed, with nothing blocking the view of the project area. Views also 

can be limited or blocked by vegetation or structures. 

Commuter trains may go unnoticed in the urban landscape since there are already frequent 

passes of freight trains, large volumes of commercial and passenger vehicles passing 

nearby, and large structures in the 

background. In addition, under the Full- 

Build scenario, a new Greyhound depot will 

be integrated into the CGC facilities and 

the existing Greyhound depot demolished. 

The most noticeable change in the views of 

the CGS will be the structure itself and 

associated infrastructure, such as parking, 

station platforms, and lighting. The CGS 

will be built in an area that is already 

developing and will be built in conjunction 

with other structures. The proposed CGS 

will include a mix of uses including offices 

and retail. The design will blend into the existing visual landscape of Center City Charlotte. 

The rendering to the right is the Full-Build CGS, with offices and air-rights development. 

3.4.3.3 Views from the Rail line 

This section describes views for travelers using the CGS. It highlights areas where travelers 

using the passenger rail could be introduced to areas where views currently are not open to 

large numbers of people. The most outstanding view from the rail line will be the approach 

to Center City Charlotte. The attractive skyline will be visible from several miles north along 

the corridor. As the passenger train advances toward the CGS, the view of the skyline will 

become larger and expand. These views will be most dramatic during early morning hours 

when the City is illuminated with lights. 



Because the rail line has been in existence since the mid-19 th century, there would not be a 

substantial change in views along the approaches to the CGS. The only change in views 

would be the structure itself and associated infrastructure, such as parking, station 

platforms, and lighting. The CGS will be built according to architectural guidelines as 

determined by open public process. The CGS will also be built to address the local historic 

and aesthetic context. 

There would be a net benefit from the development of the CGS compared to existing 

conditions. The current Greyhound Bus Terminal will be relocated to an adjacent site with a 

new up-to-date facility. The CGS site, which is predominantly used as a commuter surface 

lot, will be replaced with a structure that is architecturally compatible with the surrounding 

Center City Charlotte skyline and attractive landscaping and artwork. 

The No-Action Alternative would have a negative visual impact since the site would remain 

as a large surface lot with an out dated bus terminal. 


Application of context sensitive design principles would be used to help mitigate visual and 

aesthetic impacts of the CGS. This concept provides for better integration of the project’s 

infrastructure into the community with compatible materials, station area design guidelines, 

soft and hard landscaping, signing and lighting, and public art. Site furnishings would be 

carefully selected, detailed and placed to complement the surrounding environment. 

Pursuant to FTA policy Circular 9400.1A, CATS implemented a plan to improve visual 

quality throughout the transit system. The Circular moves transit systems to contain good 

art and design as they would “improve the appearance and safety of a facility, give vibrancy 

to its public spaces, and make patrons feel welcome” (FTA, 1995). CATS’ fulfillment of this 

policy, known as the “Art-in-Transit” program, strives to implement “vibrant and 

neighborhood-oriented transit facilities” by incorporating visual art of all media into its 

stations. One percent of the CATS’ budget is dedicated to “Art-in-Transit.” Examples of 

current projects include the commissioning of artists for other CATS Corridors in the 

planning or construction stages, such as the South Corridor Light Rail and the Center City 

Streetcar Line. CATS encourages all artists to submit materials to be considered for its “Artin-Transit” 

program (City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County). 


3.5 Air Quality 

This section presents applicable federal air quality standards and discusses whether the 

CGS project attains those standards. Air quality is a general term used to describe the 

pollutant levels in the atmosphere. The air quality analysis will identify the potential air 

quality effect associated with traffic conditions resulting from the construction and operation 

of the CGS. 


In accordance with the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 7609, as amended in 1997 and 

1990) the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 

lead (Pb). These standards presented in Table 3.5-1, are also the official ambient air quality 

standards for the State of North Carolina. The “primary” standards have been established to 

protect the public health. The “secondary” standards are intended to protect the nation’s 

welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, 

and other aspects of the general welfare. 


This section documents the expected air quality effects of the CGS. Effects are examined 

from a microscale perspective or project level perspective. Construction related air quality 

considerations are discussed in Section 3.14 Construction Impacts. 


Air pollutant levels throughout North Carolina are monitored by a network of sampling 

stations operated under the supervision of the North Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of Air Quality. The county comprising the CGS 

site is in attainment for all pollutants except the eight-hour ozone standard. 

Section 107 of the 1997 Clean Air Act Amendments requires the EPA to publish a list of all 

geographic areas not in compliance with the NAAQS. Areas not in compliance with the 

NAAQS are termed non-attainment areas. The designation of an area is made on a 

pollutant-by-pollutant basis. In July of 1997, EPA adopted an 8-hour standard for O3 (0.08 

parts per million (ppm)) and added PM2.5 as a criterion pollutant to the NAAQS. 

EPA evaluated the latest scientific data and developed a more protective standard after 

discovering that adverse health effects resulting from ozone exposure occur at lower 

concentrations spread out over longer periods of time. However, before EPA could apply 

the new 8-hour standard for ozone, the agency was delayed due to litigation concerning the 

8-hour standard and its application. Finally, in spring of 2004, EPA designated areas in 

nonattainment with the 8-hour standard. Areas designated nonattainment under the 8-hour 

ozone standard have one year to demonstrate conformity in accordance with the procedures 

established by EPA at which time the 1-hour ozone standard will be revoked. 

The CGS is within an area that is currently classified as being in attainment for all NAAQS 

pollutants except ozone and carbon monoxide. The project is located within the Metrolina 

nonattainment area for O3 and the Charlotte nonattainment area for CO as defined by EPA. 

The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments designated these areas as moderate nonattainment 

area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were re-designated as 

a maintenance area for CO on September 18, 1995. The area was designated moderate 

nonattainment for O3 under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. 


In July of 1997, EPA added PM2.5 as a criterion pollutant to the NAAQS. EPA designated 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas on January 5, 2005. Only Greensboro-Winston Salem-High 

Point, North Carolina (Davidson and Guilford Counties) and Hickory, North Carolina 

(Catawba County) have been designated as PM2.5 nonattainment areas. 

Table 3.5-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant Averaging Period 

National and State Standards 

Primary Secondary 

Ozone (O3) 1 Hour b 

0.12 ppm (235 μg/m 3 ) Same as Primary Standard 

8 Hour c 

0.08 ppm (157 μg/m 3 ) Same as Primary Standard 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour a 

35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 ) - 

8 Hour a 

9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) - 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m 3 ) Same as Primary Standard 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Average 80 μg/m 3 (0.03 ppm) - 

24 Hour a 

365 μg/m 3 (0.14 ppm) - 

3 Hour a 

- 1300 μg/m 3 (0.5 ppm) 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean d 

50 μg/m 3 

Same as Primary Standard 

24 Hour e 

150 μg/m 3 


Particulate Matter (PM2.5)* Annual Arithmetic Mean d 

15 μg/m 3 


24 Hour e 

65 μg/m 3 


Lead (Pb) Calendar Quarter 1.5 μg/m 3 


Source: EPA, “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” (49 CFR 50). 

Notes: 

* New Standard effective September 16, 1997 (Final rules can be found in Federal Register July 18, 1997). 

a 

Not to be exceeded more than once a year. 

b 

3-year average of the 4th highest 8-hour concentration many not exceed 0.08 ppm 

c 

Areas not attaining the 1-hour standard by the end of 1997 must attain that standard before demonstrating 

attainment with the 8-hour standard 

d 

Based on a 3-year average of annual averages. 

e 

Based on a 3-year overage of annual 98th percentile values 

Abbreviations: 

ppm: parts per million; μg/m 3 : micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m 3 : milligrams per cubic meter 


The project is located in Mecklenburg County, which is within the Metrolina nonattainment 

area for O3 and the Charlotte nonattainment area for CO as defined by the EPA. The 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) designated these areas as moderate nonattainment 

area for CO. However, due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as 

maintenance for CO on September 18, 1995. The area was designated moderate 

nonattainment for O3 under the eight-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 

176(c) of the CAAA requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to 

the intent of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality. The current SIP does not 

contain any transportation control measures for Mecklenburg County. The MUMPO 2030 

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the (2006 - 2012) MUMPO Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The USDOT made a 

conformity determination on the LRTP on (April 20, 2005) and the TIP on (June 30, 2005). 

The current conformity determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 

CFR Parts 51and 93. There are no significant changes in the project’s design concept or 

scope, as used in the conformity analyses. 

Since the project comes from a conforming Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

(STIP) and is not predicted to cause or exacerbate a violation of the CO standard, the 

project conforms with the SIP for air quality conformance and the goals set forth in the 

CAAA and the EPA’s Final Conformity Rule. 


3.5.4.1 Air Quality Benefits in the North Corridor Study Area 

The CGS project as the southern terminus of the North Corridor Commuter Rail project is 

predicted to remove automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a result of mode shift from 

autos to trains in the North Corridor study area. This will result in a reduction of auto 

emissions and an increase in train emissions. A sketch level analysis was conducted that 

quantified these changes. 

The following pollutants were considered: hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 ug/m 3 . Auto emission factors 

were estimated using EPA’s MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission factor program. Train 

emission factors were calculated based on engine operating power and locomotive engine 

type. VMT changes were estimated by City of Charlotte traffic engineers. 

Table 3.5-2 provides the estimated emission decreases from autos along with the emission 

increases from trains in the North Corridor study area. Combining these results, a net 

overall emission reduction of each pollutant was predicted. 

Table 3.5-2. Regional Air Quality Impact Analysis of Project Elements 

Transportation 

Element 

Auto VMT 

Removed 

Train VMT 

Added 

Daily 

Vehicle 

Miles 

Traveled 

Net Reductions 74,376 34.4 

Daily Emission Burden (Kilograms/Day) 

HC CO NOx PM2.5 

75,276 35.4 449.4 70.0 1.5 

900 1.01 1.17 38.6 1.07 

0.04 

Tons/Day 

11 

Tons/Year 

448.2 31.4 0.44 

0.49 

Tons/Day 

143.48 

Tons/Year 

0.03 

Tons/Day 

10.05 

Tons/Year 

0.0 

Tons/Day 

0.14 

Tons/Year 

The predicted pollutant reductions are meaningful for the immediate North Corridor study 

corridor but will be less forceful compared to regional emission budget levels, which are 

estimated in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to be 25.9 tons/day for HC in 2005, 225.32 

tons/day for CO in 2015, and 33 tons/day for NOx in 2005 

(http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/sips/). Therefore, though the project will reduce pollutant 

burdens in the study area, it is not predicted to have a similar effect on regional emissions. 

However, the regional transportation network is a large urban transportation system in terms 

of both VMT and geographic area. It is unrealistic to expect that any single project (transit 

or roadway) will have a material impact on regional emission levels. Regional benefits must 

be assessed with a package of transportation improvements such as the MUMPO 

Transportation Improvement Plan or the Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan. 


3.6 Noise 


The potential noise impacts of the proposed CGS project were assessed in accordance with 

FTA, noise impact assessment guidelines. The FTA guidelines are set forth in Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA report DOT-T-95-16, April 1995). The FTA 

noise criteria are founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise. 

3.6.2 Existing Noise levels 

The principal sources of existing noise within the project area are motor vehicles and freight 

trains. Airplanes also contribute to the project area’s noise levels from planes approaching 

the Charlotte Douglas International Airport. Since the proposed project is adjacent to 

existing rail and street routes, the surrounding area is already exposed to moderate noise 

levels. The average noise energy (expressed in dBA) produced by different activities over a 

period of time near the proposed CGS was estimated to be at an equivalent continuous 

noise level (Leq) of 62 dBA. 


Residential and other uses are well accustomed to the normally higher noise levels 

associated with the ever-present construction and vehicular movement in Center City 

Charlotte. Sources of noise introduced from the CGS will be minimal. There would be 

increased transit activity (including standard buses, articulated buses, and street cars) 

serving the CGS at street level, but the increase in transit vehicle traffic and its associated 

noise levels will be negligible compared to what exists today. Bus operational noise 

emanating from the CGS at Full-Build either will be consistent with current levels at street 

level or minimal if moved underground. 

Passenger trains serving the CGS will add to the sources of noise generated by activity on 

the rail line. The predicted noise level from the additional passenger train activity is shown 

in Table 3.6-1 below. The section of the railroad that is adjacent to the CGS is used heavily 

by freight trains, which operate during the day and night. The amount of additional noise 

from passenger trains is projected to have no impact to the surrounding area. 

Table 3.6-1. Summary of Projected Future Noise Impacts at the CGS 

Site Location 

1 

Charlotte Gateway 

Station 

Land 

Use 

Cat. 

Dist. 

To 

Track 

Speed 

(mph) 

Existing 

Noise 

level 

(Leq) 

Projected Future Project 

Noise Level 

Impact Range 

Predicted 

Impact Severe 

3* 470 30 62 50 64-69 >69 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

* Institutional land uses with primary daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and 

churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation and 

concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical 

offices, conference rooms, recording studios and concert halls fall into this category. Places for meditation 

or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and 

recreational facilities are also included. 

3.6.4 Noise Mitigation 

Based on the impact analysis, no mitigation measures were considered for the area 

surrounding the CGS site. 


3.7 Ecosystems 

Ecological resources investigated within and near the project area include terrestrial plant 

communities and associated wildlife habitat, wildlife corridors, waters of the United States 

(including wetlands), threatened and endangered species, and unique natural areas. 

Certain waters of the United States which serve as public water supplies and/or which are 

afforded additional levels of protection because of their water quality are also discussed in 

Section 3.8 (Water Resources and Floodplains/Floodways). 

3.7.1 

3.7.2 

Legal and Regulatory Framework 

Authorization for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States would 

be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and Title 33, Part 323 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The authorization (permit) 

would be needed in the event of unavoidable effects to jurisdictional waterways and water 

bodies (as described in Section 3.7.4.1) or wetlands (as also described in Section 3.7.4.1). 

In anticipation of cumulative impacts, an Individual Permit would likely be required for the 

entire project. The Clean Water Act provides for public notice and review of permit 

applications, as well as review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and approval 

by the EPA. Because no navigable waters would be affected, a permit issued under the 

provisions of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Acts of 1899 would not be required from 

the Corps. A Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 

would be needed from the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality (DWQ). This permit is 

required in association with the Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 permitting process. The 

only terrestrial communities that could be subject to regulatory review are (1) those portions 

of upland stream buffers subject to state and local stream buffer programs and (2) any 

terrestrial communities which could be subject to USFWS consultation under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act because they support a protected species or serve as critical 

habitat for a protected species. 

Methodology 

Ecosystems and the natural resources comprising them were investigated within 0.25 mile 

of the project area through review of published records, databases, and maps along with 

field investigations. Sources consulted include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

topographic quadrangles; USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and protected 

species lists; NRCS soil surveys; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 

database and mapping; North Carolina BasinPro GIS databases; state and county park 

inventories of plant and animal species; and aerial photography. Terrestrial natural 

communities were classified using the North Carolina 1996 land coverage program along 

with their comparable classification under the 1990 Classification of the Natural 

Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Land coverage mapping was updated 

in affected portions of the study area using 2002 color aerial photography. Waters of the 

United States (wetlands and deepwater habitats) were classified using USFWS’s 

Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al; 

1979). 


3.7.3 Terrestrial Ecology 

3.7.3.1 Existing Conditions and Resources 

Terrestrial Plant Communities 

As classified and mapped (Figure 3.7-1) under the North Carolina 1996 land coverage 

program, one general terrestrial plant community occur within 0.25 mile of the CGS site. Of 

the 125.5 acres covered by a 0.25 mile radius, only 0.68 acres of mixed shrubland was 

identified. A comparable classification to this terrestrial plant community under the 1990 

Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Third Approximation) is the 

successional stage of dry oak-hickory forest. Areas mapped as high-intensity and lowintensity 

development comprise 99.5 percent of the 0.25 mile surrounding area. 

Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 

Terrestrial wildlife habitat within the project area is non existent due to the extensive 

residential, commercial, and industrial development within the surrounding area. 

Wildlife Corridors and Biodiversity 

Wildlife corridors within the project area are limited because of the highly fragmented nature 

of natural plant communities and the scarcity of riparian corridors (a function of relatively 

high position in the landscape). No prominent corridors were identified that connect two 

unique natural communities. The project site does not intersect any greenways or parks. 

3.7.3.2 Environmental Impacts and Benefits 

Direct Effects to Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitat 

No direct effects to natural terrestrial plant communities would result from construction of the 

CGS. The proposed CGS site is located in an area classified as high intensity developed. 

The No-Action Alternative will result in no predictable direct effects to natural terrestrial plant 

communities 

Indirect Effects to Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitat 

Indirect effects to terrestrial natural plant communities potentially resulting from development 

reasonably expected to occur within the 0.25-mile buffer surrounding the CGS would be 

minimal. Within 0.25 miles from the CGS, only 0.7 acres of Mixed Shrubland was identified. 

The remaining 124.8 acres within the 0.25 mile radius is a mix of high and low density 

developed land. The No-Action Alternative would not lead to increased indirect effects to 

natural plant communities or associated wildlife habitat. 

Direct Effects to Wildlife Corridors and Biodiversity 

Prominent wildlife corridors within construction limits of the CGS are not present because of 

the highly developed nature of Center City Charlotte. No prominent wildlife corridors were 

identified that connect two natural communities. The No-Action Alternative would not result 

in increased impacts to existing wildlife corridors or biodiversity parameters. 

Indirect Effects to Wildlife Corridors and Biodiversity 

No prominent wildlife corridors extend into the 0.25-mile buffer surrounding proposed CGS; 

therefore, no indirect adverse effects are anticipated. The No-Action Alternative would not 

lead to increased indirect effects to wildlife corridors or regional biodiversity. 


Figure 3.7-1. Affected Terrestrial Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitat 


3.7.3.3 Mitigation 

The implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control 

during construction will help minimize any potential secondary impacts to adjoining 

communities and habitat. 

CATS will not plant any prohibited noxious-weed seeds as listed on the statewide list. All 

seeds used by CATS will be tested in accordance with the North Carolina Seed Law. CATS 

will work with the NCDENR to implement a plan to restrict the spread of invasive species if 

any are found in the project area. Preventative measures that will be employed include: the 

inspection and cleaning of construction equipment; commitments to ensure the use of 

invasive-free mulches, topsoils, and seed mixes. Eradication strategies will be deployed 

should invasion occur. 

It is not expected that there will be any habitat impacts that will adversely affect migratory 

birds at the population level. When entering into a contract with a construction contractor, 

CATS will notify contractors of the criminal penalties associated with taking migratory bird 

nests or otherwise harming migratory birds. In order to minimize and avoid impacts to 

migratory birds during construction, the contractor will not be allowed to disturb, destroy, or 

remove active nests during the nesting season. The removal of unoccupied or inactive 

nests from the construction site will also be avoided where practicable, and the contractor 

will not be permitted to collect, capture, relocate, or transport migratory birds, eggs, young, 

or active nests without a permit. 

3.7.4 Waters of the United States (Including Wetlands) and Riparian Ecology 

3.7.4.1 Existing Conditions and Resources 

Waterways and Water Bodies 

As shown in Figure 3.7-2, there are no waterways or water bodies considered to be waters 

of the United States within the surrounding project area (1/4 mile radius). The nearest 

waterway or water body is located approximately 1/2 mile to the west (classified as 

permanently flooded, lower perennial, riverine unconsolidated bottom (R2UBH) under the 

USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, 

et al; 1979)). 

Wetlands 

No wetlands regulated as a category of “waters of the United States” and subject to US 

Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (33 CFR 328.3) were identified in the surrounding project area. 

Water-Dependent Wildlife and Migratory Birds 

No water-dependent wildlife or migratory birds were observed within the project area nor 

would any be likely affected by project construction. 


Figure 3.7-2. Affected Waters of the United States (including Wetlands) 


3.7.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

Direct Effects to Waterways and Water Bodies 

No direct effects to waterways or water bodies resulting from construction of the CGS would 

occur (see section 3.12 Hazardous Materials for discussion of potential contaminated soils 

and groundwater). The No-Action Alternative would have no direct effects on wetlands. 

Indirect Effects to Waterways and Water Bodies 

No indirect effects to waterways or water bodies potentially resulting from development 

reasonably expected to occur within the 0.25-mile buffer surrounding the proposed CGS site 

is anticipated. The No-Action Alternative would not lead to increased indirect effects to 

waterways or water bodies. 

Direct Effects to Wetlands 

No wetland impacts would occur within the project area. The No-Action Alternative would 

not impact wetlands. 

Indirect Effects to Wetlands 

No indirect effects to wetlands potentially resulting from development reasonably expected 

to occur within the 0.25-mile buffer surrounding the proposed CGS site is anticipated. The 

No-Action Alternative would not lead to increased indirect impacts to wetlands. 


Because of the absence of waters of the United States (including wetlands) and riparian 

ecology within the surrounding project area, no mitigation measures are required. 

3.7.5 Threatened or Endangered Species 

Threatened and endangered species are animal and plant species protected by either the 

federal or state government because their populations are decreasing for such reasons as 

habitat loss, habitat competition, and other man-induced impacts such as pesticide usage. 

Species with the federal designation of endangered or threatened receive protection under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The status of “endangered” refers to a species “which 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The status of 

“threatened” refers to a species “which is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” 

3.7.5.1 Affected Environment 

Federal-Listed Protected Species 

Five federal-listed protected species were identified by state natural resource agencies as 

potentially being present within one or more of the 7.5-minute quadrangles encompassing 

the project. None of these federal-listed protected species were observed during the field 

investigation; however, formal protected species surveys were not conducted. Table 3.7-1 

lists federal-listed protected species based on data provided by the USFWS (dated 2005). 

The NCNHP database was also reviewed for known locations of federal-listed protected 

species. Based on field reconnaissance, the project area represents no potential habitat for 

three federal-listed endangered plant species - Schweinitz’s sunflower, smooth coneflower 

(Echinacea laevigata), and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii). 


Table 3.7-1. Federal-Listed Protected Species by County 

Common Name Scientific Name Status County 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened 1 Mecklenburg 

Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered Mecklenburg 

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered Mecklenburg 

Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered Mecklenburg 

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Mecklenburg 

1 Proposed for delisting. 

State-Listed Protected Species 

Species with the North Carolina status of Endangered, Threatened, Endangered-Special 

Concern, or Threatened-Special Concern are protected under the North Carolina 

Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection and 

Conservation Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). Threatened or endangered species of 

special concern require monitoring but may be collected and sold under regulations adopted 

under the Plant Protection and Conservation Act. State-listed protected species reported to 

occur within Mecklenburg County are presented in Table 3.7-2. 

Table 3.7-2. State-Listed Protected Species by County 

Common Name Scientific Name Status County 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened 1 

Mecklenburg 

Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered Mecklenburg 

Creeper Strophitus undulatus Threatened Mecklenburg 

Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana Endangered Mecklenburg 

Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered Mecklenburg 

Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered - SC Mecklenburg 

Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered - SC Mecklenburg 

Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum Endangered - SC Mecklenburg 

Georgia aster Symphyotrichum georgianum Threatened Mecklenburg 

1 

Proposed for delisting. 


No individual specimens or populations were observed during field reconnaissance within 

0.25 mile of the CGS; however, formal protected species surveys were not conducted. 

Direct Effects to Federal-Listed and State-Listed Protected Species 

Based on field reconnaissance, no suitable habitat for three federal-listed and state-listed 

endangered plant species (Schweinitz’s sunflower, smooth coneflower, and Michaux’s 

sumac) were identified within the project area. The No-Action Alternative would have no 

direct effects on threatened and endangered species. 

Direct Effects to State-Listed Only Protected Species 

No impacts to protected species that are only state-listed (i.e., not also federally listed) 

would result from the proposed CGS project. 


Indirect Effects to Protected Species 

The project area contains no suitable habitat for three federal-listed and state-listed 

endangered plant species (Schweinitz’s sunflower, smooth coneflower, and Michaux’s 

sumac). The No-Action Alternative would have no predictable indirect impacts on suitable 

habitat for Schweinitz’s sunflower, Michaux’s sumac, or smooth coneflower. 

3.7.5.3 Mitigation Measures 

No direct or indirect effects to known populations or individual specimens of a protected 

species would result from construction of the proposed CGS. Given the lack of species 

occurrences, along with the widespread presence of suitable habitat for Schweinitz’s 

sunflower, smooth coneflower, and Michaux’s sumac within Mecklenburg County, mitigation 

to preserve potential suitable habitat is considered unnecessary. 

3.7.6 Special or Unique Habitats 

3.7.6.1 Affected Environment 

No special or unique habitats identified by the NCNHP are located within 0.25 mile of a 

proposed CGS site. 


No special or unique habitats would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project 

(see Figure 3.7-3). 

3.7.6.3 Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures are not applicable because no special or unique habitats would be 

directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. 


3.8 Water Resources and Floodplains/Floodways 

3.8.1 

3.8.2 

3.8.3 

Legal and Regulatory Framework 

Certain surface water resources such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to 

jurisdictional consideration under Sections 303(b) and 401 of the Clean Water Act. Surface 

water resources in the bi-county area are a combination of perennial streams, intermittent 

streams, ephemeral streams, non-jurisdictional storm water channels and ditches, and open 

water bodies (reservoirs and farm ponds). An EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permit for storm water discharge would be required under 40 CFR 122. 

Protection of floodplains and floodways is required by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management; USDOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection; and 23 CFR 

650. The intent of these regulations is to avoid or minimize encroachments within the 100year 

(base) floodplain, where practicable, and to avoid supporting land use development 

that is incompatible with floodplain values. 

The U.S. Water Resources Council’s Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing 

Executive Order 11988 defines a regulatory floodway as “the area regulated by Federal, 

State or local requirements; the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent 

land areas that must be reserved in an open manner, i.e., unconfined or unobstructed either 

horizontally or vertically, to provide for the discharge of the base flood so the cumulative 

increase in water surface elevation is no more than a designated amount (not to exceed one 

foot as set by the National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP]).” 

Methodology 

Surface water and groundwater resources were identified within 0.25 miles of the proposed 

CGS site. Resources investigated include surface water resources (streams, ponds, and 

reservoirs) and groundwater resources (water supply wells and groundwater 

recharge/discharge areas). These resources were searched through the review of existing 

resource agency data, records, and maps, and through field investigation. Sources 

consulted include the USGS topographic quadrangles, the USGS National Hydrography 

Dataset (NHD) geo-database, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service soil surveys, 

NCDENR BasinPro data, and aerial photography. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-mapped 100-year floodplains and 

regulatory floodways were investigated within the vicinity of proposed CGS. These 

resources were searched through the review of existing resource agency data, records, and 

maps. Sources consulted include FEMA flood insurance studies and local floodplain 

ordinances. 


3.8.3.1 Surface Water Resources 

As defined under the federal system (specifically the USGS), the project site falls within the 

Lower Catawba hydrologic unit (USGS Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 03050103). The 

existing rail line falls within the Lower Catawba hydrologic unit, where it extends along the 

drainage divide separating Irwin Creek and an unnamed tributary to Little Sugar Creek. 

Quantities of surface water resources within the hydrologic unit of the project site are 

presented in Table 3.8-1. 


Table 3.8-1. Surface Water Resources of the Bi-County Area 

Hydrologic Unit 

Perennial Streams 

(Feet) 

Intermittent 

Streams (Feet) 

Water Bodies 

(Acres) 

Lower Catawba 848,659 3,070,529 1,257 

Figure 3.8-1 shows locations of perennial streams and mapped intermittent streams in the 

vicinity of the proposed CGS site. NCDENR-DWQ records were reviewed to determine the 

best usage classification and bio-classification (formerly known as benthic macroinvertebrate 

ambient network [BMAN]) for major water resources present in the vicinity of 

the proposed CGS. Stream bio-classification is a measure of the long-term trends in water 

quality at fixed monitoring stations determined by sampling for select benthic macroinvertebrates. 

No federally- or state-designated wild and scenic rivers are found within the 

project area. 

Best Usage Classification. Where recognized as not being a water supply resource, nearly 

all perennial streams within the project area have been assigned a water quality 

classification of “C” (surface fresh waters that are regulated because of their best usage for 

aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, secondary recreation, and agriculture). Where 

recognized as being a potential water supply resource, most other perennial streams within 

the project area have been assigned a water quality classification of water supply (WS)-IV 

(waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed 

watersheds and which are suitable for all class “C” uses). For each of these classifications, 

unnamed streams (including intermittent streams) carry the same classification as that 

assigned to the stream segment to which they are a tributary. 

No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) are located within the project area. 

Bio-classification. The NCDENR-DWQ stream bio-classification system addresses the longterm 

trends in water quality at fixed monitoring stations by sampling for selected benthic 

macro-invertebrates. Stream bio-classifications range from “excellent” to “poor”, where a 

bio-classification of “excellent” means water quality was associated with both high species 

richness and the presence of many intolerant macro-invertebrate species, while a bioclassification 

of “poor” means the more sensitive macro-invertebrate species have been 

eliminated from the stream as a result of degraded water quality. Areas upstream of fixed 

monitoring bio-classification stations (including unnamed tributaries to monitored streams) 

carry the same bio-classification as the closest downstream fixed monitoring bioclassification 

station. Upstream reaches can, however, have different bio-classifications 

than the fixed monitoring bio-classification station when there is a permitted or un-permitted 

surface water discharge separating the upstream reach and the fixed monitoring bioclassification 

station. 

Nineteen rated fixed monitoring bio-classification stations and five non-rated fixed 

monitoring bio-classification stations are located within the Mecklenburg County portion of 

the Catawba River basin. Of the 19 rated stations, eight have a bio-classification of “poor”, 

seven have a bio-classification of “fair”, three have a bio-classification of “good-fair”, and 

one has a bio-classification of “good”. No streams within the Mecklenburg County portion of 

the Catawba River basin have been assigned a bio-classification rating of “excellent”. The 

fact that 15 of the 19 stations (or 79 percent) have a bio-classification of “fair” to “poor” is a 

reflection of the degree of stream degradation attributed to development and agricultural 

activity within this portion of the basin. 


Figure 3.8-1: Affected Streams 


Catawba River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule. In August 2004, North Carolina adopted a 

management strategy and accompanying Rule titled the “Catawba River Basin: Protection 

and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers” (the Rule). The Rule serves to “protect and preserve 

existing riparian buffers along the Catawba River mainstem below Lake James and along 

mainstem lakes from and including Lake James to the North Carolina and South Carolina 

border in the Catawba River Basin in order to maintain their pollutant removal functions as 

an aid in protecting the water quality of the lakes and connecting river segments”. The 

buffer is divided into two zones. Zone 1 begins at the top of the bank or full pond level and 

extends 30 feet landward on all sides of the surface water. Within Zone 1, existing forest 

vegetation must be preserved. Zone 2 begins at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extends 20 

feet landward. Zone 2 is maintained to provide a stable vegetated area that is undisturbed 

except for certain activities specified under the Rule. Grading and revegetation of Zone 2 is 

allowed provided that the health of Zone 1 is not compromised. The buffer requirements 

apply to all sides of an existing natural water body including intermittent streams, perennial 

streams, lakes, and ponds. Ditches, manmade storm water channels, and ponds and lakes 

for animal watering, irrigation, or other agricultural uses that are not part of a natural 

drainage way are exempt from the Rule. The Rule exempts some project activities such as 

road crossings, roadside ditches, rail crossings, and bridges. Any project that demonstrates 

that there is no practicable alternative to a zone encroachment is required to minimize 

disturbance and, depending on the activity, provide mitigation. The project must provide 

maximum nutrient removal, erosion protection, have the least adverse effect on aquatic life 

and habitat, and protect water quality to the maximum extent practical with best 

management practices. Stream buffers are shown in Figure 3.8-2. 

Local Stream Buffer Rules. Mecklenburg County along with the City of Charlotte has 

variations of the state’s Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) ordinance. 

This ordinance is intended to stabilize water quality countywide and prevent further 

degradation through the establishment and preservation of stream buffers. Each stream 

buffer is comprised of a Stream Side Zone, a Managed Use Zone, and an Upland Zone. 

Along each side of the stream, the total width of the buffer ranges from 35 feet for drainage 

areas of 100 acres or less, to 50 feet for drainage areas of 300 acres or less, to 100 feet for 

drainage areas of 640 acres or less. Except for permitted activities (including flood control 

structures, bank stabilization, installation of utilities, and road crossings), activities within the 

Stream Side Zone are “very restricted” (no cutting or clearing allowed). Activities within the 

Managed Use Zone are “restricted” (limited clearing), permitting such limited uses as storm 

water best management practices, bike paths, and greenway trails. Activities within the 

Upland Zone are “restricted” (maintenance of grass or other herbaceous ground cover), 

permitting such limited uses as lawns, gardens, gazebos, and non-commercial storage 

buildings less than 150 square feet. 

Surface Water Supply Resources. No streams classified as WS sources of the NCDENR- 

DWQ classification are located within the vicinity of the proposed CGS. There are also no 

surface water intakes located within the vicinity of the proposed CGS. 

3.8.3.2 Groundwater Resources 

Based on 2005 records on file with NCDENR, there are no groundwater supply wells, 

groundwater supply systems, groundwater treatment plants, or groundwater supply storage 

facilities located within the project area. 

3.8.3.3 Floodplains (100-year) and Regulatory Floodways 

The proposed CGS site does not encroach upon any FEMA-mapped floodplains or 

regulatory floodways. 


Figure 3.8-2: Affected Stream Buffers 


3.8.4 Environmental Consequences 

General characteristics of water resources likely to be affected by the proposed project (i.e., 

those in the vicinity of or immediately downstream of project components) were determined 

through field investigation. 


Direct Effects to Surface Water Resources 

No perennial streams are within 0.25 miles of the project site. Therefore, no perennial 

streams or open water bodies would be directly affected by construction of the CGS. One 

intermittent stream exists within 0.25 miles of the project site. This intermittent stream, a wet 

weather tributary of Irwin Creek is just north of and parallels 5th Street. This stream is an 

enclosed below grade culvert draining storm water from Center City Charlotte to an open 

concrete channel just west of the NS railroad. The open concrete channel becomes a below 

grade culvert until it outfalls directly to Irwin Creek just east of I-77. There would be no 

direct impact to this intermittent stream under the Build or Low Build condition. The No- 

Action Alternative would not impact surface water resources. 

Catawba River Basin and Local Buffer Encroachments. Section 3.8.3.1 describes the Rule 

adopted by the NC Environmental Management Commission, titled the “Catawba River 

Basin: Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers”. This Rule establishes buffer 

requirements adjacent to water bodies in the basin to preserve and maintain sheet flow and 

nutrient removal. The Rule designates a 50-foot-wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to the 

banks of the surface waters in the Catawba River Basin. The proposed CGS would not 

encroach into any stream buffers. 

Surface Water Supply Resources. No streams classified as WS or surface water intakes 

would be directly affected by the proposed CGS. 

Indirect Effects to Surface Water Resources 

No surface water resources or stream buffers were identified within 0.25 mile of the 

proposed CGS. Therefore, there would be no indirect effects which could occur as a result 

of development potentially induced around the newly constructed station. Given this degree 

of separation, as well as storm water and erosion control measures that would be required 

under state and local programs as future development within the 0.25-mile buffer occurs, no 

indirect adverse effects to surface water resources are likely to occur. 


Direct Effects to Groundwater Resources 

No groundwater supply wells, wellhead protection zones, treatment/storage facilities, or 

groundwater recharge or discharge areas would be directly affected by construction of the 

CGS. The No-Action Alternative would not impact groundwater resources. 

Indirect Effects to Groundwater Resources 

No groundwater supply well would be indirectly affected by development potentially induced 

by construction of the proposed CGS. 


3.8.4.3 Floodplains (100-Year) and Regulated Floodways 

Direct Effects upon 100-Year Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways 

Based upon a review of the FEMA maps, no 100-year floodplains or regulatory floodways 

would be directly affected by the proposed CGS project. The No-Action Alternative would, 

likewise, not impact 100-year floodplains or regulatory floodways. 

Indirect Effects upon 100-Year Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways 

The 0.25-mile buffer surrounding the proposed CGS does not encroach on any 100-year 

floodplain. No reasonably foreseeable development would be induced in the vicinity of the 

CGS that would have indirect effects to flood-prone areas located downstream of the project 

area. 



During preparation of the FEIS, CATS would coordinate with the NCDENR-DWQ and the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, where required, to develop appropriate crossing strategies in 

the event stream bed restoration and alteration becomes necessary. Currently, no stream 

alteration, relocation or restoration is anticipated. 

To protect surface water resources (especially water supply streams) and surface water 

intakes located downstream of the proposed project, sedimentation and erosion control 

practices used during the construction of the CGS will reflect current local and state 

standards. Several best management practices exist for the elimination or reduction of 

sediment during construction. Methods that may be employed during construction could 

include silt fences, temporary seeding, temporary diversions, sediment traps, and temporary 

stream crossings. Silt fences capture sediment from sheet flow by reducing the velocity of 

flow, thereby allowing sediment deposition. Temporary seeding is used to stabilize denuded 

areas that would not be brought to their final grade for several weeks or months. Temporary 

diversions above disturbed slopes prevent flow across unprotected slopes and divert excess 

runoff away from level areas. Temporary sediment traps at various points along the project 

to prevent sedimentation runoff during rain events. Temporary stream crossings allow some 

construction traffic to cross streams during the construction of the rail system, thereby 

reducing the potential for erosion. Erosion control during construction will be guided by the 

following standards: 

• The City of Charlotte’s “Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface 

Waters” 

• The Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual by NCDENR, revised 

1998. 

• The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Roadway Standard 

Drawings, July 2006 and the NCDOT Standard 2006 Specifications for Erosion Control 

and Roadside Development. 

Storm water management during construction would include management practices to 

eliminate or reduce the exposure of construction materials and processes to storm water. 

Contractors would use traditional BMPs during the construction of the CGS, including 


vegetative buffers, grass swales, catch basins, energy dissipaters, level spreaders, and 

infiltration devices. 

Measures that could be employed to help reduce stormwater pollution during construction 

include: 1) roofs and decks to protect material loading and unloading areas; 2) grading 

practices that divert storm water away from the loading and unloading areas; 3) sweeping of 

streets, paved yards, and parking lots; and 4) roofs over onsite waste piles. 


No components of the CGS would be located within the 100-foot wellhead protection zone 

recommended by the state of North Carolina for public groundwater supply wells. To 

mitigate temporary construction impacts, an erosion and sediment control plan would be 

developed in accordance with state and local sediment and erosion guidelines (see 

standards above in subsection 3.8.5.1. 

3.8.5.3 Floodplains (100-Year) and Regulated Floodways 

No mitigation measures for indirect effects to downstream floodplains are required. 

3.8.5.4 LEED Certification 

CATS would evaluate designs for the CGS that would help meet the requirements for 

obtaining Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. LEED 

certification provides independent, third-party verification that a building project meets the 

highest performance standards. The LEED plaque is recognized nationwide as proof that a 

building is environmentally responsible, profitable, and a healthy place to live and work 

(Source: http://www.usgbc.org). 


3.9 Energy 

This section discusses the expenditure of energy resources as a result of the CGS project. 

Section 3.9.1 describes the reason for analysis as required by FTA. Section 3.9.2 briefly 

outlines the methodology used in the analysis and the remaining section discusses the 

impacts and benefits, including mitigation to reduce, minimize or eliminate impacts, if any. 

3.9.1 Regulatory Framework 

SAFETEA-LU amendments to Section 5309(d)(2)(B) continue to require that projects 

proposed for New Starts funding be justified based on a comprehensive review of a number 

of criteria, including environmental benefit of the project to the region. Energy 

consumption/impact is one of the measures of environmental benefit which is part of the 

New Starts Project Justification Criteria. 


Due to the nature of the proposed CGS being a site specific project, energy consumption 

was not quantified for this EA. This section provides a general discussion of the impacts 

and benefits of the Build and No-Action alternatives as they relate to energy consumption. 

Energy consumption is typically analyzed based on direct and indirect energy consumed 

and the degree to which energy use can be deemed wasteful. Direct energy consumption 

refers to the fuel consumed by vehicles using a given alternative transportation facility. 

Indirect energy consumption is associated with the construction, operation, and 

maintenance of the alternative and the manufacture and maintenance of vehicles using the 

facility. 


Construction and operation of a multi-modal center expends energy. While building and 

operating a new structure in Center City Charlotte consumes additional energy, the entire 

region would benefit by promoting other modes of transportation, such as passenger rail and 

bus service, which will reduce energy consumption. 

Energy is consumed both directly and indirectly during construction. Direct energy 

consumption includes the energy used to operate construction machinery, provide 

construction lighting, and produce materials such as asphalt. Indirect energy consumption 

includes such activities as manufacturing and maintenance of the construction equipment, 

and energy consumed by workers commuting to the project site. Energy is used during 

construction to manufacture materials, transport materials, and operate construction 

machinery. Operational energy consumption includes fuel consumed by the building, and a 

negligible amount of energy for lighting and maintenance. 

The CGS will reduce traffic in the region by providing a hub for alternative modes of 

transportation for travel to/from outlying areas. A significant portion of these savings 

represents fuel that would otherwise be wasted. Saved fuel also results in reduced 

emissions and other air quality improvements. Maintaining the CTC as the main hub for 

CATS operations would be less efficient and would reduce the overall transit operations and 

transit flow with increasing idling time and congestion. The Build Alternative would be 

increasingly energy efficient beyond the construction period, and over time when compared 

to the No-Build Alternative. 

The No-Build Alternative could be considered wasteful over the long term. However, the 

No-Build Alternative would result in less direct energy consumption because there would be 

no immediate construction activities. 



Because the Build Alternative would support the decrease in energy use by promoting 

alternative modes of transportation across the region more so than the No-Action 

Alternative, no long-term mitigation would be required. Measures to maintain transportation 

and construction practices that reduce energy consumption could reduce energy demand 

during the construction period. CATS will encourage the project developer to maximize 

energy efficiency through the use of green building techniques for the construction and 

operation of the CGS. 


3.10 Historic Architectural and Archaeological Resources 

This section describes the historic architectural and archaeological resources within the 

project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), and describes the potential project impacts. Historic 

architectural and archaeological resources may include districts, sites, buildings, structures, 

or objects. 


Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 

U.S.C. Section 470(f)), applies to all projects that have federal involvement (e.g., funding, 

permits) and to properties that are listed in or determined eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NHPA requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, including archaeological 

sites, and to consult SHPO and other parties to develop and evaluate alternatives or 

modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to 

historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is afforded a 

reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The requirements of Section 106 

are implemented under Title 36, Section 800 of the CFR (36 CFR 800), “Protection of 

Historic Properties.” Compliance with NEPA of 1969, (42 U.S.C. §4321) Section 101(b) is 

being undertaken concurrently with the Section 106 process. 

Archaeological sites are also protected under the Archaeological and Historic Preservation 

Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 469a), often referred to as the Moss-Bennett Act; the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979; and Executive Order 11593. 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 303), prohibits the use of 

land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or historic 

sites unless a determination is made that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to 

using such land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize 

harm to the land resulting from its use. The word “use” means the taking or acquisition of 

land or property for construction of a permanent transportation facility. When the proximity 

impacts of a transportation project on Section 4(f) property, even without the acquisition of 

the property, are so great that the purposes of the property are substantially impaired, 

Section 4(f) may also apply. Section 4(f) applies only to USDOT projects. 


3.10.2.1 Historic Architectural Resources 

The evaluations of effects are based upon a Phase II survey undertaken within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE). The APE was determined in consultation with the SHPO to include 

all areas of direct and indirect effects around the CGS. The APE extends approximately 250 

feet from the edges of the site to encompass bordering blocks. The APE and the historic 

resources were identified in the Phase II Architectural Resource Survey Report (dated 12 

December 2005). 

The methodology for the Phase II architectural survey consisted of historical research and 

intensive level field work within the APE to identify all properties that are either listed in, or 

are potentially eligible for listing in, the NRHP. In addition, properties designated as 

landmarks by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic District Commission or the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks commissions were also considered during this survey, as 

they are considered eligible for the NRHP. 


During the research phase, the architectural survey files at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Historic Landmarks Commission and the SHPO in Raleigh were searched. Especially useful 

were the series of thematic architectural studies of Charlotte. Local historians, property 

owners, planners, and historic preservation specialists were also contacted to gain an 

understanding of specific resources. 

The field work consisted of an architectural survey of every property within the APE that was 

considered to be at least fifty years of age. Residential, commercial, and industrial historic 

districts, as well as individual buildings were examined. A sufficient number of photographs 

were taken to support evaluations of eligibility. The field work was conducted between 

February and August 2005, and 100 percent of the APE was examined. Subsequent to the 

field work, the principal investigators developed an inventory list that included brief 

descriptions and NRHP eligibility evaluations for each surveyed resource. 

3.10.2.2 Archaeological Resources 

An Archaeological Survey was conducted in October and January of 2005 and 2006 

respectively within the project APE. The work consisted of a background review of the files 

and archives at the SHPO’s office in Raleigh, the NC State University Archives, the Hackney 

Library at Barton College and the Edgecombe Library in Tarboro, NC. 

The project site is primarily used for parking, and is covered by either paved or gravel lots. 

Approximately 30 backhoe trenches were excavated within the project site (excluding the 

bus station tract), each approximately 150 feet long. The location of the trenches was 

guided by the results of historic research on the locations of historic buildings as depicted on 

Sanborn maps. 

An archaeological site was defined by the recovery of three artifacts in reasonable 

association. Historic sites are also defined by the presence of surface or subsurface 

structural remains. Diagnostic isolated finds would be given a site number for management 

purposes. If an archaeological site were identified, the approximate horizontal and vertical 

extent of the site, as well as the internal configuration of the site, would be defined to the 

extent possible. 

3.10.3 Existing Resources 


Two resources (individual properties and historic districts) were identified within the APE as 

warranting National Register evaluation. Neither site is on the NRHP but they are eligible 

for the NRHP. Table 3.10-1 lists the NRHP listed and eligible architectural historic 

resources identified within the APE. The location of each site is shown in Figure 3.10-1. 

Table 3.10-1. NRHP Listed or Eligible Historic Architectural Properties in Project APE 

Survey 

Site # 

Site Name Location 

NRHP Status, 

NRHP Criterion of Eligibility 

215 Virginia Paper Company Charlotte, South Graham NRHP Eligible, A for industry, C for 

Warehouse 

Street at West Third Street architecture 

216 Federal Courthouse Charlotte, 401 West Trade NRHP Eligible/Local Landmark, A 

(Former) U.S. Post Office Street 

for government, C for architecture 

Source: Matson Alexander, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2005. 


Figure 3.10-1. Historic Architectural Resources 



The archaeological survey for the CGS project site identified no NRHP eligible sites within 

the project corridor. 

No cemeteries were found or recorded during the archaeological investigations. 


The principal investigators are recommending no adverse effects for the direct actions 

associated with the proposed CGS project. No historic properties would be taken under 

current designs, and thus there would be no Section 4(f) compliance issues. 

The archaeological survey for the NCCR project identified no NRHP eligible sites within the 

project corridor. Thus, the project would have no adverse effect on any resource as defined 

in Title 36, Section 800 of the CFR. 

The No-Action Alternative would have no effect on either historic architectural or 

archaeological resources. 


Potential Impacts 

No impacts on historic architectural resources in the project site were determined in 

accordance with the Criteria of Adverse Effect, outlined in 36 CFR 800, the regulations that 

define Section 106 of the NHPA. 

The No-Action Alternative would have no adverse effects on historic properties. 


The archaeological survey for the CGS project identified no NRHP eligible sites within the 

project corridor. Thus, the project would have no adverse effect on any resource as defined 

in Title 36, Section 800 of the CFR. 

3.10.5 Coordination and Mitigation 

3.10.5.1 Coordination 

CATS has coordinated this project pursuant to Section 106 of the NRHP. 

Coordination with the North Carolina SHPO has been continuous since the early phases of 

project development. A Section 106 public involvement plan developed for this project was 

also submitted to the SHPO in late 2004. Early in the DEIS process, the SHPO was 

consulted regarding the development of the APE and for review and comment on the 

historic architecture and archeological survey findings regarding NRHP eligibility and project 

effects. 

The ACHP will be invited to participate if an adverse effect to historic resources is identified. 

Pursuant to 36 FR 800, CATS has attempted to identify Consulting Parties to participate in 

the process of identifying historic properties and the project’s 


potential effects to such properties. In January 2005, letters were sent to representatives of 

the local governments along the corridor inviting them to serve as Section 106 Consulting 

Parties for this project. The governments were also asked to provide names of other parties 

with an interest in the historic resources of the project corridor. 

CATS has and will continue to communicate with the public. Public meeting notices and 

meetings have included verbiage intended to solicit public input on historic properties along 

the corridor and the project’s potential to impact such properties. At the public hearing held 

for the EA, a display board will illustrate impacts to historic properties and will explain the 

Section 106 process. Copies of the ACHP’s Citizen’s Guide to Section 106 Review will be 

made available to the public at the public hearing. Mail-outs to individuals and organizations 

on the project mailing list have also included a solicitation for comments on the project’s 

impacts to historic properties. 


Archaeological Surveys and Resource Recovery 

The archaeological survey for the CGS project identified no NRHP eligible sites within the 

project site. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

The CGS project identified no adverse effects to NRHP eligible sites within the project site. 

Cemetery Relocation 

The archaeological survey for the CGS project identified no cemeteries within the project 

APE. Should cemeteries, graves, stones or headstones be uncovered in later phases of 

project development, the relocation and reinternment of graves would take place under 

North Carolina General Statute 65-13, Removal of Graves. The graves would be relocated 

to a perpetually maintained cemetery. As required by law, descendents would be contacted, 

to the extent possible, prior to moving the graves. 


3.11 Parks and Recreation Areas 


The foregoing analysis is provided pursuant to Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965. 

Section 4(f) makes provisions for the preservation of public parks, recreational lands, wildlife 

refuges, waterfowl refuges and historic sites. Under Section 4(f), in order to gain approval 

for a federally sponsored/funded project which uses parks, refuges or historic sites, it must 

be determined that “there is no feasible or prudent alternatives to the use of the land”, and 

planning must “minimize harm” to the land (49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 CFR 771.135). For a 

public park or recreational land use to be considered a 4(f) property use, the park or 

recreational facility must be publicly owned, opened to the public and included in the master 

park plan of the local, state or federal agency which operates the park or recreational facility. 

The following facilities generally are not subject to 4(f) use protections: 

• Privately owned theme parks which charge admission fees 

• Private lakes and camping facilities which charge a fee for entry 

• Homeowner association parks, clubhouses and golf courses 

• Private or member only golf courses 

• Conservation lands, parks and refuges held by private organizations or foundations 

such as the Izaac Walton League, Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and similar 

privately held or member only resource conservation organizations 

Section 6(f) states that proposed federally sponsored/funded actions upon recreation lands 

where Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF) were used for the planning, acquisition 

or development of the property are to be replaced subject to approval of the Department of 

the Interior. 

No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without 

the approval of the Secretary (of Interior), be converted to other than public outdoor 

recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion only if he finds it to be 

in accord with the then existing comprehensive statewide outdoor recreation plan 

and only upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of 

other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably 

equivalent usefulness and location. 


Section 4(f) and 6(f) eligible parks and recreational facilities within 300 feet of the station site 

were screened using various sources including but not limited to local area GIS data, web 

searches, local and regional maps, field visits, and contacts with local representatives. 


There are no parks or recreation facilities located within 300 feet of the CGS project site. 


There are no parks and recreation facilities that are immediately adjacent to or within 300 

feet of the proposed CGS site. 


3.11.4.1 Greenways and Bikeways 

No existing bikeways or greenways would be affected by the CGS. There are planned 

greenways and bikeways in the project area that would serve the CGS that are not included 

as part of the CGS project. 

3.11.4.2 Section 6(f) Resources 

No parks or parks facilities were identified as being funded with LWCF, known as Section 

6(f) funds. 

3.11.5 Coordination and Mitigation 

3.11.5.1 Coordination 

During preparation of the DEIS, CATS representatives held the following coordination 

meetings with park and recreation area departments: 

• Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department. A meeting with the 

Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department (Julie Clark and Joyce Figueroa) 

was held on August 22, 2005. The locations of existing and future parks and 

greenways in the vicinity of the CGS project were identified. The design plans and 

potential impacts to the parks and greenways were discussed. 

• Charlotte Department of Transportation. A meeting with the Charlotte Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) Bicycle Coordinator, Ken Tippet was held on August 23, 2005. 

The locations of existing and future bike facilities in the vicinity of the CGS project were 

identified. The design plans and potential impacts to the bike facilities were discussed. 


Additional facilities (bike racks, bike storage) may be provided, if feasible, to link bike 

facilities to the proposed CGS. 


3.12 Hazardous Materials/Underground Storage Tanks 

The results of the Hazardous Material and UST Study Phase 1 assessment indicated 12 

Areas of Concern (AOCs) at the CGS. Three of the AOCs were addressed in the 

Hydrocarbon Assessment (discussed below). The remaining 9 AOCs represent either 

documented, apparent or potential releases of chemicals to soil or groundwater, on or near 

the site that may affect construction activities. Sites and facilities determined not likely to 

impact the CGS are summarized in Table II-1 and Table II-2, Appendix II of the Hazardous 

Waste/UST Study and Hydrocarbon Assessment. 


Several federal laws regulate the handling of hazardous materials and wastes. These 

include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund Act) of 

1980, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, Toxic Substances 

Control Act and Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. FTA supports the EPA 

driven Brownfields Initiative, where cleanup and re-use of contaminated properties is funded 

through EPA, local and private incentives. FTA encourages the early detection, evaluation 

and remediation of hazardous waste to protect the environment and minimize project delay. 


The Phase 1 analysis of hazardous materials and underground storage tanks (USTs) 

included the following activities: 

• reviewing existing environmental data prepared for the Major Investment Study (MIS); 

• gathering and interpreting information from the public record not addressed in previous 

reports of the proposed project; 

• conducting interviews with environmental agency representatives, NS representatives 

and selected others; 

• performing a visual reconnaissance of the right-of-way, proposed station sites, Vehicle 

Maintenance Facility (VMF) and CGS; 

• preparation of a written report of findings, opinions and recommendations. 

The hazardous materials area of review extends up to 600 feet beyond the limits of the 

proposed CGS. 

The following federal and state databases for known sites of environmental contamination or 

generators of hazardous materials were reviewed: 

• National Priority List 

• Proposed National Priority List Sites 

• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information 

(CERCLIS). 

• CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites 

• Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System 

• Emergency Response Notification System 


• NC Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory 

• NC List of Solid Waste Facilities 

• NC Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites 

• NC Registered Underground Storage Tank Sites 

• NC Old Landfill Inventory 

• NC Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites 

• NC Brownfields Projects Inventory 

The database search results were compared to those presented in the MIS technical report. 

In addition, city directories were reviewed to identify former occupants of selected addresses 

within the project area whose name may indicate an involvement with hazardous materials 

and Sanborn fire insurance maps to identify historical land uses that may have involved the 

use of hazardous materials or USTs. 

Identified environmental conditions near the CGS site were evaluated using the following 

criteria: 

• Distance to the station and/or the rail line; 

• Levels of documented soil and/or groundwater impact; 

• Visual evidence of a release or suspected environmental condition; 

• Suspected or documented groundwater and surface water flow direction; 

• Suspected or documented depth to groundwater; 

• Property/incident abuts the rail line and/or station; and 

• Special circumstances, i.e. age of business, nature of business, prior history 

The descriptions provided in this section, where further investigation is suggested (e.g. soil 

or groundwater sampling), are provided for due diligence and do not necessarily signal that 

a problem with contaminated soils or groundwater actually exists or if proven to exist would 

be exacerbated by the proposed construction of the CGS. As not enough is known at this 

time regarding the actual conditions and a precise footprint for the CGS has yet to be 

developed, a Phase II hazardous material survey will be conducted where appropriate 

during the design phase to pinpoint actual conditions and determine appropriate mitigation 

strategies. 


The results of the Hydrocarbon Assessment indicated impacted soil and groundwater at 

three documented AOCs: the Former Servco Station, including an adjacent aboveground 

storage tank (AST) site located on Graham Street; and the Greyhound Bus Terminal located 

on West Trade Street. There are documented releases of petroleum hydrocarbons at both 

sites, and documented groundwater impacted from chlorinated hydrocarbons at the Servco 

Station site. The depth to groundwater is generally greater than 14 feet below land surface 

and is not likely to be encountered during construction activities. At the Former Servco Site, 

free-product gasoline exists on the groundwater surface and dissolved hydrocarbon 

concentrations exceed the NCDENR Gross Contaminant Levels. These levels of petroleum 

hydrocarbons need to be remediated for site closure and to reduce the potential for gasoline 

vapors from entering the proposed overlying structures. It is not likely that the NCDENR will 

require remediation beyond that for the Former Servco Site provided there are no water 

supply wells within 1,000 feet of the site. A Limited Site Assessment will be required for 

both sites, which would include in part, a water receptor survey. Notices of Residual 


Petroleum and Residual Contamination are required by the NCDENR from the seller prior to 

a change in ownership of the properties or when requesting closure of the reported 

incidents. 


The results of the Hazardous Materials and UST Study revealed AOCs in the vicinity of the 

proposed CGS location which may adversely affect the construction of the proposed site. 

The AOCs are discussed below, with locations indicated on Figure 3.12-1. 

As mentioned in Section 3.11.3, there are 12 AOCs in the vicinity of the proposed CGS. 

Three of the AOCs at the Charlotte Gateway Station (former Servco Site, AST site, 

Greyhound Bus Terminal) were addressed in the Hydrocarbon Assessment. The remaining 

9 AOCs require additional environmental investigations, such as soil and/or groundwater 

sampling. Each of the AOCs is discussed below. 

HM 1 – Moffet Machine Shop/Fullbright Blacksmith/Charlotte Welding: The site is located 

southwest and adjacent to the proposed site and is currently a parking lot. Previous 

operations likely included the use of, and possible release of, various volatile and semivolatile 

chemicals. In addition, metal operations could result in the release of metals to the 

soil and groundwater. Additional groundwater sampling is recommended down-gradient of 

this location on the site, to evaluate the potential for impact to groundwater from this 

location. 

HM 2 – Moffet’s Machine Shop & Foundry/Hoffman Chemicals & Dyestuffs/UST: The site is 

currently a parking lot. Previous operations likely included the use of, and possible release 

of, various volatile and semi-volatile chemicals and the storage of petroleum at a noted UST. 

In addition, metal operations could result in the release of metals to the soil and 

groundwater. Additional soil and groundwater sampling is recommended for this location. 

HM 3 – Darnel/Collins/Gordon Auto Service: The site is currently a parking lot. Previous 


chemicals. In addition, metals from batteries and waste oil are often found with auto 

repair operations. Additional soil and groundwater sampling is recommended for this 

location. 

HM 4 – USTs: Discovered during recent archeological excavations located adjacent to the 

former White’s Auto Body/Soule Iron & Steel building. 

HM 5 – White’s Auto Body/Soule Iron & Steel: The site is currently a parking lot. Previous 


chemicals and the storage of petroleum at noted USTs discovered during recent 

archeological excavations located adjacent to the former building. In addition, metal 

operations could result in the release of metals to the soil and groundwater. Additional soil 

and groundwater sampling is recommended for this location. 

HM 6 – Rogers/Heritage Print Shop: The site is currently a parking lot. Previous operations 

likely included the use of, and possible release of, various volatile chemicals and metals. 

Additional soil and groundwater sampling is recommended for this location. 

HM 7 – Sonny/ Service Dist/ Servco Gas Station: A LUST site (tax parcel 07315116) 

identified as the Servco Distributing Company (120 S. Graham St.) is located within the 

Charlotte Gateway Station site at the intersection of 4th St and Graham St. The release 

was originally discovered in May 1991. According to the NCDENR database, the UST 


Figure 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Materials Sites 


incident (#8097) is currently open and a Notice of Violation was issued on August 13, 2002, 

likely due to the presence of free product. Information obtained from the agency file 

indicated the presence of soil and groundwater impact as well as free product. A report in 

the NCDENR file indicates that the USTs and some impacted soil have been removed but 

that impacted soil, impacted groundwater and possibly free product (gasoline) remain. A 

recent review of the state’s database indicates that 0.02 feet of free product was last 

observed in monitor well MW-2 on October 16, 2003. 

HM 8 – Former AST: In conjunction with the earlier assessment of the Servco site, an 

above ground heating oil tank containing #2 fuel oil was noted on the adjoining property to 

the west (tax parcel 07315114). A monitor well (MW-6) installed near the AST indicated the 

presence of free product (#2 fuel oil). 

HM 9 – UST: The site is currently a parking lot. A UST was reported at this location by the 

NCDOT. Additional soil sampling is recommended to evaluate the possible release of 

petroleum from this UST. 

HM 10 – Greyhound Bus Terminal: The existing Greyhound Bus Station (601 W. Trade St.) 

is located within the proposed Charlotte Gateway Station site on tax parcel 07315129, south 

of the Norfolk Southern ROW and between Trade St and 4th St. A review of the NCDENR 

database indicated a LUST incident (#14771) associated with the removal and replacement 

of a 15,000-gallon diesel UST in 1995. The replacement UST is still in operation along with 

three diesel dispensers. The leaking UST was located near the northeast corner of the 

existing bus terminal building near Trade Street whereas the current, operating UST is 

located off the northwest corner of the bus station building. 

The report indicated that removal of a 10,000-gallon diesel UST in 1995 was documented in 

a February 6, 1996 closure report that revealed total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) levels as 

high as 2,500 mg/kg in soil approximately 100 feet south of the UST. In a prior review of 

the NCDENR file, there was no record of groundwater sampling although groundwater was 

noted to be 16 feet below the land surface. 

HM 11 – Standard/Esquire/Queen City Dry Cleaner: The site is currently a parking lot. 

Previous dry cleaning operations likely included the use of, and possible release of, 

chlorinated solvents. Additional soil and groundwater sampling is recommended for this 

location. 

HM 12 – Stonewall Dry Cleaners: The site is currently a parking lot. Previous dry cleaning 

operations likely included the use of, and possible release of, chlorinated solvents. 

Additional soil and groundwater sampling is recommended for this location. 

Table 3.12-1 lists the potential hazardous material sites with a rating of known or possible 

impacts to soils and groundwater. Below describes the type of anticipated impact by rating 

value: 

1: Offsite, not known, known or possible impacted soil remote from site, low possible 

contact. 

Offsite, side to down-gradient possible but not known impacted groundwater, low 

possible contact. 

2: Onsite, possible impacted soil or groundwater from possible but not confirmed source, 

and contact possible. 

Offsite, up-gradient or adjacent possible or apparent impacted soil, and possible contact 

if site work performed. 


Offsite, upgradient or adjacent possible impacted groundwater, and possible contact if 

site work extends to groundwater. 

3: Onsite, known or likely impacted groundwater, and contact if site work extends to 

groundwater. 

Onsite, apparent or possible impacted soil, and contact if site work performed. 

Offsite, known adjacent or upgradient impacted groundwater, and contact likely if site 

work extends to groundwater. 

4: Onsite, known impacted soil and groundwater, and contact if site work performed. 

Table 3.12-1. Potential Hazardous Material Sites 

No. Business Name/Location Type 

Soil 

Impact 

Ground 

-water 

Impact 

HM 1 

Moffet’s Machine Shop/ Fullbright Blacksmith/ Charlotte 

Welding 

2 2 

HM 2 

Moffet’s Machine Shop & Foundary/ Hoffman Chemicals & 

Dyestuffs 

3 3 

HM 3 Darnel/ Collins/ Gordon Auto Service 3 3 

HM 4 USTs 2 2 

HM 5 White's Auto Body/ Soule Iron & Steel 3 3 

HM 6 Rogers/ Hertitage Print Shop 3 3 

HM 7 Sonny/ Service Dist/ Servco Gas Station 4 4 

HM 8 Former AST 4 4 

HM 9 UST 3 3 

HM 10 Greyhound Bus Terminal 4 3 

HM 11 Standard/ Esquire/ Queen City Dry Cleaners 3 3 

HM 12 Stonewall Dry Cleaners 3 3 

Source: S&ME, 2005 

1: Offsite, not known, known or possible impacted soil remote from site, low possible contact. 

Offsite, side to downgradient possible but not known impacted groundwater, low possible 

contact. 

2: Onsite, possible impacted soil or groundwater from possible but not confirmed source, and 

contact possible. 

Offsite, upgradient or adjacent possible or apparent impacted soil, and possible contact if site 

work performed. 

Offsite, upgradient or adjacent possible impacted groundwater, and possible contact if site 

work extends to groundwater. 

3: Onsite, known or likely impacted groundwater, and contact if site work extends to 

groundwater. 

Onsite, apparent or possible impacted soil, and contact if site work performed. 

Offsite, known adjacent or upgradient impacted groundwater, and contact likely if site work 

extends to groundwater. 

4: Onsite, known impacted soil and groundwater, and contact if site work performed. 


3.12.4.1 AOC Summary 

The number of sites extending up to 600 feet beyond the limits of the proposed CGS is 

illustrated by potential impact type in Table 3.12-2. 

The findings of the contamination screening and evaluation are based on preliminary 

information only and are not intended to replace more detailed studies, such as individual 

site assessments and subsurface soil and groundwater investigations. Rather, the 

screening is intended to be a guide for identifying potential contamination in the proposed 

CGS. Other technical studies may be required to determine the existence of site 

contamination prior to right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, or storm water pond 

construction. Potential contamination sites may extend beyond those identified in this report 

because of limited historical and regulatory information, illegal dumping practices, and a lack 

of compliance with storage tank registration and hazardous waste generator programs. 

Finally, the identification of a site in this report does not necessarily indicate that the site 

contains contamination, but only that there is the potential for contamination to occur. 

Hazardous materials effects are discussed from the perspective of low-income and minority 

populations in Section 3.15 under Environmental Justice.” The No-Action Alternative would 

have no effect on hazardous material or storage tank sites. 

Table 3.12-2. Potential Hazardous Material Sites Near NCCR Stations 

Station 

(1) 

Low 

Possible 

Contact 

Soil Impact Groundwater Impact 

(2) 

Possible 

Impacted 

(3) 

Likely 

Impacted 

(4) 

Known 

Impacted 

(1) 

Low 

Possible 

Contact 

(2) 

Possible 

Impacted 

(3) 

Likely 

Impacted 

(4) 

Known 

Impacted 

Charlotte Gateway 0 2 7 3 0 2 8 2 


The analysis indicates that there are 12 AOC sites near the proposed CGS station footprint. 

These sites provide potential sources of contamination that could have an adverse impact 

on both property acquisition and construction activities associated with the CGS. 

These sites may require additional investigation during a Phase II Environmental Site 

Assessment. Recommended further investigations would occur prior to project right-of-way 

acquisition and construction to confirm and update information obtained from agency files 

and the public record. Select sampling of the soil and groundwater would be conducted at 

each site to help determine the absence or presence of contamination. If contamination is 

found, soil and groundwater investigations would be expanded to determine the actual 

extent of contamination. A preferred method of testing would be determined on a site-bysite 

basis closer to the time of right-of-way acquisition. 

Accordingly, some sites may require an NPDES permit as well as some form of mitigation. 

The selection of mitigation measures for specific sites would consider avoidance, minimizing 

impacts through redesign, and remediation/closure. Any site remediation/closure would be 

performed in accordance with applicable state and federal laws. Performance of such 

measures would occur prior to or during the course of construction, depending on site 

conditions. 


3.13 Secondary & Cumulative Impacts 


CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508) define secondary impacts, which are synonymous 

with indirect impacts, as follows: 

caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable…[and] may include growth inducing effects and other effects 

related to potential changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth 

rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems (40 CFR § 1508.8). 

CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as: 

the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(40 CFR § 1508.7). 


Secondary impacts were identified for areas within one-quarter mile (0.25 miles) from the 

proposed CGS. The one-quarter mile constraint was felt to be the likely extent of 

development pressures that could be reasonably attributed to the station. The one-quarter 

mile geographic constraint is also within the typical 10 minute walking distance that walk-on 

commuters will attempt to get to the station platform. 

Cumulative impact analysis was not confined to a geographic or spatial constraint. Rather 

than quantify cumulative effects they are qualitatively characterized in Section 3.13.5. As 

numerous developments by private and public interests are on-going in the Gateway – 

Trade Street corridor it is tenuous to attribute direct and cumulative impacts to the CGS 

alone. 

3.13.3 Description of Secondary Development 

There would be potential for secondary development near the proposed CGS. Such 

development is a primary goal of the project. Table 1.13-1 lists the factors used to 

determine the potential for secondary development at the CGS site. In general, the potential 

for secondary development near the site can be summarized as follows: 

• Comprehensive plans, small area plans, and zoning ordinances of the City that would 

permit and encourage higher density, compact, and transit-oriented development 

around the CGS site. 

• Development is presently occurring around the CGS site that supports the effectiveness 

of passenger rail. 

• Combined with the comprehensive plan policies, zoning ordinance regulations, and 

incentive programs encouraging transit-oriented development, the passenger rail 

service to Center City Charlotte would likely act as a catalyst to support development 

and redevelopment around the CGS site. 


Preliminary EA

Table 3.13-1 Reasonably Foreseeable Development in the Project Area 

1 

Station 

Plans and Development Proposals at Station Area 

Formal Comprehensive Plan 

Compact Neighborhood/Small 

Area/Station Area Plans 1 

Station Site Plan 2 

Site Specific 

Development/Redevelopment 

Proposals 3 

Plans include transit 

friendly/encourage compact 

development 

Plans/Proposals assume 

presence of Commuter Rail 

Incentives and 

Recent 

Development 

Zoning allow increased 

intensity 

Charlotte Gateway � � � � � � 

These include plans produced by municipal governments that describe land use of an area with the 

incorporation of a future transit station. Includes station area plan prepared for the City Planning 

Commission, Fall 2005. 

2 CATS Charlotte Gateway Station, concept Design Summary Technical Report, March 2006. 

3 These include plans produced by private developers. As reported in the CATS Newsletter North 

4 

Transitions (2005-06). 

Includes construction of any new transit-oriented development or development as part of a station area 

plan. 

3.13.3.1 Comprehensive and Area Plans 

The proposed CGS is included in a formal comprehensive plan. The CGS is also included 

in compact neighborhood plans and/or the Intermediate Stations Design Criteria (2005) 

prepared by consultants on behalf of CATS. These plans encourage higher density, mixeduses. 

The formal comprehensive plans incorporated input from the public. The public 

generally supports the higher density compact neighborhood development that is 

recommended in for the CGS area. 

3.13.3.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning 

Beyond the Build and Low Build action described in this EA, CATS has programmed major 

rapid transit projects throughout the region. The 2030 Transit System Plan consists of 

multiple rapid transit improvements in five corridors, a series of improvements in Center City 

Charlotte, and bus service and facility improvements throughout the rest of the region. 

Rapid transit guideway services extend to Interstate 485 in order to intercept persons 

traveling into Mecklenburg County and to improve regional connectivity. These projects will 

substantially increase public transportation ridership, as well as enhance urban land use 

efficeincy, reduce highway congestion and the use of fossil fuels, and help enable the region 

to meet Federal air quality mandates. 

Making Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s future transit system successful will require developing land 

uses in a manner that enables decisions that encourage residents to use transit as an 

alternative for their daily and occasional travel. TOD around the CGS will help sustain 

economic growth and vitality within close proximity to the station while contributing to the 

enrichment of Center City Charlotte and key activity centers. By focusing a mix of land uses 

Charlotte Gateway Station 3.13-2 EA 

Recent (5 years) development 4

with relatively high densities in proximity to the CGS, there is less dependency on the 

automobile as residents are able to walk or ride public transit to meet their daily needs. This 

building momentum is an important aspect of the cumulative effects of CATS’s overall 

Transit System Plan. 

Local officials and citizens have been working together to develop and define transportation 

and land use plans for several years. In 1994, the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg 

County approved the Centers and Corridors vision, a comprehensive guide for future land 

use and development in the region. The plan established that future development and 

redevelopment in the region would be focused along five major transportation corridors. 

In support of the Centers and Corridors vision, the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land-Use Plan 

for Charlotte-Mecklenburg was completed in 1998. A key element of this plan was the 

development of a regional rapid transit system that would improve mobility, encourage more 

compact development, and support the proposed land use initiatives in each of the above 

growth corridors. 

When completed, the 2030 Transit System Plan will serve annually, 52 million riders 

compared to 4.9 million in FY 2006. The adopted plan includes 28 miles of Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT), 21 miles of Light Rail Transit (LRT), 11 miles of streetcar service, 30 miles of 

commuter rail and an expanded network of 463 buses, 153 paratransit vehicles, 55 transit 

stations, 31 park and ride lots, 3 bus garages, 3 rail shops and 4 rail yards. 

Center City Charlotte improvements are designed not only to serve travel within the central 

business district but also to provide connectivity with surrounding communities and 

institutions. These improvements would benefit the entire region by enabling the individual 

corridors and local services to function as an integrated system. 

3.13.3.3 Site-Specific Development 

Gateway Village is a mixed-use center in the vicinity of Johnson and Wales University and 

the proposed CGS. Johnson & Wales University is projecting a student body of 5,000 

students within walking distance of the CGS by 2010. The CGS is three blocks from the 

Carolina Panthers professional football stadium, one block from a proposed Charlotte 

Knights AAA baseball stadium and four blocks from the epicenter of Center City Charlotte 

(Trade and Tryon Streets). The CGS will serve as a terminus for commuter rail and the 

West corridor transit system to the airport. The station will also serve as a transit center for 

the streetcar and bus systems and will provide a new Amtrak station for the Carolinian and 

Piedmont passenger rail lines. 

3.13.3.4 Secondary Impacts and Benefits 

The potential positive and negative secondary effects of the CGS are summarized in Table 

3.13-2. 


Table 3.13-2 CGS Secondary Effects 

Potential Positive Secondary Effects 

• Transportation and Traffic 

o Improved mobility options and accessibility 

o Potential that some drivers would switch to transit 

o Reduced commute times 

• Quality of life 

o Reduced urban sprawl by concentrating growth around infrastructure 

o Options to avoid stress of commuting via personal auto 

• Economics 

o Increased sales tax revenues 

o Increased property values - increased tax base and revenues 

o Sustainable economic development 

o Increased efficiencies in service delivery due to increased concentration of 

development 

o Increased employment opportunities 

• Environmental Justice 

o Increased mobility for transit-dependent residents 

• Neighborhoods 

o Infill and redevelopment opportunities of underutilized properties 

o Improved access to parks, recreation centers, and entertainment venues 

• Air Quality 

o Reduced pollution 

• Natural Resources 

o Conservation of land and natural resources 

Potential Negative Secondary Effects 

• Traffic and Transportation 

o Increased traffic from induced development 

• Quality of Life 

o Public opposition to dense development patterns near neighborhoods 

o Aesthetics of station and station area development 

• Economics 

o Strain on infrastructure to support station area plan 

• Environmental Justice 

o Market demand for housing near transit may reduce affordable housing 

o Redevelopment could displace of low income persons 

• Historic Resources 

o Redevelopment of historic properties 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2007 


3.13.4 Secondary Impacts: Mitigation 

Mitigation measures are recommended for the potential negative secondary effect identified 

for the project, as shown in Table 3.13-3. Measures available to local governments in order 

to offset anticipated negative effects outside the project are considered as “available 

mitigation”. 

Table 3.13-3 Mitigation Measures for Secondary Impacts 

Negative Secondary 

Effects 

Non-transit supportive 

development 

Increased traffic from 

induced development 

Effect upon historic 

properties 

Increased strain on 

infrastructure to support 

high-density development 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2007 

Project Mitigation Available Mitigation 

Station Area Plan 

Improvement of linkages 

among and between corridors 

and popular destinations 

Restoration and rehabilitation 

of historic properties 

underway by others 

Adequate infrastructure in 

place before development 

Continued adoption of transitsupportive 

land use policies 

Requirement of traffic impact 

studies and mitigation for new 

development 

Stricter requirements (if not 

prohibition) for the demolition of 

historically significant buildings; 

adoption of rehabilitation code 

Adequate public facility 

requirement in zoning; incorporate 

necessary improvements in 

Capital Improvement Plan 

3.13.5 Description of Cumulative Effects of Regional Activities 

The following paragraphs summarize substantial regional projects occurring or planned to 

occur that will provide a cumulative effect on the communities served by the project. 

3.13.5.1 2030 Transit System Plan 

The 2030 Transit System Plan was adopted in November 2007 by the Metropolitan Transit 

Commission (MTC). Key elements of the plan are described below. 

South Corridor, LYNX Blue Line 

The LRT project is approximately 10 miles long, running south from Center City Charlotte to 

I-485. The line will operate on separate tracks generally within an existing Norfolk Southern 

railroad right-of-way. Fifteen stations (14 full-time stations and one special events station) 

are under construction. CATS plans to inaugurate LRT service on the South Corridor in fall 

2007. 

NCCR, LYNX Purple Line 

The North Corridor extends 30 miles from Center City Charlotte to Mooresville. The 2030 

Transit System Plan included commuter rail service in the North Corridor to take advantage 

of the little-used Norfolk Southern “O” line. By upgrading the existing rail line and 

implementing rail service as demand warrants, CATS will minimize capital and operating 

costs as well as the need for any additional property for right-of-way. Rail service supports 

the adopted land use regulations and policies of Charlotte, Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson 

and Mooresville, focusing transit oriented development at stations along the “O” line. North 


Corridor commuter rail service would terminate in downtown Charlotte at the Charlotte 

Gateway Station. 

Northeast Corridor, LYNX Blue Line Extended 

The Northeast Corridor extends 14 miles from Center City Charlotte to I-485. The Transit 

System Plan includes LRT service from Center City Charlotte to a terminal station near I- 

485. LRT service in the Northeast Corridor represents a logical extension of the South 

Corridor LRT line, improving the operational effectiveness and leveraging public investment 

in this line. LRT operation in this corridor supports the continuing re-development of the 

North Davidson Street (NoDa) area and areas along North Tryon Street. Both UNC- 

Charlotte and the University City area would be directly connected by LRT to the South 

Corridor. 

Southeast Corridor, LYNX Silver Line 

The Southeast Corridor extends approximately 13 miles from Center City Charlotte to 

Matthews and Mecklenburg County’s border with Union County. 

Rapid transit service, either LRT or BRT, would operate along Independence Boulevard and 

other roadways to I-485. It would terminate either west of I-485 or cross over the highway to 

the south campus of Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC). A rapid transit line 

along Independence Boulevard would be built in conjunction with NCDOT-funded work to 

convert Independence Boulevard/US 74 to a limited access road. The line will serve 

existing passenger generators such as the CPCC Central and South Campuses, Cricket 

Arena, Ovens Auditorium, and Presbyterian Hospital in Matthews while supporting TOD 

opportunities in Matthews. 

West Corridor, LYNX Orange Line 

The West Corridor extends approximately 12 miles from Center City Charlotte to the 

Catawba River, the boundary between Mecklenburg and Gaston counties. 

Rapid transit alternatives under consideration include BRT or streetcar to be built along 

Wilkinson Boulevard. It would serve the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, new 

developments west of the downtown, and the new Charlotte Gateway Station 

Charlotte Streetcar 

The 2030 Transit System Plan also included the implementation of streetcar services: 

The service includes an extension of streetcar service on Trade Street beyond Center City 

Charlotte along Elizabeth Avenue to Presbyterian Hospital and via Hawthorne Lane and 

Central Avenue to Eastland Mall. Implementation of streetcar operations from Center City 

Charlotte along Central Avenue to the Eastland area improves the efficiency of serving this 

corridor that already has a high demand for transit services. Serving Central Avenue with 

larger-capacity streetcars will reduce the number of buses traveling along this street, 

improving pedestrian safety and reinforcing redevelopment goals for the area. 

The streetcar operation includes service along Trade Street and Beatties Ford Road to the 

proposed Beatties Ford Road transit center. This extension connects the Seversville, 

Biddleville, McCrory Heights, Washington Heights, Lincoln Heights, and University Park 

neighborhoods to Center City Charlotte. 


3.13.5.2 Other Transportation Projects 

Transportation projects promulgated through the MUMPO Long Range Transportation Plan, 

the NCDOT, federal legislation and Norfolk Southern Corporation will affect overall travel 

and freight mobility in the region. Some of these projects are included in the No-Action 

analysis for all of the transit corridors and as such their impact is accounted for, however, 

not all of the projects are accounted for and because of their scope they are nevertheless 

mentioned here. 

• NCDOT and Norfolk Southern are expanding track capacity along the Atlanta- 

Greensboro main line, including relocation of Amtrak service to the new Charlotte 

Gateway Station and development of an Intermodal facility at the Charlotte-Douglas 

International Airport 

• North Carolina and Virginia have formed a bi-state commission to implement high 

speed (110 mph) passenger service from Washington, DC to Charlotte as part of the 

Macon- Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh-Richmond-Washington Southeast high Speed Rail 

Corridor. A Tier II Environmental Impact Statement was completed in October 2002. 

Plans over a 20-year period call for an increase in passenger service on the route, with 

significant reductions in travel time through track upgrades and expansion. 

3.13.5.3 Center City Charlotte as Regional Transit Hub 

Each of corridors that make up the 2030 Transit System Plan would serve Center City 

Charlotte, providing convenient public transportation for commuters, visitors and those living 

in the downtown. Charlotte would be served by: 

• Two complementary major transit nodes, the existing Charlotte Transportation Center -- 

served by CATS buses, LRT service to the South and Northeast, LRT or BRT from the 

Southeast, and Center City Streetcar -- and the proposed CGS – served by commuter 

rail to the North, BRT or streetcar to the West, CATS buses, Amtrak, Greyhound and 

Center City Streetcar. 

• Two transit spines, a north-south LRT spine along the trolley/railroad corridor and the 

Southwest and West rapid transit lines 

• Center City Streetcar along Trade Street between Johnson C. Smith University and 

Presbyterian Hospital and connecting the two transit centers, minority neighborhoods, 

and private and civic institutions. 

3.13.5.4 Related Development 

Various substantive development projects in the Charlotte metropolitan region are in the 

planning stages, currently underway or are anticipated to be in place within the next two 

decades. 

• Minor League Baseball – planning is underway to relocate a Triple-A minor league 

baseball team from Fort Mill, SC, to a new stadium facility in downtown Charlotte on a 

seven-acre parcel immediately adjacent to the proposed Charlotte Gateway Station. If 

approved, the stadium would take approximately three years to open (2009/2010), 

offering approximately 80 annual baseball games and other entertainment events. 

• Johnson & Wales University is projecting the current student body to double the current 

size to 5,000 students by 2008. 

3.13.6 Cumulative Impacts 

The potential positive and negative cumulative impacts of the above referenced activities 

are discussed in the following paragraphs. 


3.13.6.1 Transportation and Traffic 

Implementation of the 2030 Transit System Plan and other associated transportation 

projects in the region will provide continuous growth in mobility options for residents of the 

metropolitan area. The increased availability of transit access will begin to reduce the 

negative cumulative effects of automobile-oriented growth and development in the Charlotte 

region that has occurred over the past fifty years. 

3.13.6.2 Community 

Accessing basic services and public facilities (such as schools, day care, and civil services) 

would be improved as more elements of the 2030 Transit System Plan are implemented. 

The new transit systems, along with the station planning, would encourage greater access 

to a range of development types. Access to services would be easier and would include 

non-automotive alternatives. 

3.13.6.3 Environmental Justice 

The impacts of the 2030 Transit System Plan are not expected to add to the impacts on lowincome 

and minority communities beyond those described under “Environmental Justice” in 

the environmental documents for the individual corridors. Positively, it is anticipated that the 

combined effect of full implementation of the 2030 Transit System Plan will benefit low 

income and minority populations on several fronts: 

• transit dependent populations will be better served 

• more transportation choices in terms of mode, frequency and destination 

• linkage of low income urban communities with suburban employment centers 

• creation of jobs opportunities for low income and minority populations within the CGS 

and TOD district 

• enhancement of property valuations along the transit corridor, particularly adjacent to 

station areas 

• reduction in overall hydrocarbon emissions traditionally tied to VMT growth should 

reflect itself in overall improvement in the respiratory health of urban low income and 

minority inhabitants 

3.13.6.4 Air Quality 

The increase in automobile usage over the past half-century has decreased the air quality in 

the region. The implementation of a transit system would result in a decrease of vehicular 

trips and therefore an increase of air quality. In addition, more stringent environmental 

legislation has lead to more fuel efficient automobiles and reductions in automobile-related 

emissions. Together, increased transit ridership (along with other non-motorized 

transportation), more fuel-efficient and cleaner-burning automobiles, and the reduction of 

automobile usage would lead to an overall increase of air quality. 

3.13.6.5 Historic Resources 

No historic resources will be directly impacted by the project. The cumulative impacts on the 

historic resources addressed by the Transit System Plan improvements are primarily visual 

and indirect as a consequence of altered settings with contemporary construction and 

development patterns. Implementation of the 2030 Transit System Plan will comply with 

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and the application of SHPO recommendations 

may lessen the impact of these actions, preserve the remaining historic resources and 

provide wider range of public access to these resources. The CGS proposal will not have a 

direct physical effect on historic properties in the vicinity (Fourth Ward Historic District, 

Virginia Paper Company Warehouse and the former US Post Office). 


3.13.6.6 Natural Resources 

Cumulative impacts of other actions on natural resources have not created a significant 

adverse impact. The implementation of the 2030 Transit System Plan would not create any 

adverse reasonably foreseeable consequences. 

3.13.7 Cumulative Impacts: Mitigation 

Based upon the aforementioned development in the CGS area (refer to Table 3.13-1), there 

would be a potential for increase in congestion and a strain on public utilities and 

infrastructure. Implementation of a passenger rail and ancillary bus station in Center City 

Charlotte will lessen the dependence on the automobile and mitigate this affect. 

Additionally, such effects could be minimized by utilizing government regulations that require 

adequate public facilities prior to new development and by exercising land use control that 

requires mixed-use, transit-oriented, and pedestrian-friendly environments. Land use 

controls already in use are reflected in current and future land use and transportation plans. 

By integrating transit and land use, Charlotte policies would reduce reliance on the 

automobile by encouraging a mix of land uses and convenient access to public transit. 


Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 

Short-term effects on the environment result primarily from construction impacts. Long-term 

effects relate to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity – in particular, 

the consistency of the project with long-term economic, social, regional and local planning 

objectives. Construction of the project would result in short-term impacts to the human 

environment. These impacts would include the acquisition of right-of-way and the 

conversion of land uses from one use to another. However, the project would address the 

need for improved transportation within a heavily-traveled corridor. The project addresses 

the goals and objectives of the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to implement longrange 

plans that integrate land use and transportation policies. 

The long-term effects of the project would be improved access to employment centers; 

improved transit accessibility; and improved air quality in Metropolitan Charlotte. These 

long-term benefits offered by the project would offset the short-term inconveniences and 

adverse effects on the human environment. 

3.13.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Construction of the project would result in commitments of natural and man-made resources 

such as construction materials, energy, labor, funds and land. Materials, energy supplies, 

and labor used to construct the CGS are not in short supply, and their use would not have 

an adverse impact on their continued availability for other projects. Furthermore, labor 

expenditures are consistent with incentives to spur growth. Overall, the resources used to 

construct and operate the CGS would be committed to benefit residents of and commuters 

to Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The commitment of these resources would also 

benefit other residents of the state and region by an improved transportation system offering 

improved accessibility and savings in travel time, and additional mobility choices. 

3.13.10 Conclusion 

Construction of Charlotte Gateway Station in Center City Charlotte is critical to achieving the 

region’s transportation and land use objectives. The new hub will enhance the efficiency of 

public transportation by providing seamless connectivity between local and regional 

transportation modes, thus making the system more attractive to travelers. At this one 

location, travelers will be able to access employment in the Charlotte downtown central 

business district, take buses or the streetcar to other employment, residential and 

entertainment venues, ride rapid transit to the airport and other areas of the region, catch a 


Greyhound bus or ride Amtrak. By making public transportation easier and faster, the 

project will enhance ridership and help the region to reduce congestion on area roads and to 

achieve Federal air quality mandates. In the process, Charlotte will create an exciting 

mixed-use focal point for regional transportation and social interaction. 

The project would have positive secondary and cumulative effects on the environment. Any 

negative secondary and cumulative effects could be mitigated (in whole or in part) by public 

education, public involvement, and the dedication of Charlotte-Mecklenburg to transitsupportive 

land use planning and infrastructure investment. 


3.14 Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts are direct, generally extend slightly beyond the immediate spatial 

footprint of the proposed action and are short term in duration. This section describes 

construction impacts for all of the sensitive resources other than transportation related 

resources. Transportation and traffic construction impacts are detailed in Chapter 4. The 

purpose of this section is to summarize potential construction impacts of the CGS. 

3.14.1 Land Use 

Land use surrounding the CGS site is somewhat homogenous. Construction impacts will be 

more visible around the proposed station because the site and the adjacent blocks are 

generally vacant, occupied by low profile structures and surface parking lots. Also, the CGS 

may require the use of a vacant or undeveloped parcel as construction staging sites. These 

impacts are only temporary and the sites would be returned to their original condition once 

construction is complete. 

3.14.2 Displacements 

Under the Full-Build alternative, the new Greyhound depot functions will be integrated into 

the project site, and the existing facilities demolished. No institutional structures will be 

displaced. Some potential disturbances to businesses would result primarily due to 

temporary of loss of parking. 

In limited areas, construction easements may be required from adjacent properties for 

movement of construction equipments. However, these easements would be used only 

where no other alternatives are available and would attempt to minimize disruptions to 

adjacent properties to extent feasible. No displacements of residences or businesses will 

result from the need for temporary construction easements. 

3.14.3 Neighborhood and Community 

The existing railroad has been in operation since approximately 1855. Much of the 

commercial/ industrial uses in Charlotte as well as the neighborhoods, communities and 

commercial activity developed around the railroad. The construction of the CGS is 

consistent with the historical use of the property and consistent with community and regional 

plans. 

3.14.4 Visual and Aesthetics 

The Greyhound Bus Terminal and surface parking lots are the dominant visual elements of 

the project site. Other elements contributing to the character of the site include the railroad 

track, bed, and track. Background views include the Trade Street and 4 th Street railroad 

overpasses and building profiles of Center City Charlotte and the Gateway/Johnson and 

Wales complex. 

In general visual impacts during the construction phase include activities related to 

temporary access roads, earth moving equipment such as graders, loaders and trucks, 

movement of construction machinery, cranes, construction of temporary fences and 

screens. These activities will only have a temporary impact on visual and aesthetic 

character of the area. 


3.14.5 Air Quality 

The project is located within the Metrolina non-attainment area for O3 and the Charlotte nonattainment 

area for CO as defined by EPA. However, due to improved monitoring data, 

these areas were re-designated as moderate non-attainment for O3 under the eight-hour 

ozone standard effective June 15, 2004 and designated maintenance mode for CO on 

September 18, 1995. 

Construction of the CGS will require disturbance of soil which produces fugitive dust and/ or 

particulate pollution. The amount of airborne dust and particulate matter depends on 

various factors including geography (soil type, exposure, moisture) and weather 

(temperature, wind speed and direction). Air quality will also temporarily degrade due to 

emissions from construction equipment and emissions from vehicle queuing due to 

detouring and slower travel conditions. 

3.14.6 Noise and Vibration 

3.14.6.1 Noise 

Currently the principal sources of noise within most of the study area are motor vehicles and 

freight trains. Airplanes also contribute to the study area’s noise levels where planes 

approach the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. The study area itself lies well outside 

the generally acceptable limit of 65 Ldn airport noise contour. Since the proposed project 

follows existing rail and street routes, most of the community areas directly adjacent to the 

alignment are already exposed to moderate noise levels. 

During construction of the CGS, noise levels would increase as a result of construction 

equipments and vehicles. The use of especially noisy equipment, such as saw, 

jackhammer, scrapers, and pneumatic tools, would be common. Pile drivers, the noisiest 

type of equipment, will be used during initial phases of construction. 

3.14.6.2 Vibration 

Major sources of existing vibration in the project area are automobiles, trucks, buses and the 

daily freight train which currently travels along the existing rail corridor and highway network. 

Vibration during construction would result from the use of construction equipment such as a 

pile driver, a bulldozer, or a jackhammer. The vibration is generally intermittent and 

temporary, and therefore, does not result in a significant impact to receivers with exception 

of properties in close proximity to construction activities. 

3.14.7 Ecosystems 

Construction of the CGS would have no impact material effect on the ecosystem. 

3.14.8 Water Resources 

3.14.8.1 Surface Water 

No surface waters would be directly impacted by the construction of the CGS. However, 

precautionary measures will be taken during construction by developing proper erosion and 

sediment control plan in accordance with state and local sediment and erosion guidelines. 

3.14.8.2 Groundwater (see Section 3.12 Hazardous Materials for discussion of 

groundwater) 


3.14.8.3 Floodplain 

No 100-year floodplains or regulatory floodways would be directly affected by the proposed 

CGS project. 

3.14.8.4 Wetlands 

The CGS construction would have no impact upon regulated wetlands. 

3.14.9 Energy Use 

Energy is consumed both directly and indirectly during construction. Direct energy 

consumption includes the energy used to operate construction machinery, provide 

construction lighting, and produce materials such as asphalt. Indirect energy consumption 

includes such activities as manufacturing and maintenance of the construction equipment, 

and energy consumed by workers commuting to the project site. Energy consumption to 

complete a project is proportional to the cost or size of the project. Energy use during 

construction is temporary. Measures to reduce energy consumption will be in place during 

the construction period to reduce energy demand. 

3.14.10 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Construction of the CGS project is not expected have a direct or indirect impact upon 

historic or archaeological resources. 

3.14.11 Parks 

There are no public parks located within 300 feet of the proposed CGS. 

3.14.12 Construction Mitigation 

It is expected that construction impacts of the CGS to the natural and built environment will 

be minor and only temporary in nature. However, adherence to applicable construction 

regulations would be enforced for areas of potential impacts and use of new and efficient 

equipments and construction techniques would be used to the extent feasible, to minimize 

impacts. 

A menu of mitigation measures can be deployed during construction include: 

• Covering open body trucks which transport materials to/ from construction sites. 

• Watering areas of exposed soil to control dust. 

• Removing soil and other materials from paved streets. 

• Repaving/ replanting exposed areas as soon as practical after completion of 

construction. 

• Minimizing idling of construction vehicles and equipment. 

• Using appropriate truck routing, enclosures around construction activities. 

• Combining noisy activities to reduce total length of noise and avoiding such activities 

during nighttime. 

• Use of quieter drill pile instead of impact piles. 

• In order to minimize impact during construction, the project would apply the City of 

Charlotte’s “Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters”. 


Temporary sediment traps or hazardous spill basins would be constructed at various 

points within the project construction site to prevent sedimentation runoff during rain 

events and erosion control fencing to reduce erosion. 

• Other erosion control measures that would be deployed during construction include the 

standards of the Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual by 

NCDENR, revised 1998 as well as the NCDOT Roadway Standard Drawings, July 2006 

and the NCDOT Standard 2006 Specifications for Erosion Control and Roadside 

Development. 

• Control and maintenance of traffic measures would be implemented to decrease energy 

consumption during construction. Contractor resources deployed during construction 

will be balanced across the site and over the duration of the construction schedule such 

that equipment, machinery and construction practices reduce energy consumption to 

the maximum extent possible. 

• Fugitive emissions associated with construction would be limited by adherence to 

special construction techniques such as watering areas of exposed soil to control 

fugitive dust, covering open body trucks that transport materials, removing soil and 

other materials from paved streets. As much as possible, emissions from construction 

equipment would be limited during off-peak hours and idling of equipments would be 

minimized. 

• Effort to reduce noise and vibration during construction would be made and would be 

conducted in accordance with applicable state and local ordinances. 

• To the extent that economic and operational constraints allow, consideration of 

restricted hours for construction may be attempted. 

• The use of sound dampened equipment, where proven effective, may be implemented. 


3.15 Environmental Justice 

This section describes the concentrations of minority and low-income populations in the 

project area in order to identify and address any disproportionate health or environmental 

impacts of the project on these populations. 


Executive Order 12898, issued in February 1994, requires federal agencies to identify and 

address any disproportionate health or environmental impacts of their programs, policies, 

and activities on minority or low-income communities. It also calls for the meaningful 

involvement of these populations in project planning. 

Executive Order 12898 states that “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, 

and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance 

Review, each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States . . ..” 


Minority, as specified in the order, is defined as Black/African-American, Hispanic, Asian and 

Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and other non-white persons. A 

concentration of minority population exists if the percentage of minorities in the affected area 

is greater than 50 percent or “meaningfully greater” than the minority population percentage 

in the general area. Data from the 2000 Census was used to identify the percent minority 

population by block group within the project area. The main focus of the analysis involved 

those block groups that are within 1 mile of the proposed CGS site. 

Low-income populations were identified based on the 2000 Census definition of persons 

below poverty level. The 2000 Census definition of persons below poverty ranges by 

household size from $8,501 for one person with no children to $32,208 for households with 

nine or more persons. Poverty status was determined for all people except institutionalized 

people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated 

individuals under 15 years old. These groups are considered neither "poor" nor "nonpoor." 


Figure 3.15-1 and Figure 3.15-2 show the concentrations of minority and below poverty 

populations near the CGS project area. These maps are based on 2000 Census data and 

do not reflect more recent developments in the area. Today, there is likely less 

concentration of below poverty populations and more racial diversity in the CGS area. 

Base on the 2000 Census, minority populations near the proposed CGS site that are most 

heavily concentrated (70 percent or more) are located in the Third Ward community to the 

west. Block level data revealed no concentrations of Hispanic populations near the CGS 

project site. There were no areas identified in the study area with concentrations of below 

poverty populations greater than 50 percent. One block group north of the proposed CGS in 

the Third Ward community has below poverty populations in the range of 40 to 49 percent. 


Figure 3.15-1. Minority Areas 


Figure 3.15-2. Low-Income Areas 



This section describes potential impacts to minority and low-income communities in the CGS 

project area. Executive Order 12898 requires evaluation of the potential for the CGS to 

create disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations 

with respect to human health and the environment. 

CATS has planned a transit network system that would provide transit service equity 

throughout the proposed CGS service area. Introduction of a new transit service would 

provide a new transportation option for citizens to access employment, schools, and other 

facilities. 

CATS conducted several public meetings throughout the development of the EA that 

provided opportunities for minority and low-income communities and/or their representatives 

to address any concerns regarding the CGS project. Generally, attendees were supportive 

of the CGS and saw the project as providing a needed impetus to investment in the City of 

Charlotte. 

In general, the CGS project would not result in disproportionately adverse impacts on lowincome 

and minority communities and businesses. As with any major transportation project, 

it is likely that residents within the project area will endure some impacts because of the 

construction and operation of the CGS project. These impacts, however, would not be 

disproportionately high and adverse for residents of the area. Among the positive effects of 

the project for these residents are enhanced mobility options, greater access to regional 

jobs and non-job opportunities such as educational, shopping and entertainment activities, 

and potential economic development in the community. 

3.15.4.1 Environmental Justice Considerations 

In assessing compliance of the CGS project with the intent of the Executive Order, there are 

three major considerations: 

• Whether the project provides transit service equity; 

• Whether any potential adverse impacts would be disproportionately borne by lowincome 

and minority communities; and 

• Whether low-income and minority communities have had opportunities to actively 

participate in the planning of the project. 

Environmental Justice analyses include addressing a project’s potential for creating adverse 

impacts to human health, adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, and impacts 

that would adversely impact the stability and economic and social functioning of a 

community or neighborhood. This analysis must ask whether any disproportionate adverse 

project impacts would affect minority or low-income areas relative to areas not so 

designated. There are several potential adverse effects that could result from a new 

transportation project that are of interest to the question of environmental justice. These are 

divided into the following 17 categories: 

1. Air pollution 

2. Noise 

3. Vibration 

4. Water pollution 

5. Soils contamination 


6. Destruction of man-made resources 

7. Destruction of natural resources 

8. Diminution of aesthetic values 

9. Detriment to community cohesion 

10. Diminution of economic viability 

11. Detriment to private and public facilities access 

12. Detriment to private and public services access 

13. Traffic congestion and impairment to mobility 

14. Diminution of employment opportunities 

15. Displacement 

16. Exclusion, isolation or separation 

17. Diminution of Department of Transportation benefits 

Potential for adverse impacts to human health could result from all of the above categories 

with the exception of diminution of Department of Transportation benefits. The following 

sections address environmental justice in terms of transit services equity and the 17 impact 

issues listed above. 

3.15.4.2 Transit Service Equity 

Table 3.15-1 provides the percentage of minority communities and low-income communities 

that are within 1/2 mile of the proposed CGS. The CGS would serve approximately 1,054 

minorities according to the 2000 Census data. The proposed CGS would serve 

approximately 537 persons below poverty. 

The CGS area would have new or expanded bus service as part of the project. The 

proposed transit network would include modifications to existing routes as well as some new 

routes to provide access to the CGS and help balance the demand between the passenger 

rail and local/express bus service. The transit network for the CGS would provide increased 

mobility options and access within the region as well as to and from low-income and minority 

communities. 

Table 3.15-1. Access to Stations for Minority and Low-Income Communities 

Station 

Population 

within 1/2 mile of 

Station 

Percent Minority 

Population 

Percent Low- 

Income Population 

Charlotte Gateway 

Source: 2000 Census 

2,368 45% 23% 

3.15.4.3 Impact Issues 

This section addresses the 17 issues previously listed. They are discussed under the 

headings: human health issues, environmental issues, social and community issues, and 

diminution of Department of Transportation benefits. The No-Action would not cause 

impacts related to human health, natural resources, social and community issues for any 

community. 


3.15.4.4 Human Health Issues 

Air Pollution. Overall, regional air quality would not be adversely affected, for the region as 

a whole or for specific communities or neighborhoods. 

Noise and Vibration. The project would not have adverse noise impacts disproportionate to 

either low-income or minority populations. 

Water Pollution. The CGS project is not expected to adversely affect water quality. 

Soils Contamination. Locations of existing contaminated sites within the project site and of 

known sources of potential contaminants outside the project site are not concentrated in 

low-income and minority neighborhoods. Sites would be investigated further and 

appropriate mitigation to prevent exposure of workers or adjacent properties to potential 

contaminants implemented. Federal and state disposal requirements would be applied to all 

pre-existing contaminants affected by the CGS. Thus, the project will not expose 

communities to soil contaminants. 

3.15.4.5 Environmental Issues –Destruction of Natural Resources 

Because the CGS would be constructed in an urbanized area, impacts to wetlands, 

vegetation, and threatened and endangered species are not anticipated. Within a 0.25-mile 

buffer around the proposed CGS site, no terrestrial plant communities or associated wildlife 

habitat were identified, that would be impacted by the project. 

Construction of the CGS would not result in any substantial adverse impact on natural and 

beneficial floodplain values of the floodplains or encroachments on floodways. No areas of 

unique habitat are in the project area. Given the extent and character of natural resources 

affected by the entire project, it can be concluded that CGS impacts on natural resources 

would not adversely or disproportionately impact low-income or minority communities. 

3.15.4.6 Social and Community Issues 

Destruction of Man-Made Resources. The major impact to man-made resources would be 

the one business displacement discussed below. Impacts to the site will not be associated 

with low-income or minority populations and, thus, would not disproportionately affect lowincome 

or minority populations. 

Destruction of Aesthetic Values. The CGS would not negatively affect the visual quality at 

the project site. 

Diminished Community Cohesion; Reduced Access to Public and Private Facilities and 

Services; and Exclusion, Isolation or Separation. The integrity of the communities would not 

be adversely affected by the CGS. The CGS would replace an existing business and 

surface parking. Except for site specific displacement, the basic structure of the business 

and residential communities surrounding the project site would remain intact and could be 

enhanced by the transportation benefits of the CGS. Thus, implementation of the CGS 

project would not adversely impact community cohesion. 

The project would not result in new separation, isolation or exclusion of portions of lowincome 

and minority communities from the larger community. Access to public and private 

facilities and services (schools, churches, shopping, emergency services) would not be 

adversely affected. The CGS project would result in increased regional accessibility, such 

that improved access to regional services for communities could result. 

Diminished Economic Viability and Diminished Employment Opportunities. Employment 

opportunities for minority and low-income communities would not be adversely affected by 


the CGS. The business that would be displaced is not within a low-income neighborhood or 

within minority neighborhoods. The displaced business (Greyhound Bus Terminal) indicated 

having a minority employment greater than 50 percent of the work force. 

An interview was conducted with Greyhound. Greyhound will be relocated to the adjacent 

block and will be an integral architectural and transportation component of the CGS multimodal 

station. CATS and NCDOT relocation programs would give special attention to 

facilitating the relocation of businesses with high minority and low-income employment. 

Improved transportation options would increase access to potential employment. The 

project would provide employment opportunities that could be reached via transit by all 

communities within or near the project corridor. The economic and employment benefits 

and disadvantages of the project would not be disproportionate since there will be additional 

employment access benefits, the project’s business displacements would not inequitably 

focus on businesses with high minority employment, and the owners of most displaced 

businesses have indicated that they can relocate. 

Traffic Congestion and Impairment to Mobility. The CGS would increase regional mobility in 

general and in low-income and minority areas. As noted above under “Diminished 

Community Cohesion; Reduced Access to Public and Private Facilities and Services; and 

Exclusion, Isolation or Separation,” the project would not affect community cohesion and 

access. Thus, it would not impair mobility. There would be changes in local traffic 

circulation and increased feeder bus activity. No disproportionate traffic or mobility impacts 

would occur with the CGS project. 

Displacement. Business displacements were discussed above under, “Diminished 

Economic Viability and Diminished Employment Opportunities.” 

3.15.4.7 Diminution of Department of Transportation Benefits 

Implementation of CGS would enhance transit service sponsored in part by USDOT 

programs. No USDOT programs, policies, or activities would be eliminated, reduced in 

scope, or delayed as a part of implementation of the CGS project. 



4.0 Transportation..................................................................................................................4.1-1 

4.1 Transportation ...............................................................................................4.1-1 

4.2 Trip making Characteristic ...........................................................................4.2-2 

4.2.1 Existing Transit Level of Service/ Geographic Coverage......................4.2-2 

4.2.2 Planned Improvement in Level of Service.............................................4.2-3 

4.3 Traffic Analysis..............................................................................................4.3-4 

4.3.1 Methodology..........................................................................................4.3-4 

4.3.2 Existing Conditions................................................................................4.3-5 

4.3.3 Future Plan with the Charlotte Gateway Station ...................................4.3-5 

4.3.4 Year 2010 and 2030 Consequences.....................................................4.3-9 

4.3.5 Traffic Impact Mitigation......................................................................4.3-11 

4.4 Other Modes ................................................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.1 Impacts to Freight ...............................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.2 Amtrak Service....................................................................................4.4-12 

4.4.3 Bike Routes and Greenways...............................................................4.4-12 

4.4.4 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport...............................................4.4-12 

4.4.5 Intercity Bus Service ...........................................................................4.4-13 

4.5 Compatibility................................................................................................4.5-13 

4.5.1 Compatibility with MPO Transportation Plans.....................................4.5-13 

4.5.2 Compatibility with Railroad Improvement Plans..................................4.5-13 

4.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal and Intermodal Center Plans ...............4.5-13 

4.5.4 Compatibility with Bike Routes and Greenways..................................4.5-14 

4.6 Construction Impacts .................................................................................4.6-14 

4.6.1 Vehicular/ Passenger Traffic Impacts .................................................4.6-14 

4.6.2 Freight Rail Impacts ............................................................................4.6-14 

4.6.3 Construction Impact Mitigation............................................................4.6-14 



Table 4.2-1. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections ....................................................4.3-4 

Table 4.2-2: Existing Conditions Analysis Results ...........................................................4.3-5 

Table 4.2-3: On-Site At-Grade Parking Totals .................................................................4.3-6 

Table 4.2-4: 2010 Build Year Scenario LOS Results .....................................................4.3-10 

Table 4.2-5: 2010 Curbside Approach Link Delay and Speed Comparison..................4.3-11 


Figure 4.0-1: Site Location Map .......................................................................................4.1-1 

Figure 4.0-2: Site Plan Schematic....................................................................................4.1-2 

Figure 4.1-1: CATS Transit Routing in Center City Charlotte ..........................................4.2-3 

Figure 4.2-1: At-Grade Parking Displacements ...............................................................4.3-7 

Figure 4.2-2: CGS Bus Route Circulation ........................................................................4.3-8 

Figure 4.2-3: Parking Deck and Greyhound Terminal Circulation.....................................4.3-9 


4.0 Transportation 

4.1 Transportation 

This chapter describes the transportation impacts resulting from implementation of the 

Charlotte Gateway Station (CGS) project. The chapter begins with a general description of 

the trip-making characteristics and transportation levels of service provided to the public. 

The analysis further provides existing (without CGS) and future (with CGS) traffic conditions, 

potential impacts and mitigation measures. 

The CGS will serve as a hub facility for several transit modes including the future NCCR 

line, West Corridor Rapid Transit line, Streetcar Service, CATS bus service, Greyhound bus 

service, and Amtrak intercity passenger rail service between Charlotte and points north and 

south. A new Greyhound Bus Terminal will be constructed adjacent to the CGS parcel. The 

CGS and ancillary 750-space parking deck are to be located between Trade and 3rd 

Streets west of Graham Street in Uptown Charlotte. A site location map is included as 

Figure 4.1-1. 

Figure 4.1-1: Site Location Map 

Source: ZGF Partnership and Parsons Brinckerhoff 


The CGS will generate incremental bus service at and near the facility, as several CATS 

routes will terminate or begin inside CGS and/or make curbside stops on Trade, 4 th and 

Graham Streets. Trade Street will provide a direct linkage between the CGS and the 

existing CATS Charlotte Transportation Center (CTC) located on Brevard Street between 

Trade and 4 th Streets. On the other hand, the CGS will attract few new automobile trips, as 

its function is to serve mostly in the transfer of people between various transit services. This 

location is not designated as a Park and Ride (PNR) facility, but is to be a destination 

facility. A site plan schematic is included as Figure 4.1-2. 

Figure 4.1-2: Site Plan Schematic 

Source: ZGF Partnership and Parsons Brinckerhoff 

4.2 Trip making Characteristic 

Based on the 2003 data generated from Charlotte DOT’s regional transportation model, trips 

to Center City Charlotte represent approximately 4 percent of the total trips in the region 

(Charlotte and the surrounding counties). By 2030 total trip making in the region is 

expected to increase by 80 percent from 5.5M to 10.1M trips per day (an almost 3 percent 

increase per year). Trips to Center City Charlotte are also expected to increase by 67 

percent. 

4.2.1 Existing Transit Level of Service/ Geographic Coverage 

Currently, CATS provides regional transit service using a fleet of 423 buses and 76 van 

pools. The system operates primarily from its major transit passenger terminal, the CTC, in 


Center City Charlotte. Figure 4.2-1 provides the current bus routing in Center City Charlotte. 

The bus system includes two vehicle maintenance facilities (VMFs): the primary garage 

located at 3145 South Tryon Street, which opened in spring 2005, and a second site at 901 

North Davidson Street, which served as CATS primary VMF until 2005. 

Figure 4.2-1: CATS Transit Routing in Center City Charlotte 

Source: CATS and Parsons Brinckerhoff 

4.2.2 Planned Improvement in Level of Service 

Planning for future transit services is undertaken by CATS through the Countywide Transit 

Services Plan. The current Plan reflects 2007 start-up of the Lynx Blue Line (light rail 

service in the South Corridor) and growing transit needs in the region. In addition, The 2030 

Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) LRTP provides for transit 

improvements, including the CGS, as an integral part of the system-wide plan. 


The proposed NCCR service terminates at CGS, and silver Line (BRT or slight rail) may also 

terminate there. Streetcar service will serve CGS but not terminate there. Blue Line service 

will serve CTC but not CGS. Streetcar and other bus service also will operate along Trade 

Street and will be available to customers transferring between the Center City stations. 

During the same time, CATS will continue to expand and optimize fixed route bus transit 

service throughout the region. Current service planning calls for the 2030 bus fleet to reach 

787 revenue vehicles and 153 paratransit vehicles. 

4.3 Traffic Analysis 

A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report “CATS Charlotte Gateway Station Traffic Impact 

Assessment” (CGSTIA), was completed in March 2006 and submitted to CATS/ CDOT. The 

CGSTIA provides detailed technical information on the study methodology, data collection 

and analysis, study findings, future no-build and build scenario, and improvement 

recommendations. The following paragraphs provide excerpts from that report and the 

reader is encouraged to reference the CGSTIA report for additional information. 


Operating Levels of Service (LOS) experienced by motorists is measured by the amount of 

delay drivers experience at intersections. The LOS is defined in terms of delay, which is a 

measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. 

The LOS criteria for signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in the 1997 

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Special Report 209 and shown in Table 4.3-1. Note that 

the LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections is measured differently. In general, 

LOS at a signal includes delays for all traffic entering an intersection. For an unsignalized 

intersection, only the delay at the worst minor road intersection approach is computed. 

Table 4.3-1. Level of Service Criteria for Intersections 

LOS 

Signalized 

Intersections Average 

Delay/Veh, sec 

Unsignalized Intersections 

Average Delay/Veh, sec 

A d ≤ 10.0 d ≤ 10.0 

B 10.0< d ≤ 20.0 10.0< d ≤ 15.0 

C 20.0< d ≤ 35.0 15.0< d ≤ 25.0 

D 35.0< d ≤ 55.0 25.0< d ≤ 35.0 

E 55.0< d ≤ 80.0 35.0< d ≤ 50.0 

F D > 80.0 d > 50.0 

Source: 1997 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 

HCM standards use LOS D as a measure of acceptable operating conditions at signalized 

intersections in urban areas during the peak hour. LOS E is generally considered 

acceptable at unsignalized intersection locations during peak periods if only the side street 

encounters delay. However, it is not uncommon for side streets and particularly driveways 

to function at LOS F during peak traffic periods and not warrant a traffic signal to help only 

the side street traffic in the peak hour. Therefore, a worse LOS is typically acceptable at an 

unsignalized intersection. Improvements may not be warranted to help only the minor 

street movement to the detriment of through traffic on the major street. 


Intersection turning movement counts were provided from the City of Charlotte 2005 Center 

City Transportation Model. The Synchro traffic network model provided by the city included 

all study area intersections. The Center City Transportation Model volumes are 

representative of weekday peak morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) intersection operation 

conditions. 

4.3.2 Existing Conditions 

Existing LOS analyses were performed at the study area intersections for the AM and PM to 

analyze intersection operations during commuter peak hours (7:15-8:15 AM and 4:45-5:45 

PM respectively). The roadway network, intersection geometries, traffic volumes and signal 

timings were provided in the Center City Transportation Model Synchro network and field 

verified. A CORSIM network was constructed for the traffic analysis based on Synchro 

inputs. The CORSIM model allows for better evaluation of bus route impacts (particularly for 

future scenarios). Analysis results were post-processed and reported according to HCM 

procedures to provide average delay and LOS results for each intersection. The existing 

conditions analysis delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4.3-2, with the CORSIM 

post-processed results included in Appendix C. 

Table 4.3-2: Existing Conditions Analysis Results 

Intersection Control 

AM Peak 

Delay/LOS 

PM Peak 

Delay/LOS 

Graham at Trade Signalized 17.1 – B 20.2 – C 

Graham at 4th Signalized 6.9 – A 10.9 – B 

Graham at 3rd Signalized 11.9 – B 8.9 – A 

Graham at Second Signalized 6.4 – A 7.7 – A 

Cedar at Trade Signalized 32.3 – C 10.3 – B 

Cedar at 4th Signalized 10.4 – B 8.1 – A 

Cedar at Parking Deck Unsignalized 3.5 – A (A) 3.0 – A (A) 

Trade Street at Wilkes Street Unsignalized 5.5 – A (A) 6.0 – A (A) 

Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff 

Legend: 

For signalized intersections: 00.0 - A = Average intersection delay - LOS; 

For unsignalized intersections: 00.0 – A (A) = worst movement delay – LOS (overall LOS) 

The results summarized in Table 4.3-2 show that all study area intersections are operating 

at LOS C or better during both peak periods under existing conditions. 

4.3.3 Future Plan with the Charlotte Gateway Station 

The location and operation of the proposed CGS will impact the existing parking and traffic 

circulation in the immediate vicinity. The following paragraphs discusses these impacts.. 

Greyhound Bus Station 

The two-block land parcel on which the CGS and parking deck will be built is currently used 

almost exclusively for public surface lot parking. The Greyhound station currently operates 

between Trade and 4 th Streets; a new Greyhound facility will be located between 3 rd and 4 th 

Streets. Greyhound Buses will primarily use 4 th Street, removing them from Trade Street. 


Parking 

The results of a surface lot parking survey within the study area are summarized in Table 

4.3-3. The vast majority of the at-grade spaces are used by Center City employees who pay 

on a daily or monthly basis. The daily rates range from $3.00-$5.00 per day; monthly rates 

range from $75 to $125. These parkers will be displaced by CGS. Some will opt to use the 

new parking deck, while others are likely to seek other less expensive lots in other areas of 

the Center City There is a park-and-pay lot across Trade Street (approximately 300 spaces) 

but this lot is already near capacity during peak periods. Figure 4.3-1 illustrates the at-grade 

parking displaced by the CGS facility and parking deck. 

Bus Routes 

Table 4.3-3: On-Site At-Grade Parking Totals 

Intersection Number of Spaces* Occupied Spaces 

Between Trade and 4th Streets 350 215 

Between 4th and 3rd Streets 260 245 

TOTALS 610 460 


* totals are approximate as some spaces are unmarked 

Local and express bus routes serving both the current CTC and CGS will circulate in a 

pattern between the facilities using Trade and 4 th Streets. Express buses from the East will 

stop curbside at CTC on 4 th Street and then travel west on 4 th Street and turn right into CGS 

for a transfer stop. They would then depart CGS and turn right onto Trade Street and return 

to the east to toward the existing CTC. Express buses from the west will stop curbside 

along Trade and 4 th on their way to/from a transfer at the current CTC. Most local buses 

will pass by CGS curbside on Trade and/or 4 th Streets. 

The bus routing pattern for CGS will be one-way northbound through the site. The 

circulation pattern between the current CTC and the CGS site means that only right-in/right 

out turns will be made at both the Trade and the 4 th Street driveways. The median on Trade 

Street prohibits left turns; left turns on 4 th Street will not be necessary. This routing pattern 

significantly lessens the impacts of bus operations on the adjacent street network and 

reduces bus delays leaving the site. Figure 4.3-2 illustrates the potential bus routing 

patterns. 


Figure 4.3-1: At-Grade Parking Displacements 



Figure 4.3-2: CGS Bus Route Circulation 


The parking deck and Greyhound Terminal will have access to both 4 th Street and Graham 

Street via 3 rd Street. The Graham/3 rd Street intersection will be a T-intersection in the site 

Build-out Year due to the severing of 3 rd between Graham and Mint Streets to accommodate 

a new Third Ward Park or baseball stadium. The current signal at this intersection will likely 

remain to provide adequate egress capacity for trips leaving the parking deck and 

Greyhound Terminal. 

On 4 th Street, there will be a left turn bay at Graham Street when the intersection geometry 

is modified to accommodate the Third Ward Park. The proximity of the “New Street” access 

to Graham Street does not provide sufficient distance to create back-to-back left turn bays 

on 4 th Street at Graham Street and New Street. Because sufficient ingress from the east via 

3 rd Street is provided, and bus operations will cause traffic friction in the rightmost lane on 4 th 

Street, it is recommended that no left turns be permitted from 4 th Street at New Street. Left 

turns may be provided from the New Street onto westbound 4 th Street, with sufficient 

capacity as an unsignalized intersection. Figure 4.3-3 illustrates the new street system 

layout for the Parking Deck and Greyhound Terminal and proposed traffic circulation 

patterns. 


Figure 4.3-3: Parking Deck and Greyhound Terminal Circulation 


Greyhound buses will circulate by entering from either eastbound 4th Street as a right on 

New Street or from 3 rd Street and then north on a one-way street adjacent to the terminal 

into angle parking stalls. All buses will depart the terminal at the one-way outbound access 

on 4th Street, which has sufficient capacity as an unsignalized intersection. Fewer than four 

buses arrive or depart the terminal during the commuter peak hour and therefore the impact 

of the Greyhound buses should be negligible. 

4.3.4 Year 2010 and 2030 Consequences 

The 2010 Build-out scenario was developed to determine future intersection conditions at 

upon completion of the CGS project, including site traffic impacts. Year 2010 Build-out 

roadway and intersection turning movement volumes were developed by adding the sitegenerated 

trips to the 2010 No-Action traffic volumes (including all other committed 

development impacts) according to the developed distribution assignments. 

These volumes were used to perform the 2010 Build Year intersection analyses, applying 

the same methodology used in the existing conditions analysis. The 2010 Build Year 

analysis delay and LOS results are summarized in Table 4.3-4. 


Table 4.3-4: 2010 Build Year Scenario LOS Results 

Intersection Control 

AM Peak 

Delay-LOS 

w/signal 

improvement 

Change 

in delay 

from No- 

Action 

PM Peak 

Delay-LOS 

w/signal 

improvement 

Change 

in delay 

from No- 

Action 

Graham at Trade Signalized 18.5 / B +2.2 22.5 / C -0.4 

Graham at 4th Signalized 34.8 / C 19.2 – B -4.7 21.2 / C 18.0 – B +2.7 

Graham at 3rd Signalized 3.8 / A -11.4 7.4 / A +4.4 

Graham at Second Signalized 8.6 / A -18.8 6.4 / A -0.6 

Cedar at Trade Signalized 14.4 / B -2.2 12.1 / A +3.0 

Cedar at 4th Signalized 11.3 / B -0.3 7.8 / A -0.2 

Cedar at Parking 

Deck 

Unsignalized 3.2 / A (A) n/a 3.2 / A (A) n/a 

Trade at Wilkes 

Street 

Unsignalized 15.1 / C (A) n/a 16.6 / C (A) n/a 


Legend: 

For signalized intersections: 00.0 - A = Average intersection delay - LOS; 

For unsignalized intersections: 00.0 – A (A) = worst movement delay – LOS (overall LOS) 

The overall intersection operations results show that all intersections will continue to operate 

at LOS C or better in both peak periods in the 2010 build year. However, an examination of 

approach delay/LOS shows that the intersection of 4 th and Graham will experience 

approaches with failing LOS. In both the AM and PM peak hour, the SB Graham Street left 

turn had queuing in excess of the left turn bay storage, as did the WB 4 th Street left turn in 

the AM peak hour. The left turn demand would be more efficiently served with demandactuated 

protected/permissive left turn phasing. The LOS results with protected/permissive 

left turn phasing was analyzed in additional traffic model simulation and found to eliminate 

the left turn queues and improve overall operations (see Table 4.3-4 “with signal 

improvement”). Therefore, it is recommended that protected/permissive left turn phasing be 

added to the 4 th Street Intersection with Graham Street. This improvement could be 

included as part of the new Third Ward Park or baseball stadium roadway improvement 

project. 

Local and express bus routes and Streetcar operations will add additional bus trips and 

stops on both Trade and 4 th Streets. CORSIM can model the impact of these routes and 

curbside stops by coding the routes, headways, and dwell times at the curbside stops. The 

curbside stops on the 4 th and Trade Street perimeters of the site were modeled under two 

scenarios: 

1. curbside stops in the right through-travel lane on 4 th and Trade Streets; and 

2. curbside stops in recessed bus drop-off/pick-up lanes on 4 th and Trade Streets 

The results of the approach delay and average link speed are summarized in Table 4.3-5. 


Table 4.3-5: 2010 Curbside Approach Link Delay and Speed Comparison 

Intersection 

EB Trade Approaching Graham 

WB 4th west of Graham 


AM Peak Approach 

Delay/Average Speed 

Curbside 

stops in lane 

14.8s / 

9.7mph 

20.6s / 

20.5mph 

In recessed 

bus bays 

13.6s / 

10.3mph 

20.0s / 

20.6mph 

PM Peak Approach 

Delay/Average Speed 

Curbside 

stops in lane 

15.5s / 

9.5mph 

17.2s / 

21.4mph 

In recessed 

bus bays 

14.7s / 

9.8mph 

17.3s / 

22.9mph 

The results indicate a slight improvement in average speed and lower average delay per 

vehicle where the bus drop-offs occur in a recessed bay along the site frontage on 4 th and 

Trade Streets. There are only two through lanes in each direction on 4 th and Trade Streets 

and the recessed lanes for bus drop-offs would reserve the through lanes for vehicular 

travel. 

The 2030 Horizon Year scenario was developed to project future intersection and roadway 

operations in the study area. The 2030 Horizon Year roadway and intersection volumes 

were determined by applying the growth forecasts in the 2030 Transportation model. 

The growth forecast in the 2030 Transportation Model indicates that most of the 

intersections in the study area will operate at LOS F with or without CGS. However, 

conditions are better with completion of the transit corridors and CGS than would otherwise 

be the case without them. Transit will increasingly be used as an alternative to commuters 

wanting to avoid traffic congestion. Increased congestion is not limited to the study area. It 

will be prevalent in the downtown or Center City Charlotte area. Increased congestion and 

greater diversity of jobs in the downtown will likely spread the peak period beyond the 

traditional one-hour peak, lessening the impact of traffic growth during any one short period. 

4.3.5 Traffic Impact Mitigation 

CGS will enhance the use of transit in Center City Charlotte without generating additional 

downtown vehicular traffic The CGS facility can be accommodated by the current roadway 

network surrounding the site. The proposed site reduces the amount of current surface 

parking, a desired outcome of transit-oriented policy. The additional transit vehicles will 

utilize the network in a circulatory pattern that minimizes the impact to street and intersection 

capacity (right-in/right-out of the facility) and the addition of bus drop-off lanes on the 4 th and 

Trade Street frontages will further reduce impacts. Three specific transportation facility 

mitigation measures are suggested: 

1. Signal modifications at the 4th and Graham Street intersection (to include 

protected/permissive left turn phasing) that can be made at the time that the intersection 

is improved to accommodate the new Third Ward Park or baseball stadium. 

2. No left turns should be permitted from 4 th Street at New Street (to access the parking 

deck). Sufficient access, as sufficient ingress from the east via 3 rd Street is provided, 

and bus operations will cause traffic friction in the rightmost lane on 4 th Street. 

3. Use of curbside bus bays for bus drop-offs on the Trade and 4 th Street frontages to the 

CGS will reduces delays and queuing slightly. 


No other transportation infrastructure improvements are necessary to provide adequate and 

safe transportation facility operations in and around the proposed CGS site. 

4.4 Other Modes 

4.4.1 Impacts to Freight 

The NCCR will access CGS via a dedicated track on the west side of the NS right-of-way. 

Freight train operations on the NS Line would be affected minimally during construction of 

adjacent bridges and platforms and track modifications at the CGS. These impacts would 

consist of possible speed restrictions and short durations of track closure to allow for 

construction of the station and other improvements. A construction phasing plan will be 

developed jointly by NS, NCDOT and CATS to minimize any adverse impacts on freight rail 

service. 

4.4.2 Amtrak Service 

The Amtrak station in Charlotte will be relocated to CGS once the new facility is completed. 

Plans call for two new intercity passenger platforms on the east side of the NS right-of-way; 

these platforms could be relocated to the center of the NS main line if required to address 

congestion or other operating concerns, but this will not impact the location of the Amtrak 

passenger facility. Customers will access the platforms from CGS using secured tunnels 

and escalators/elevators. 

Charlotte is currently served by three daily Amtrak routes: 

• The Crescent – daily service between New York City and New Orleans; 

• The Carolinian – daily service between Charlotte and New York City; 

• The Piedmont – daily service between Charlotte and Raleigh, with connections at 

Raleigh to the Northeast Corridor and Florida, via Amtrak’s Silver Star. 

NCDOT is planning to increase service by at least one additional round-trip train within the 

next 3-5 years and service could grow to as many as eight daily Charlotte-Raleigh round-trip 

trains with implementation of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor (some plans call for as 

many as 22 daily trips). Relocating the Amtrak station to downtown Charlotte is expected to 

enhance ridership as well as provide convenient, seamless connections to local transit and 

Greyhound. 

4.4.3 Bike Routes and Greenways 

Currently, 3 rd Street and 4 th Street, near the proposed CGS, have designated bike lanes and 

the Irwin Creek Greenway is in close proximity to the CGS. Bike lanes are also being 

planned on 5 th , 6 th , Mint, Pine, and Poplar streets. 

The CGS would have provisions for bicycles. Bicycle racks (or other appropriate bicycle 

storage facilities) would be provided so that bicyclists can secure their bicycles at the station 

while using CATS, Amtrak and Greyhound services. CATS expects to include bicycle 

storage on the North Corridor commuter trains; CATS already provide front-loading bicycle 

racks. 

4.4.4 Charlotte-Douglas International Airport 

Charlotte-Douglas International is located near I-85 west of Charlotte. Owned and operated 

by the City of Charlotte, Charlotte-Douglas averages 524 daily departures and over 23 

million passengers annually. The airport is ranked among the nation's top airports and 

serves commercial, cargo, corporate, private, military and trucking operations. Construction 


of the CGS would have no impact on airport service. Currently CATS local bus #5 serves 

the airport hourly from Center City Charlotte. Plans are underway to increase this frequency 

to 30-minute headways. Service to the airport will stop at the CGS, providing access to 

Greyhound, Amtrak and CATS travelers. 

4.4.5 Intercity Bus Service 

Greyhound Lines Inc. provides scheduled intercity bus service to the Center City Charlotte 

terminal. Current plan for the CGS includes relocation of the Greyhound terminal adjacent 

to its current location with an enclosed pedestrian walkway over 4 th Street to connect the 

new Greyhound Station to the CGS. Disruption of service should be minimal, as the old 

station will not be taken out of service until the new station is completed and ready for 

service. The new facility, planned by Greyhound, will include an expanded waiting area, 

food court and welfare facilities, as well as a parking deck. Passengers will enjoy easy 

access to CATS and Amtrak service at CGS. 

4.5 Compatibility 

The CGS project is being implemented jointly by NCDOT and CATS. Amtrak and 

Greyhound are integrally involved in the planning for their new facilities included in the 

project. A significant private-sector component is included as a means of developing 

additional adjacent property owned by NCDOT. The project is compatible with, and a critical 

element of all regional transportation plans, including the 2025 and 2030 Corridor System 

Plans, the regional Long-Range Transportation Plan, the state rail plan and the Southeast 

High Speed Rail Corridor plan. CGS will greatly enhance regional transportation. 

4.5.1 Compatibility with MPO Transportation Plans 

The regional MPO -- MUMPO -- has adopted a 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan 

(LRTP). This LRTP describes the programs that carry out MUMPO’s mission. To determine 

the projects that make up the plan, MUMPO is guided by a set of goals and objectives. The 

plan is based on an assessment of future travel conditions and a variety of land 

development and environmental factors. The mission, goals, and objectives for all of modes 

of travel are included in the plan and incorporates “inter-modal terminals” as part of the 

overall transportation system. 

The MUMPO’s LRTP states that “the terminus of the North Transit Corridor project in 

Charlotte is the planned site of joint-use multimodal facility.” That facility is the CGS. 

A complete document can be located at http://www.mumpo.org/2030_LRTP.htm/. 

4.5.2 Compatibility with Railroad Improvement Plans 

The NCDOT Rail Division is working with NS and CSX to upgrade existing rail corridors to 

improve safety, efficiency and capacity for freight and passenger train services. Relocation 

of Amtrak service to downtown Charlotte, along with associated capacity enhancements on 

the NS mainline, are a key component of this plan. 

4.5.3 Compatibility with Multimodal and Intermodal Center Plans 

NCDOT undertook the initial planning for the CGS and issued its Feasibility Study for the 

Charlotte Multi-Modal Station in May 2002. NCDOT has acquired some 27 acres of property 

to facilitate construction of the CGS and will lead the effort to create a Master Plan for 

development of this property in conjunction with construction of the CGS. 


4.5.4 Compatibility with Bike Routes and Greenways 

The CGS station will enhance the use of bicycles, through provision of bicycle storage 

facilities and access to transit that can accommodate transportation of passengers with 

bicycles 

4.6 Construction Impacts 

This section provides a summary of potential short term construction impacts related 

specifically to existing automotive, truck freight and rail freight access and mobility capability. 

General mitigation measures are provided. As the design is advanced more specific 

construction mitigation measures can be determined. 

4.6.1 Vehicular/ Passenger Traffic Impacts 

Construction of CGS and associated facilities would likely affect local roads and modify 

traffic patterns. Potential transportation and circulation impacts from construction activity 

could result from temporary road narrowing or closings, causing traffic to detour around or 

slow down around the construction site. Slow-moving construction vehicles on the 

roadways near the construction site would also affect levels of service on the roadways. 

The construction would also have impacts on bus routes in the region because of temporary 

and permanent street closings. Although rerouting could be necessary, such inconvenience 

would only be temporary. Therefore the construction of the proposed CGS would not have 

any substantial long-term impact on local public facilities or services, such as fire, police, 

and emergency medical services. 

4.6.2 Freight Rail Impacts 

Railroad operations that utilize the existing tracks would be affected during construction of 

the CGS. A detailed construction phasing plan will be developed by NS, CSX, NCDOT and 

CATS to minimize any such impacts. Once in operation, however, NS operations will 

actually be enhanced. Relocation of Amtrak to downtown Charlotte with a dedicated station 

platform will reduce conflicts on the NS main line tracks during station stops 

4.6.3 Construction Impact Mitigation 

Maintenance of traffic and the sequence of construction would be planned and scheduled to 

minimize traffic delays. Warning signs would be used as appropriate to provide notice of 

road hazards and other pertinent information to the traveling public. The local news media 

would be notified in advance of road closures, diversion, and other construction. As an 

extension of the public involvement efforts, local businesses and residents would be kept 

apprised of activities prior to and during construction. A telephone hotline, where additional 

traffic information could be obtained, would be available. Access to all businesses and 

residences would be maintained to the extent practical through controlled construction 

scheduling and/or provisions of alternate routes of entry. 


5.0 REFERENCES 

Charlotte Area Transit System, Intermediate Stations Design Criteria. Supplement to North 

Corridor Commuter Rail Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Charlotte: City of Charlotte and 

Mecklenburg County, (2005.) 

Charlotte Area Transit System (1). Intermediate Stations Design Criteria. (2005)Charlotte: 

Charlotte Area Transit System. 

Charlotte Area Transit System (2). “Next Stop: 1234 My Place,” North Transitions Winter 2006. 

Charlotte: Charlotte Area Transit System, 2. 

Charlotte Area Transit System (4). “News from the Towns,” North Transitions Fall 2005. 

Charlotte: Charlotte Area Transit System, 3. 

Charlotte Area Transit System, North Corridor Station Location Refinement Report (2005). 

Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, 2005. 

Charlotte Area Transit System, South Corridor Light Rail Project, Environmental Impact 

Statement, October 2002. 

Charlotte, City of, Charlotte Multi-Modal Station, Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC, November 

24, 2004, 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, Zoning Verification Letter, Katrina J Young, 

February 6, 2009. 

Charlotte, City of, Mecklenburg County, and Charlotte City Partners. Center City 2010 Master 

Plan. Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, ( 2000.) 

Charlotte DOT and Charlotte Area Transit System, Metrolina 2030 Travel Demand Model 

Output, June 2006 

Charlotte Department of Transportation, Regional Emission Burden of the CATS North Corridor 

City of Charlotte/ CDOT, CATS, Traffic Separation Study for the Norfolk Southern “O” Line, 

2001. 

Charlotte/Mecklenburg County, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bicycle Transportation Plan, July 1999. 

Charlotte, City of, and Mecklenburg County, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Department of 

Neighborhood Development, “Druid Hills State of the Neighborhood Report,” Official City of 

Charlotte & Mecklenburg County Government Web Site, 

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Neighborhood+Dev/Neighborhood+Services/Revitalizati 

on+Neighborhoods/Druid+Hills+State+of+the+Neighborhood+Report.htm, accessed 28 

September 2005. 

City of Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, Charlotte Area Transit System, “Art-in-Transit,” 

CharMeck.org, http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Art+in+Transit/Home.htm, 

accessed 3 March 2006. 

Charlotte Gateway Station 5-1 EA

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, “Mecklenburg African American 

Resources Survey,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission (website), 

http://www.cmhpf.org/surveyafricanamtypes.htm). 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, “Sugaw Creek School House & 

Associated Properties,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission (website), 

http://landmarkscommission.org/surveys&rsugaw.htm). 

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, 2015 Plan: Planning for Our Future. 

Charlotte: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, 1997. 

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). 40 CFR Part 50-87. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500- 

1508), 

Cultural Resources Division, National Park Service. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended and implementing regulation 36 CFR 800 as revised on May 18, 1999. 

Logue, Lynnsy (ed.), et al. At Home Charlotte [real estate/neighborhood website]. 

www.athomecharlotte.com. Accessed 12 Sept 2005. 

The Lockwood Neighborhood Association, Inc. Lockwood Neighborhood Association (website), 

http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/charlotte/lna/, accessed 28 September 2005). 

McTrans, University of Florida, Highway Capacity Software, HCS2000, V4.1d 

Mecklenburg County, DELD software, 2005. 

Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department, Mecklenburg County Greenway Master 

Plan, May 1999. 

.Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation, “Neven Community Park,” Official City of Charlotte 

& Mecklenburg County Government Web Site, http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/ 

Park+and+Rec/Parks/Parks+By+District/Northeast+ District/NevinPK.htm) 

Mecklenburg-Union MPO, 2030 Long-Range Transportation Plan, Summer 2005. MUMPO 

website at www.mumpo.org – accessed July 14, 2006 

Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO) 2030 Long-Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP) September 2005 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office, Effects 

Evaluation Letter, Peter Sandbeck, March 4, 2008. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, 2004 

Statewide Annual Air Quality Concentration Summaries (April 2005) 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, 

Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Transportation Facilities, October 1999. 


EPA’s Boundary Designations for 8-hour Ozone Standards for North Carolina April 15, 2004 

(http://daq.state.nc.us/planning/ozone/designation_epa.pdf). 



Statewide Annual Air Quality Pollutant Concentration Summaries 

(http://daq.state.nc.us/monitor/data/). 


MOBILE6.2 Model Inputs for Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties, December 13, 2005. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2006-2012 State Transportation Improvement 

Program, Transportation Divisions 10 and 12 

Section 107 of the 1997 CAAA 

Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual HCM2000 

Trafficware Ltd., SYNCHRO 6.0 (Build 614), 1995-2005 

US Bureau of the Census: 1980, 1990, 2000; North Carolina State Data Center: Iredell County 

2010, 2020, 2030; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: Mecklenburg County 2010, 2020, 

2030; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: Study Area and Project Area 2000, 2010, 2020, 

2030; Parsons Brinckerhoff GIS analysis using MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004: Local 

Jurisdiction 2010, 2020, 2030. 

US Bureau of the Census: 2000 Census; MUMPO, TAZ Data, November 2004. 

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Impact and 

Related Procedures (23 CFR 771). 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Guidance For Preparing 

And Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents (Technical Advisory 6640.8A). 30 

Oct 1987. (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm, accessed 1 Jan 

2004). 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina Division, Air 

Quality Guidelines for Environmental Documents, February 2006. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning, 

Environment, and Realty, Memorandum: Interim Guidance on Air Toxics Analysis in NEPA 

Documents, February 3, 2006. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Reporting Instructions for 

the Section 5309 New Starts Criteria, May 2006. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Gateway Station 

Concurrence Letter, Mark E. Yachmetz, January 9, 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.” (49 CFR 50). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, MOBILE6.2 - 

Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, October 2002 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, CAL3QHC 

Version 2.0 - Air Quality Dispersion Model, June 1990 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Guidelines 

for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections (EPA-454/R-92-005), November 

1992. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, User‘s 

Guide to CAL3QHC version 2.0: A Methodology for Predicting Pollutant Concentrations near 

Roadway Intersections (EPA-454/R-92-006), 1995. 


6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) 

Joseph Ossi, Environmental Planner 

Bachelor of Arts, Mathematics 

Joseph Ossi is an Environmental Planner with the FTA Office of Planning in 

Washington, D.C. Mr. Ossi assisted the FTA Region IV Office in managing the 

development of the Draft EIS and in revising the document to reflect FTA views or 

policies. 

Elizabeth Day, Director, Office of Project Planning 

Master of Science, Transportation 

Bachelor of Science, Business Transportation/Logistics 

Elizabeth Day is Director, FTA Office of Project Planning in Washington, DC. As part 

of an interdisciplinary team, she rates and evaluates projects seeking FTA 

funding. 

Keith Melton, Community Planner 

Master of Science, City Planning 

Bachelor of Science, Economics & International Studies 

Keith Melton is a Community Planner with the FTA, Region IV Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 

He is responsible for insuring that project sponsors in North Carolina meet all 

planning and program development requirements. 

CHARLOTTE AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM (CATS), CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NC 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NCDOT), TOWN OF HUNTERSVILLE, 

TOWN OF CORNELIUS, TOWN OF DAVIDSON, AND TOWN OF MOORESVILLE 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Keith Parker, Director of Public Transit (City of Charlotte) 

Chief Executive Officer (CATS) 

Master of Business Administration 

Masters of Science, Urban & Regional 

Planning 

Bachelor of Arts, Political Science 

Keith Parker is Director of Public Transit for the City of Charlotte and Chief Executive 

Officer of CATS. He directs policy decision-making for the regional rapid transit system, 

including the Charlotte Gateway Station program. 

David J. Carol (CATS) 

Project Manager 

Doctor of Jurisprudence 

Master of Arts, Foreign Affairs 

Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies 


David Carol is the North Corridor Project Manager for CATS. Mr. Carol is the direct 

contact for CATS and coordinates the project effort with CATS management, towns 

of Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson and Mooresville, and City departments. He 

provides technical direction to the consultant teams preparing the Preliminary 

Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, he is responsible for 

conducting all public and agency coordination activities. Prior to joining the CATS 

management team, Mr. Carol had 20 years of experience with AMTRAK leading 

major projects including the Northeast Corridor high-speed rail development program. 

Brian Nadolny, AICP (CATS) 

Assistant Project Manager 

Bachelor of Arts, Geography/Planning 

Brian Nadolny is the North Corridor Assistant Project Manager for CATS. He is 

responsible for assisting in the implementation of the project and also works with the towns 

of Huntersville, Cornelius, Davidson and Mooresville to coordinate land use and station 

area planning in the corridor. 

John Muth, P.E. (CATS) 

Chief Development Officer 

Master of Science, Civil Engineering 

Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering 

John Muth is the Chief Development Officer for CATS and senior technical staff leader 

for the Program Advisory Team, which steers the policy and operational objectives of the 

five transit corridors currently under evaluation by CATS and FTA. He managed early 

Charlotte transit planning projects including the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 2025 

Transit/Land Use Plan, and was instrumental in providing project direction between 

City departments. 

Jeff Furr, PE (CATS) 

Senior Transit Engineer 


Jeff Furr is the North Corridor Senior Transit Engineer for CATS. He is responsible for 

oversight of Engineering Design and Construction Services for the corridor. 

Eshe K. Glover (CATS) 

Public Information Specialist 

Bachelor of Science, Mass Communications 

Eshe Glover is the Public Information Specialist for the North Corridor commuter rail 

project. She is responsible for developing, implementing and managing all project 

functions involving community relations. Her role also encompasses briefing 

management on public opinion and analyzing community concerns to anticipate trends. 


Larry Kopf (CATS) 

Chief Operations Planning Officer 

Bachelor of Arts, Psychology 

Bachelor of Arts, Mathematics 

Larry Kopf is Chief Operations Planning Officer with CATS. Mr. Kopf developed the 

bus/rail integration plan and drafter the firth LRT operating schedule for the South 

Corridor. He is responsible for bus circulation in and around Charlotte Gateway Station. 

Deborah Campbell (City of Charlotte) 

Planning Director 

Master of Science, Public Administration 

Bachelor of Science, Urban Planning 

Debra Campbell is the Director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission 

(CMPC). She has overall land use planning policy management responsibility for the 

City of Charlotte, including planning and zoning related to the Charlotte Gateway Station 

and the three other North Corridor stations within Charlotte. Her department is 

responsible for the technical staff and resources relating to corridor-wide station area 

planning and detailed station planning within Charlotte. 

Jonathan Wells, AICP (City of Charlotte) 

Capital Facilities/GIS Program Manager 


Bachelor of Arts, Environmental Design 

Jonathan Wells is the Capital Facilities/GIS Program Manager for the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg Planning Commission. In that capacity he serves as the North Corridor 

land use project manager and is responsible for coordinating land use planning and 

logistics along the corridor. 

Dan Thilo ( City of Charlotte) 

Urban Design Program Manager, 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department 

Master of Science, Natural Resources 

Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture 

Dan Thilo serves as the urban design program manager for the Charlotte Multimodal 

Station. He is responsible for reviewing the station and area design guidelines and 

plans to ensure that they are aligned with and complimentary of the neighborhood plans 

of the surrounding areas and other Center City amenities. 


Norm Steinman (City of Charlotte) 

Transportation Planning Division Manager 

Master of Science, City Planning 

Master of Science, Transportation Planning 

Bachelor of Science, Aerospace Engineering 

Norm Steinman is the Manager of the Transportation Planning Division with the 

Charlotte Department of Transportation. He oversees the MPO transportation 

model, the City's traffic engineering and design sections, and the City's sidewalk and 

bicycle programs. Mr. Steinman provides modeling support for the project and 

assures traffic policies are addressed through design reviews. 

Joseph McLelland, AICP (City of Charlotte) 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Master of Science, Regional Planning 

Bachelor of Arts, Economics 

Joseph McLelland led the team of planners and engineers that developed and 

implemented the Metrolina Regional Travel Demand Model. He works closely with the 

project consultant and other staff to develop ridership projections for the North Corridor 

commuter rail project. 

Joshua Saak (City of Charlotte) 

Transportation Engineer 



Joshua Saak is a Transportation Engineer with the Charlotte Department of 

Transportation (CDOT). In coordination with other members of the CDOT staff, he is 

responsible for the review of at-grade crossings in addition to the impact at-grade 

crossing closings will have on the transportation network. 

Cary Chereshkoff, EI (City of Charlotte) 

Transit Services Liaison 


Cary Chereshkoff is the Engineering and Property Management (E&PM) Department’s 

Transit Liaison to CATS on the North, West and Southeast Corridor project teams. She 

provides CATS with services utilizing E&PM resources, and provides E&PM with 

necessary information to coordinate Corridor and CIP Projects while trying to overall 

increase positive relations between CATS & E&PM. 

John Mrzygod, P.E. (City of Charlotte) 

Transit Services Coordinator Engineering and Property Management 


John Mrzygod is the Transit Services Coordinator for Engineering and Property 

Management (E&PM) and provides coordination and engineering support for the 

North Corridor commuter rail project. He acts as a liaison with city departments 

regarding preliminary engineering detail. His specific duties include reviewing 

engineering issues associated with the EIS. 


Jason L. Field, PE (NCDOT) 

Crossing Safety Project Engineer 


Jason Field is a Project Manager with the NCDOT Rail Division. He is heavily involved 

in evaluating new technologies related to crossing safety as well as locomotive cameras 

installed on the State’s locomotives. Mr. Field is also responsible for managing a 

statewide program to monitor and improve highway-railway grade crossing safety on 30 

different railroads in 97 counties which includes the North Corridor. 

Jack Flaherty (NCDOT) 

Transportation Planner 

Bachelor of Science, Sociology / Economics 

Jack Flaherty is a Transportation Planner with NCDOT, Public Transportation Division. 

His responsibilities include oversight of the community and urban transit systems in the 

Metrolina area, the Salisbury transit system and the urban system in Hickory. Duties 

range from facilities oversight and urban/rural funding grants to planning study 

approvals. 

Patrick B. Simmons (NCDOT) 

Bachelor of Science, Marine Biology 

Patrick Simmons managed the State’s Rail Program from 1988 to 1992, and following 

an excursion into niche market computer software sales, he re-cycled back to the 

NCDOT in September 1994 to direct the newly-formed Rail Division. 

Allan Paul (NCDOT) 

Director 

Operations & Facilities Branch, Rail Division 

Bachelor of Arts, History 

Allen Paul serves has served as the project manager for the Charlotte Multimodal 

Station and also serves as the project manager for Area Track Improvements. Mr. Paul 

is responsible for development of conceptual design, feasibility study, property 

acquisitions, negotiations/coordination with CSXT, Norfolk Southern, FRA, Greyhound, 

and City/County governments. 

Karen W. Floyd (Town of Cornelius) 


Bachelor of Science, Landscape Architecture 

Karen Floyd is the Planning Director for the town of Cornelius and is responsible for 

town planning associated with implementation of commuter rail and for administering the 

zoning ordinance. Ms. Floyd is also responsible for reviewing and approving 

architectural guidelines consistent with the transit district and serves as a member of the 

North Corridor Technical Support Team. 


Kris Krider (Town of Davidson) 


Bachelor of Arts, Architecture 

Master of Arts, Architecture 

Kris Krider is the Planning Director for the town of Davidson and the Project Manager for 

the Davidson Station Area Plan. He is the lead contact for the town regarding all project 

associated communications with CATS and the town representative on the North 

Corridor Technical Support Team. Mr. Krider also reviews all project related 

engineering plans on behalf of the town. 

William S. Coxe (Town of Huntersville) 

Transportation Planner 

Bachelor of Arts, Geography and Political Science 

William Coxe directs the transportation department for the town of Huntersville. He 

coordinates strategic transportation issues with land development for the Town and has 

been involved with strategic planning for the rapid transit operation since the Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan in 1998. Mr. Coxe also serves a 

member of the North Corridor Technical Support Team. 

John J. Simoneau III, AICP (Town of Huntersville) 



Bachelor of Science, Urban and Regional Planning 

John Simoneau is the Planning Director for the town of Huntersville. He is the lead 

contact for the town regarding all project associated communications with CATS and the 

town representative on the North Corridor Technical Support Team. Mr. Simoneau also 

reviews all project related engineering plans on behalf of the town. 

Timothy D. Brown, ASLA, AICP (Town of Mooresville) 


Master of Science, Geography 

Bachelor of Science, Environmental Design 

Timothy Brown is the Planning Director for the town of Mooresville and has been 

engaged in the North Corridor commuter rail project since its conception in 1996. He 

has actively participated in all phases of the project and presently serves as a member 

of the North Corridor Technical Support Team. 


PB Americas, Inc. (PB) 

Mary Clayton (PB) 

Principal in Charge 

Masters Degree, Urban Geography 

Bachelor of Science, History & Geography 

Mary Clayton provided corporate resource commitments based upon both client and 

project manager input. Ms Clayton maintained periodic client review meetings with 

CATS upper level management to determine overall client satisfaction with project 

schedule and deliverables. Ms. Clayton assured that project due diligence safeguards, 

audits and quality review checks were conducted pursuant to corporate project 

management guidelines and GSA/FAR cost accounting regulations. 

Chris Lloyd, AICP (PB) 

Project Manager 

Masters Degree, Business Administration, Finance 

Bachelor of Science, Social Sciences 

Chris Lloyd served as the Project Manager responsible for the oversight of the 

technical teams during the Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement. 

Mr. Lloyd provided daily interaction with the CATS project team and management 

of tasks among and between disciplines. Mr. Lloyd’s experience drew upon 35 years 

of planning and NEPA documentation service to the transportation industry in 

highways, transit, marine, building and pipeline infrastructure. 

Doug Varn (PB) 

Deputy Project Manager, Facilities 

Bachelor of Science, Urban Affairs 

Doug Varn served as the Deputy Project Manager for Facilities. Mr. Varn oversaw 

the planning and concept design efforts for the Charlotte Gateway Station, the 

intermediate stations and the vehicle maintenance facility. In addition, he refined the 

rail operating plans. Mr. Varn’s previous experience includes over 25 years with 

AMTRAK as a facility executive. 

Todd Steiss, AICP (PB) 

Deputy Project Manager, Planning and Environmental 

Masters Degree, Urban Planning 


Todd Steiss directed the GIS mapping and analyses, developed the census, 

socioeconomic and land use database and supervised the input of several task 

managers responsible for resource documentation in the affected environment and 

environmental consequences of the DEIS. Mr. Steiss contributed materially to the 

assembly and quality control issues associated with the DEIS and Technical Reports 

while also supervising the overall project progress reporting and resource scheduling. 


Greg Benz, AICP (PB) 

CATS Program Advisor 

Masters Degree, Urban Planning 

Bachelor of Architecture 

Greg Benz directed the consultant side of the CATS Program Advisory team and 

as such was responsible for providing overall FTA liaison services, NEPA direction, 

resource and program schedule, New Starts guidance and overall consultation for 

all five fixed guideway corridors under current consideration. 

Lynn Purnell, P.E. (PB) 

CATS Program Advisor 

Master of Civil Engineering, 


Lynn Purnell served on the CATS Program Advisory team and as such was 

responsible for the overall schedule, CATS coordination, program execution and 

communication of Advisory goals and objectives to the consultant teams on each of 

the transit corridors. 

Daniel Bridges, P.E. (PB) 

Civil Engineering Task Manager 

Master of Civil Engineering 


Daniel Bridges served as Civil Engineering Task Manager. Mr. Bridges managed the 

preliminary design and cost estimating quantities for grade crossings, utilities and 

roadway improvements, drainage impacts and site conditions for the stations and 

vehicle maintenance facilities. Mr. Bridges worked with the engineering team to 

reduce project impacts, control capital costs and assure consistency with local, 

state, and federal regulations. 

Mike Fendrick, P.E., PTOE (PB) 

Traffic Task Manager 

Masters Degree, Civil Engineering 


Mike Fendrick supervised the traffic level of service analysis for the highway network 

adjacent to the commuter rail stations. Mr. Fendrick was responsible for traffic data 

collection, simulation modeling of future conditions at the rail stations as well as 

future performance of signalized intersections along roadways parallel to the rail 

facility. Mr. Fendrick provided quality assurance for the DEIS Chapter 4, 

Transportation section. 


Jonathan Reid, PE, PTOE (PB) 

Lead Traffic Engineer 



Jonathan Reid served as lead traffic engineer for the Gateway Center Traffic 

Impact Assessment report. Mr. Reid developed methodology and analyzed 

current and forecast grade-crossing level-of-service in support of Chapter 4 in 

the DEIS. Mr. Reid was also responsible for coordinating traffic signal design 

issues with CATS and the project team. 

Sashi Amatya (PB) 

Transportation Planning Manager 


Masters Degree, Business Administration 

Bachelors of Science, Civil Engineering 

Sashi Amatya was responsible for coordinating with CATS travel demand modeling 

staff in providing appropriate highway and transit ridership output to be used by 

consultant staff for assessing, air, noise, vibration, energy, capacity and operation 

impacts in the current and horizon years. Mr. Amatya was responsible for much of 

the Chapter 4, Transportation section of the DEIS. 

David Gourley, E.I. (PB) 

Civil Engineering Project Engineer 



David Gourley served as Project Engineer for the grade crossing design and quantity 

estimates. Mr. Gourley materially supported the preliminary evaluation of 115 at 

grade crossings of the North Corridor Commuter Rail project. He supported and 

assisted the Civil Engineering Task Manager in coordinating the grade crossing 

design reviews with CATS, City, County, Town, NCDOT and Norfolk Southern 

staff. 

Martin Mitchell, P.G. (PB) 

Senior Environmental Scientist 

Master of Marine Science 

Bachelor of Science, Biology & Geology 

Martin Mitchell’s nearly three decades of NEPA and natural resource investigative 

background was applied to the natural resources components of the DEIS. Mr. 

Mitchell was the principal author of the Ecosystems, Water Quality and Floodplains 

sections of the DEIS. As such he was responsible for field observations, 

investigative research, analyses, reporting of findings and mitigation discussions. 


Han Zhang (PB) 

Traffic Analyst 



Han Zhang served as traffic modeler and supported the Traffic Task Manger in 

the development and analyses of highway capacity issues along the adjacent 

vehicular network. He provided level of service analysis and supported the 

development of Chapter 4 in the DEIS. 

Scott Silsdorf, AICP (PB) 

Senior Planning Manager 

Masters of Science, City and Regional Planning, Transportation Engineering 

Bachelor of Science, Architecture 

Scott Silsdorf was responsible for coordinating the land use, neighborhood, and 

secondary/cumulative sections of the DEIS. Mr. Silsdorf directed the collection 

of data, analysis of impacts, mitigation discussions and served as quality 

assurance editor for these sections of the DEIS. 

Chris Coleman (PB) 

Air, Noise and Vibration Task Manager 

Masters Degree, Meteorology 

Bachelor of Science, Biology 

Chris Coleman prepared the air, noise and vibration chapters of the DEIS. 

He was responsible for the data collection, future conditions modeling, 

evaluation of results and mitigation discussions. 

Frank Miller, P.E. (PB) 

Rail Systems Task Manager 


Frank Miller developed the horizontal and vertical rail geometry for the North 

Corridor Commuter Rail project. The effort included the compilation of cross 

sections, assessment of Norfolk Southern conceptual design criteria and the 

development of special alignment segments where undercutting was preferred. 

Mr. Miller directed special studies for siding track alignments and 

highway/railroad grade separation. 

Joe Walshe, P.E. (PB) 

Rail Systems Engineer 



Joe Walshe supported the development of rail geometrics, cross sections, and 

quantity estimates for capital costing. Mr. Walshe provided technical input and 

support in transit systems engineering areas, including traction power, 

communications, train control, rail operation and transit vehicles. 


Chetlur Balachandran, PhD (PB) 

Noise and Vibration Specialist 

Doctor of Philosophy, Acoustics 

Masters Degree, Physics 

Bachelor of Science, Physics 

Shetlur Balachandran is an acoustics specialist who provided guidance and direction 

for the noise and vibration tasks. Dr. Balachandran has over 40 years of noise and 

vibration experience and has published just over 50 papers in national and 

international acoustic professional journals. Dr. Balachandran provided quality 

assurance reviews of the analysis, results and text descriptions in the noise and 

vibration documentation. 

Joseph Curtis, AICP (PB) 

Project Planner 

Masters Degree, City Planning 

Bachelors of Arts, Geography 

Joseph Curtis assisted in the development of the land use, visual and 

neighborhood sections of Chapter 3 of the DEIS, affected environment and 

environmental consequences. Mr. Curtis was responsible for field verification, 

analysis and much of the DEIS text authorship. 

Matt Coffin (PB) 

Project Planner 


Matt Coffin provided GIS data development, analysis and mapping support. Mr. 

Coffin participated in quantity impacts to land use acreages, relocations, wetlands 

and sensitive habitat impacts. Mr. Coffin coordinated the unique and prime 

farmland exercise with the Natural Resource Conservation Service. 

Gregg Cornetski (PB) 

Systems Analyst 

Bachelor of Arts, Foreign Affairs 

Gregg Cornetski supported the GIS and mapping analysis. Mr. Cornetski 

provided special GIS programming routines and assisted in generating buffers 

to facilitate the quantification of direct and secondary impacts. 


Susannah Kerr Adler, AIA (PB) 

Architectural Task Manager 

Masters Degree, Architecture 

Masters Degree, City Planning 

Bachelors of Science, Art & Design 

Susannah Kerr-Adler directed the schematic design efforts for the Charlotte 

Gateway Station, the southern terminus of the North Corridor Commuter Rail 

project. As such, Ms Kerr-Adler directed a team of subconsultants toward a 

charette driven conceptual approach that resulted in a schematic design, 

rendering and capital cost estimate for a multimodal station that can potentially 

serve commuter rail, bus, intercity rail, AMTRAK, BRT and street car modes of 

transportation. 

Martin Huck, AIA (PB) 

Project Architect 

Bachelor of Science, Architecture 

Martin Huck provided architectural input, site planning, facility layout, parking 

and circulation analysis, capital cost estimates and concept site plans for the 11 

intermediate stations along the North Corridor Commuter Rail project. Mr. Huck 

also coordinated with the City’s Station Area Planning team to assure site plans 

held to earlier assumptions and maintained consistency with prior community 

expectations and location decisions. 

Mike Tilko, P.E. (PB) 

Project Civil Engineer 


Mike Tilko provided civil input on utilities, pavement, drainage, stormwater 

retention, site planning, facility layout, parking and circulation analysis, capital 

cost estimates and concept site plans for the 11 intermediate stations along the 

North Corridor Commuter Rail project. 

Nancy Tornatore, AIA Asso. (PB) 

Project Architect 

Bachelors of Science, Architecture 

Nancy Tornatore supported the schematic design efforts for the Charlotte 

Gateway Station. She assisted the subconsultant team with concept 

renderings, schematic drawings and capital cost estimates. 


Foster Nichols (PB) 

Train Performance Specialist 

Bachelors of Science, Engineering 

Foster Nichols directed the train performance modeling, scheduling and siding 

location analysis. The output results in data sufficient to size and determine 

train operation and maintenance needs. The simulation model also provides 

train set speed and braking characteristics for determining noise and vibration 

contours and estimating grade crossing gate times. 

Viktoriya Yanitskaya (PB) 

Train Performance Specialist 

Masters Degree, Engineering 


Viktoriya Yanitskaya supports the train performance modeling, scheduling and 

siding location analysis. The output results in data sufficient to size and 

determine train operation and maintenance needs. The simulation model also 

provides train set speed and braking characteristics for determining noise and 

vibration contours and estimating grade crossing gate times. 

Greg Toth, P.E. (PB) 

Lead Track Engineer 


Greg Toth provided conceptual maintenance yard layouts for sizing and locating 

the Timber Road and South End maintenance facilities. 

Robert Harbuck, P.E. (PB) 

Project Cost Estimator 

Masters Degree, 


Certification, Certified Cost Engineer 

Robert Harbuck has developed a library of unit cost and cost items consistent 

with the FTA consolidated cost approach to estimating transit system capital 

costs. Mr. Harbuck is responsible for applying project quantity estimates to the 

library of unit cost elements to arrive at total capital cost and simultaneously 

establish the annualize cost associated with each major transit element. 

John Page, AICP, CEP (PB) 

Quality Assurance Reviewer 

Masters Degree, Biology 

Bachelors of Science, Biology 

John Page provided consistency, quality assurance and general editorial review 

of the NEPA documentation. Mr. Page provides over 30 years of NEPA 

background in transportation projects. 


Doug Smith, AICP (PB) 

Quality Assurance Reviewer 

Masters Degree, Forest Ecology 

Bachelors of Science, Forest Science 

Doug Smith former FHWA NEPA specialist, provided consistency review, quality 

assurance and general editorial review of the NEPA documentation. Mr. Smith 

provides over three decades of NEPA background in transportation projects. 

Robert Norburn, E.I. (PB) 

Transportation Engineer/Planner 

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 

Bachelor of Arts 

Robert Norburn assisted with consistency review, quality assurance, and general 

editorial review of the NEPA documentation. Mr. Norburn has over 13 years of 

NEPA background in transportation projects, including four years with the 

FHWA where he facilitated completion of NEPA documents by providing technical 

guidance and assistance to SCDOT personnel. 

David R. Miller, AICP, PhD (PB) 

Senior Transit Planning Manager 

Doctor of Philosophy, Economics 

Masters Degree, Economics 

Bachelor of Science, Business Administration 

David Miller directed and supervised several components of transit operations 

analysis including bus operations, bus O&M costing and rail O&M costing. Dr. 

Miller provided the bus and rail input for the FTA cost effectiveness templates and 

authored the bulk of the text in Chapter 4, Transportation, of the DEIS. 

Coastal Carolina Research, Inc (CCR) 

Loretta Lautzenheiser (CCR) 

Archaeological Project Manger 

Master of Arts, Archaeology 

Bachelor of Science, Anthropology 

Loretta Lautzenheiser is principal and project manager for Coastal Carolina Research, 

Inc., conducting cultural resources studies in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. 

Mrs. Lautzenheiser coordinated the archaeological surveys and report preparation for 

the North Corridor. She coordinated with the NC State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) regarding the potential for effects to archaeological resources from the project. 


Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. (MMA) 

Frances P. Alexander (MMA) 

Architectural Historian 

M.A., American Studies/Architectural History 

Francis Alexander is a principal with the cultural resource management firm, 

Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. of Charlotte, N.C. MAA prepared the 

environmental assessment for historic resources for the CATS, North Corridor 

Commuter Rail Project. 

Richard L. Mattson, Ph.D. (MMA) 

Historical Geographer 

Ph.D., Historical Geographer 

Richard Mattson is a principal with the cultural resource management firm, 

Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. of Charlotte, N.C. MAA prepared the 

environmental assessment for historic resources for the CATS, North Corridor 

Commuter Rail Project. 

S&ME, Inc (S&ME) 

Dane A. Horna, PE (S&ME) 

Environmental Consultant 

Senior Environmental Engineer 

Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering; Master of Civil Engineering 

Dane Horna is a Senior Consultant and Vice President at S&ME, Inc. He was 

heavily involved in the planning and direction of the Hazardous 

Waste/Underground Storage Tank (UST) Study of the rail corridor and Gateway 

Station. The study involved records review, site reconnaissance and agency 

interviews associated with the corridor and detailed soil and groundwater analyses 

associated with the Gateway Station. 

Al Quarles, LG (S&ME) 

Environmental Consultant 

Senior Hydrogeologist 

Bachelor of Science and Master of Science, Geology 

Al Quarles is a Senior Hydrologist at S&ME, Inc. He was heavily involved in 

preparation of the Hazardous Waste/Underground Storage Tank (UST) Study 

report of the rail corridor and Gateway Station. In particular he oversaw 

preparation of the study report and provided interpretation of soil and groundwater 

analyses for the Gateway Station site. 


Wagner Murray Associates (WMA) 

David K. Wagner, AIA (WMA) 

Principal, Bachelor of Arts, Architecture 

David Wagner has been a consultant to the NC DOT Rail Division for over ten 

years. He was the primary architect, along with Gannett Fleming, for the 

development of the Charlotte Multi-Modal Feasibility Study in 2002. He provided 

additional design and coordination assistance on the Charlotte Gateway Station 

Planning Study with CATS in 2005. He is currently developing a design concept 

for the Greyhound Terminal and Parking Structure on W. 4th Street within the 

planned Charlotte Gateway Station Complex 

Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership (ZGF) 

Greg Baldwin, FAIA (ZGF) 

Design Partner 

Master of Architecture, Master of Urban Design 

Greg Baldwin is a Design Partner for ZGF in the Portland office. He was 

responsible for overseeing the design of Charlotte Gateway Station proposal. 

Richard Clarke, AIA (ZGF) 

Design Principal 

Master of Architecture, Bachelor of Arts 

Richard Clarke is a Design Principal in the ZGF Washington, DC office. He was 

responsible for guiding the design of the Charlotte Gateway Station proposal. 

Otto Condon, AICP (ZGF) 

Associate Partner, Project Manager/Senior Urban Designer 

Master of Architecture and Urban Design, Bachelor of Environmental Design 

Otto Condon is a senior urban designer and project manager in the ZGF 

Washington, DC office. He was responsible for day-to-day management of the 

design team for the Charlotte Gateway Station proposal. 


7.0 LETTERS (Charlotte Zoning, FRA & NCDCR) 

CHARLOTTE – MECKLENBURG PLANNING COMMISSION, ZONING 

ADMINISTRATOR 


US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – FEDERAL RAILROAD 

ADMINISTRATION 


NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES – STATE 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 



8.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS 

The draft Environmental Assessment Charlotte Gateway Station (March 2009) was 

published on two local website for public comment on or around March 10, 2009: the 

Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO.org) site; and the 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Government site (Charmeck.org). Comments were 

solicited from interested parties for a thirty-day period ending April 10, 2009. An e-mail 

address was provided to collect the comments (eacomments@ci.charlotte.nc.us) as well 

as the address for the CATS project manager. 

In all, some 9 e-mail comments were received. Each comment is provided below, in the 

order received, together with a response as appropriate. 

COMMENT 1: 

SECTION(S) OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO WHICH COMMENTS 

PERTAIN: 

• General 

COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY: 

Nancy C. Kimbrough 

CJA Panel Administrator 

Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc. 

227 W. 4th St. 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 

TEXT OF COMMENT: 

A centralized mass transit center is long overdue. Public transportation has to 

become a first choice for many citizens. Cars need to be taken off the road. 

Charlotte must start going more green. 

COMMENT 2: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Keenya T. Justice 

The Justice firm 


Will this project require the acquisition of private property? 


RESPONSE: 

The only private property current contemplated for acquisition is owned by 

Greyhound Lines, Inc. Greyhound owns 1.3 acres along the Norfolk Southern 

railroad tracks between 4th and Trade Streets. The property will be acquired by the 

City of Charlotte as part of the CGS development. Greyhound currently plans to fund 

a new bus depot as part of the CGS development. 

COMMENT 3: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Nedra Newby 

Nedranewby.com 


Since this new construction involves more than one state I would like to 

be considered for an art commission involving murals or signage involving art. 

RESPONSE: 

Comment has been forwarded to the CATS Art in Transit Manager for further 

handling. 

COMMENT 4: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Tim Newman, CEO 

Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority 

501 South College Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202 


As Charlotte grows its hospitality and tourism industry the proposed Gateway Station 

is a critical need for us to better utilize rail transit into our destination and greatly 

enhance the quality of our visitors by bus both of whom are important customer 

bases for this important industry. I encourage approval of the station and plan. 


COMMENT 5: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Carroll Gray 

Resident of Cornelius 


Inasmuch as the Charlotte Gateway Station project has been underway for a 

decade; and 

the State of North Carolina has held numerous meetings with public officials, 

business groups, neighborhood groups and individual citizens regarding the possible 

impacts of this development, determining that impacts are few and manageable; and 

furthermore, the State has acquired all necessary land for construction of the 

Gateway Station and required trackage for both passenger and rail service both to 

and through Charlotte; and 

construction of the Gateway Station is the central link for commuter transit service for 

the North Commuter Line and the Airport line with current commuter rail service to 

Raleigh and Atlanta and points beyond; and 

Gateway Station would anchor a private development of office, commercial and 

residential projects, adding to the tax base and the positive impacts of rail oriented 

travelers; and 

I strongly believe the citizens of the greater Charlotte area want the State and 

Federal Government to grant the needed approvals to enable the final design, 

funding and construction of the Gateway Station; 

So therefore, I urge the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization to approve this important project as soon as possible. 

COMMENT 6: 


PERTAIN: 

• General; Purpose & Need 


Honorable Jim Bensman 


Commissioner 

Town of Cornelius, North Carolina 


It is long past time for CATS to address the lack of connectivity between the 

Gateway Station and the Lynx and planned University Line. The answers you 

provided at the MUMPO meeting were just ridiculous (even you couldn’t help 

smiling). I have asked you about this countless times and the answer is always the 

same. 

1. I do not believe your position that riders on one line will not want to change to 

other lines. That is NOT the case in ANY other City in the world. 

2. To contend that the only purpose of rail is to get to/from Uptown is absurd. 

3. The whole argument against connectivity is blown by the very fact that AMTRAK, 

the North Line and buses will all connect at the Gateway Station. 

4. To not have a rail link planned to the airport is a major deficiency as well. 

5. Does anyone believe that people will use a trolley to change between lines as 

Susan Burgess said at the MUMPO meeting? Trolleys are meant for short 

distance on/off travel. No one will try to carry a suitcase(s) onto a trolley. Has 

anyone analyzed the trolley capacity necessary to carry the connecting traffic? 

You can expect major objections from both Huntersville and Cornelius about this 

design. If carried out, you will be forced to build the connector later because of the 

public outcry. 

RESPONSE: 

CATS agrees that a single downtown multimodal station would be convenient for 

passengers and likely enhance transit ridership. Unfortunately, there is no feasible 

way in which to connect the commuter rail line to the north with the light rail line that 

runs from Pineville to Charlotte and is planned for extension to the campus of UNC 

Charlotte. 

Historically, Charlotte developed as a rail center used by competing railroads. Each 

created separate rights-of-way in order to achieve a competitive advantage. By the 

late 1800s, ownership of these various lines was consolidated into what is today the 

Norfolk Southern Corporation (which also leases the North Carolina Railroad main 

line between Charlotte and Greensboro) and the CSX Transportation. The North 

Corridor commuter line will follow the historic Atlantic, Tennessee & Ohio line (the 

“O” Line), which connects the NS main line to Mooresville and Barber. This line 

connects to the NS mainline in downtown Charlotte. Amtrak service to Atlanta/new 

Orleans and to Raleigh/Washington operates over the NS main line. Greyhound 

also has a terminal along the line. 

The 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan was the result of an intensive planning 

effort completed in October 1998. The plan proposed a rapid transit system as a 

means of supporting land use initiatives to attain the vision of the Centers and 

Corridors vision established in 1994. During this feasibility analysis, most of the 

options focused on utilizing existing rights-of-way, due to the extreme cost, disruption 


and environmental impact of assembling new transportation corridors. The Plan 

identified five major transportation and development corridors. In November 1998, 

the citizens of Mecklenburg County approved a half cent sales tax to support the 

plan. 

The next phase (2000 – 2002) was for each corridor to undergo a Major Investment 

Study, which evaluated the different alignments and technologies available for each 

corridor. The alignments chosen as the locally preferred alternatives were based on 

a number of factors, such as ridership potential, land use, environmental conditions, 

cost effectiveness, and the viability to assemble and acquire the corridor. 

The issues associated with integration of the multiple transit corridors and multiple 

technologies into Charlotte’s central business district were discussed in the Center 

City Study document, also prepared in 2002. The South Corridor (Blue Line) and 

Northeast Corridor (Blue Line Extension) operate along the former NS “A” Line to the 

east. The Charlotte Transportation Center, CATS primary bus facility, is adjacent to 

this line. The NS main line and the Blue Line are 3,100 feet apart along Trade 

Street. The West Corridor and Southeast Corridors follow highway alignments. See 

the attached map. 

These decisions were also based on collaboration effort with public involvement, 

elected officials, neighborhood groups and major stakeholders. 

In 2002, NCDOT completed an engineering feasibility study for a multi-modal rail and 

transportation center located on the NS main line tracks at West Trade Street. The 

facility would include a new Amtrak station and Greyhound depot, as well as serve 

as the terminus for commuter rail service to Mooresville and possible future 

commuter rail service to Gastonia and Monroe. This study led to the plan for 

Charlotte Gateway Station. 

A single downtown transit center is every city’s preferred approach. A single transit 

center makes transfers from one mode to another more convenient and faster, 

minimizes confusion, and ultimately enhances ridership. Unfortunately, this goal has 

proved elusive for many cities, due to the need to follow existing transportation 

corridors and rights-of-way. 

In Charlotte, a single transit center, combining light rail and commuter rail, Amtrak, 

bus, streetcar and other modes, would require one of two alternatives: redirecting 

commuter trains from Mooresville to the Blue Line, or redirecting the Blue Line to the 

NS main line. Unfortunately, due to factors discussed below, neither alternative can 

be reasonably accomplished. 

Redirecting Commuter Trains to the Blue Line: 

• The only feasible location to divert commuter trains to the Blue Line is at Atando 

Avenue, two miles north of the downtown. The Blue Line will be located about 

one mile from the “O” line at this location on the east side of the NS main line. A 

15 mph connecting track exists at this location to the west side of the NS main 

line tracks. However, in between the NS main line tracks and the future Blue 

Line is an existing NS intermodal yard and future Southeast High-Speed Rail 

tracks. A bridge – stretching at least 3,500 feet – would have to be constructed 


to cross the NS mainline, the high-speed rail tracks, the yard and the Blue Line, 

and then angle south to run parallel to the Blue Line. Such a bridge, if feasible (it 

might not be possible to locate bridge piers within the NS yard area), would likely 

cost, based on similar North Corridor cost estimates, in excess of $50 million. 

• Commuter trains could not operate on the Blue Line tracks. The Blue Line is an 

electrified light-rail system. Federal law prohibits joint operation of commuter rail 

and light rail and, furthermore, requires a 26-foot separation between the tracks 

serving the two systems. 

• There is insufficient existing property along the Blue Line south of CSX to 

accommodate an additional commuter track. Creating sufficient right-of-way for 

an additional track would necessitate demolition of several buildings, including at 

least one on the National Register. The impact on the Arena, Imaginon, the 

Epicentre development, and the Charlotte Transportation Center would be 

significant. The bridge over Trade Street, as well as the Arena/CTC Blue Line 

station, would have to be rebuilt. Trains could not extend past 4th Street. 

• A bridge would be required to cross over the CSX line at 11th Street. This bridge 

would cost approximately $12 million. 

Redirecting Blue Line Trains to Charlotte Gateway Station: 

• Diverting Blue Line trains to Charlotte Gateway Station likely would be physically 

impossible. It would require the bridge crossing the CSX to angle west parallel to 

the CSX line, cross several city streets, and then turn south to parallel the NS 

main line. This is currently infeasible, because of the location of the ADM flour 

mill at the junction of the CSX and NS tracks at 10 th Street. The mill and several 

residential buildings and condominiums would have to be demolished. Bridges 

would have to be added over 6 th , 5 th , Trade and 4 th Streets, and an elevated line 

built along Stonewall or Morehead Streets to reconnect the Blue Line to its 

original alignment south to Pineville. The cost for this work would be high. 

• Because the current Charlotte Transportation Center and future Charlotte 

Gateway Station are both located along Trade Street, only one can be served if 

commuter rail and light rail lines are combined. The CTC is the primary hub for 

the CATS bus system. There are no plans to relocate its operations to the 

Charlotte Gateway Station. As a result, if Blue Line trains are redirected to 

Charlotte Gateway Station, there will be no direct connection between the Blue 

Line and the CTC. 

• Lack of a direct connection between buses at CTC and Blue Line trains would 

prove highly disruptive for the CATS system. The Blue Line replaced a number 

of bus routes to which passengers at CTC transferred. Many passengers 

depend on this direct, frequent connection to the Blue Line for access to 

employment centers and educational facilities away from the downtown. In 

contrast, there will be substantially less transfers from buses to commuter trains, 

because commuter trains operate less frequently during peak and non-peak 

periods, with widely separated stations including only three planned within 

Charlotte. 


There are many examples of cities that have multiple stations in their downtown 

serving different transit services. In New York City there is Penn Station and Grand 

Central Station. In Boston, there is South Station and North Station. The main 

factors resulting in multiple stations are, like Charlotte, geography and history. 

Because of the development and the complexities of a central business district, 

providing service through the downtown is usually achieved by underground rapid 

transit or in-street running buses or mixed-traffic rail vehicles. 

In Charlotte’s case, connecting the two stations will be accomplished easily and 

frequently by streetcar and buses operating on Trade and 4th Streets. We anticipate 

a fare-free zone between the stations, which would not qualify for federal funding. 

Center City Plan, 2002 


COMMENT 7: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Martin Zimmerman 

Executive Director 

Charlotte Area Bike Alliance 


My comments relate to the need to accommodate bicycling (and walking) as integral 

components of this important project. Last Fall I spoke with both David Carol and 

Allan Paul about the concept of a "bike station", which is essentially a combination of 

secure parking, bike repair for commuters and other constituent groups from outside 

the Metro area, including vacation visitors / conventioneers etc. Obviously, such a 

facility functions best when constructed as part of a development such as this one. 

Both gentlemen were initially very responsive to the concept which has already been 

deployed in other US cities. Washington D.C. for example, where I attended 

conference in early March, has begun construction of multimillion dollar facility 

strategically located at grade level at the entrance to the multi-use Union Station 

complex (it will also be a cutting edge "green" building). 

Furthermore, now that the Uptown Charlotte civic interests are about to proceed on 

the 2020 plan, one can foresee not only the concept of a bike station advancing, but 

the connectivity from the station via bike lanes or other accommodations throughout 

the Uptown district. 

Insofar as I have been designated to serve as an advisor to the 2020 plan via the 

transportation stakeholder group, it is my intention to bring these considerations to 

their attention as well. Let me assure you that the bicycle community of Charlotte is 

committed to the goal of partnering with public agencies for the benefit of a 

sophisticated multi-modal transportation system, denser multiuse developments and 

other means which maximize the social, economic and environmental attributes of 

Uptown and the Charlotte region. 

RESPONSE: 

CATS intends to work closely with and seek the input of the Charlotte Area Bike 

Alliance to make CGS a model for integration of bicycling, pedestrian and public 

transit. CATS appreciates the continued support of the Bike Alliance and their 

valuable ideas and contributions. 


COMMENT 8: 


PERTAIN: 

• Executive Summary 

• General 


John Schwaller 

President 

Third Ward Neighborhood Association 


Our comments on the Gateway Station EA are very limited. Just two comments: 

1. On page S-3, a skyway over Fourth Street is noted for connection to the 

Greyhound Station. We would prefer that as much pedestrian traffic as possible 

be routed onto Fourth Street at grade level. Is this a separate skyway for 

Greyhound or is it one and the same with the train platform? 

2. On page S-17, please correct the name of "our" organization to "Third Ward 

Neighborhood Association." Currently, "Neighborhood" is left out. 

RESPONSE: 

We strongly agree that as much pedestrian traffic as possible should be focused at 

grade level and every effort will be taken to do so. No decision has been made 

regarding the desirability of or need for the skyway connecting Greyhound and the 

main block of the CGS. The decision will depend in large part on the number of 

parking decks to be constructed above the Greyhound depot. Options include 

attaching the skywalk to the railroad bridge or building a detached bridge. 

The EA will be corrected to correctly state the name of the Third Ward Neighborhood 

Association. 

COMMENT 9: 


PERTAIN: 

• General 


Michael J. Smith 

President & CEO 

Charlotte Center City Partners 



Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Charlotte Gateway 

Station (CGS) Environmental Assessment (EA). Charlotte Center City Partners 

(CCCP) shares the Charlotte Area Transit System’s (CATS) vision for developing a 

multimodal transportation hub in Uptown believing that the CGS will have a 

tremendous positive economic development impact on the future revitalization of 

Third Ward, Uptown and the City at large. After reviewing the EA, we would like to 

offer comments on the following areas: 

1. Major Employment Center – The EA Executive Summary (page S-1) clearly 

articulates the project’s ‘three primary goals’ relative to the City of Charlotte and 

State of North Carolina plans for providing a “centralized downtown 

transportation hub.” Goal #3 describes the CGS as a ‘Private-Public 

Complementary Development.’ We very much agree with the approach that 

CATS and the State suggests in seeking a Master Developer to facilitate the 

design and ‘full’ build-out of the CGS site and the adjacent 20 acres of NCDOTowned 

property. We also share the concept of integrating the CGS and 

complementary high density mixed-use development. 

As the City’s central business district expands and grows to the west, the CGS 

will play a pivotal role in supporting the establishment and development of a new 

major ‘employment’ center at Graham/Trade Street that complements the 

existing Tryon/Trade Street CBD corridors. This new employment center would 

be rightfully anchored and supported by the CGS and connected to the existing 

Tryon/Trade employment center via streetcar as proposed in the 2030 Transit 

Plan. And, even though a significant portion of the State’s ancillary parcels 

would be residential in use, a majority of the land, as well as surrounding 

property owned by other private entities, should be built out as primarily ‘office’ 

use. Therefore, we suggest that the third project ‘goal’ would be more accurately 

described as an opportunity to create the City’s next ‘Major Employment Center’ 

as opposed to being represented as ‘Private-Public Complementary 

Development.’ 

2. Center City 2020 Vision Plan – CCCP is encouraged by CATS’ recognition and 

participation in previous planning efforts undertaken for the Third Ward and, in 

considering the impact that the CGS will have on the neighborhood. This support 

exemplifies CATS’ commitment to following good urban design principles to help 

ensure that the CGS area reaches its full potential as a major mixed-use 

employment center in Charlotte. 

The 2010 Vision Plan and the Gateway Station Area Plan have laid the 

groundwork for the exciting development that is poised to emerge at the CGS 

and in the surrounding area. As one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land in 

Uptown, CCCP also envisions a mix of uses sharing pedestrian oriented spaces 

and we applaud your intentions to use context sensitive design principles. 

However, much has changed regarding Uptown and Third Ward development 

since those plans were produced. In addition to new office and residential 

development, as well as the establishment of Johnson & Wales University, the 

neighborhood has since gained the potential to become an entertainment and 

sports district with the continued popularity of Bank of America Stadium events, 


planned stadium for AAA baseball, and the proposed Romare Bearden Park. 

Also, new synergies and connections to the Little Five Points area and Johnson 

C. Smith University to the west must be considered as well. 

In addition to becoming a new transit hub for the City and State, the CGS must 

support the continued redevelopment these areas and uses. CCCP and the 

Third Ward Neighborhood Association are concerned about the impact of 

planning Charlotte Gateway Station separately from the area that surrounds it. 

We suggest that this and other issues can be addressed as part of the Center 

City 2020 Vision Plan process, Charlotte’s new downtown planning effort that is 

to begin next month. We hope that CATS and NCDOT will be integral partners in 

that effort. 

3. Iconic & Integrated Architecture – Rarely do opportunities come along in the 

lifecycle of a community like that of being able to create and build iconic 

architecture that will represent the ‘image’ of a place more than the city’s major 

transit station. The CGS presents just such a ‘100-year’ opportunity for Charlotte 

as have the likes of Union Station in Washington, DC, Grand Central Station in 

New York, and South Station in Boston. Therefore, the architectural and urban 

design of the station and buildings of surrounding development should be of the 

highest caliber possible. The best and most renowned design architects must be 

sought out and approached to create an icon for Charlotte that will be celebrated 

for generations to come. 

Also, the CGS should be integrated and designed as one entity. CCCP is 

concerned that, due to the fact that the State, CATS and an unnamed master 

developer will be responsible for separate modal functions and uses, there is a 

risk that the architectural and functional design might not result in as seamless as 

possible. No matter which entity (CATS, NCDOT, Amtrak, or Greyhound) 

designs, builds or controls parts of the station, the CGS should function and be 

viewed by all as ‘one’ place. Additionally, the project design should be integrated 

with other urban systems such as recreational uses (i.e. connecting streets, 

parks, greenways, and bikeways). CATS’ participation in the aforementioned 

planning process with CCCP, the City Planning Department, CDOT, the County 

Parks and Recreation Department, the 2020 Vision plan consultants, 

neighborhood representatives, and others could insure that the urban design 

underpinnings of the CGS are in sync with other plans and systems. 

4. Greyhound and CATS Bus Service – CCCP strongly supports integrating both 

the Greyhound inter-city and CATS’ intra-city bus service as part of the CGS. In 

addition to offering the most comprehensive regional connections to the CGS, 

accommodating Greyhound would enable CATS and the State to provide the 

most equitable service possible to citizens from all walks of life and especially the 

student populations of Johnson & Wales and Johnson C. Smith universities, as 

well as Central Piedmont Community College. 

Also, we must plan for the growth of our city and downtown. On page 4.3-6, 

CATS provides an overview of how local and express bus routes will serve the 

CGS and the Charlotte Transportation Center. While CCCP recognizes the need 

of commuters to access the eastern and western sectors of the CBD, we do not 

support having large express and regional buses crossing Uptown in order to 


serve both locations. Instead, to provide the best service possible, this future 

employment center must be supported by its own major city bus terminal. 

Charlotte would be well served by following past plans for locating a second 

major city bus station underground at the CGS. We believe a shuttle like the 

Gold Rush or the streetcar should connect the CTC and CGS terminals 

supporting the goals of congestion mitigation and more efficient traffic flow. 

5. Transportation Demand Management - While building transit will automatically 

attract new customers, there have been proven transportation demand 

management (TDM) strategies that can build additional ridership at minimal 

additional cost. Offering incentives for transit riders or working with employers to 

provide transit passes in lieu of parking spaces is helpful. Investing in real time 

transit information and communicating that to CATS riders will also enable more 

people to choose transit. Providing web-based tracking and incentive programs 

and marketing directly to individuals in targeted neighborhoods are also proven 

to attract new riders to transit. CATS already reaches out to employers and has a 

TDM program, but the investment in additional rail and the opening of CGS 

provides a unique opportunity to try new innovative ways to boost the use of 

alternative modes, including transit, walking and biking to the CGS. 

6. Accommodation of Bicycling - While still small in numbers, the bicycling 

community in Charlotte is growing. Taking advantage of the climate, the 

landscape and the economic and environmental benefits to cycling, Charlotte is 

seeing an increase in the number of people riding bikes in the Center City. As a 

major destination and the hub for transit as well as office, residential and retail 

development, it is essential that the CGS and the surrounding area become more 

of a multi-modal center where bicyclists are fully accommodated. 

As noted on page 3.1-8 of the EA, the development standards of Transit Oriented 

Development zoning districts and Transit Supportive (TS) overlay districts 

require, among other things, the provision of facilities that support bicycling. It is 

helpful that the 3 rd and 4 th Street bike lanes are located near the proposed CGS, 

but a safe way for cyclists to directly access the bus and rail terminals should be 

provided. Additionally, CATS may want to consider exploring an indoor bicycle 

parking facility, such as the one that was included at Millennium Park in Chicago, 

where bicycles are parked safely and cyclists are provided with ‘freshen up’ 

facilities to get ready for the day. Facilities like these are becoming more 

common and there are creative ways to finance these kinds of amenities. 

With the additional considerations and suggestions expressed in this letter, 

CCCP supports CATS’ EA evaluation as proposed to date and we look forward 

to working together on implementing the recommendations of the 2030 Transit 

Plan to ensure that Charlotte becomes a ‘memorable’ 21 st century city. 

RESPONSE: 

The comments from the Charlotte Center City Partners (CCCP) will be shared with 

the City, NCDOT and any future developers to ensure that the very helpful 

suggestions are addressed. The City is a full partner in the current 2020 vision 

planning process. CGS – its development, its architecture, and its integration within 

the urban fabric of the City – will be a major focus of that process. 


Goal Three of the CGS Project, as described in the Executive Summary, will be 

changed from “Private-Public Complementary Development” to “Major Employment 

Center,” as suggested by CCCP. 

CCCP recommends that CGS include a separate CATS bus facility, complementing 

the service provided currently at the Charlotte Transportation Center (CTC). CATS 

is currently studying whether capacity concerns at CTC can best be addressed by 

including a second bus facility within CGS or whether the current CTC should be 

expanded. This issue may also be part of the 2020 vision planning process. 

CCCP also recommends that CGS be fully bicycle-accessible. The Charlotte AREA 

Bike Alliance has submitted similar comments. CATS and NCDOT are committed to 

enhancing access for and fully integrating bicycles at CGS. We look forward to 

working with both organizations to ensure that bicycling is accommodated at CGS.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHARLOTTE GATEWAY STATION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?