One of the programs in the City of Charlotte’s annual Capital Investment Plan (CIP) is the Street Connectivity Program. The focus of this program is to connect local street stubs or dead-ends in order to create a more robust street network. The connections are typically 1-2 blocks in length, and frequently located in established residential areas. Although connecting streets can benefit residents by providing alternate routes, dispersing traffic, and/or improving access to adjacent land uses, the planning process can become quite controversial. The City’s planning phase for a street connectivity project can last 12-18 months, or about as long as the planning phase for larger-scope and larger-scale thoroughfare widening projects. How the public-involvement process is executed directly affects the viability of any proposed street connectivity project; without community buy-in and support, a project will not be implemented.

City staff’s experience regarding proposed street connections is that, while people generally appreciate having street connections and better street networks in the abstract, they can become defensive, territorial, or resentful when it comes to connecting the particular street that they live on or near. This conflict is usually expressed by residents stating they oppose a project on principle or expressing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Either case can lead to opposition, which, if not handled appropriately during the public-involvement process, can doom a project. Understanding the divisive nature of street connectivity, staff ensures sufficient time is allocated to develop a public-involvement plan that tailors each proposed project to its expected audience. The public-involvement plan is a means to educate residents about the project’s need, purpose, and benefit.

This presentation will provide four case studies of street connectivity projects that the Street Connectivity Program has initiated. Three of the case studies describe how effective public involvement led to successful street connections, while the fourth case study provides a contrast with how unsuccessful public involvement resulted in the project’s cancellation. The purpose of the case studies is to share experiences, offer guidance for implementing street connections through a capital process, identify likely pitfalls, and highlight successful public involvement processes for connecting streets.